Drops 'n Dregs March - June 05

This site is now closed

  and has been left here

  for historical reference

               only.

           Sydney Time

   Copyright © Ric Einstein 2009

More on Retail 16 June 05

Huon Hooke wrote two small theoretically unrelated snippets, one below the other, in this weeks’ Good Living Cellartalk section. The first states that Woolworths has begun winding back its First Estate liquor stores and some are being rebadged as BWS In terms of the hierarchy, Dan Murphy's is at the top followed by First Estate and then BWS.

 

Dan Murphy has a huge range, but the key point is that BWS has fewer premium wines than First Estate.

 

In the second article Huon quotes the results of the survey carried out by Southcorp. According to the SC research, independent retailers are “highly inefficient; 51% of a typical stores range sells less than one bottle a year, and there is an average of $230,000 worth of redundant stock in every single independent store.” It goes on to state that 90% of sales come from less than 20% of stock; in reality, this is just a variation of the 80:20 rule that applies to many businesses.

 

As a result of the survey Southcorp has developed its “Winebar merchandiser” which enables shops to display its (probably meaning Southcorp’s) wines more effectively. According to Southcorp, during a trial in 12 stores, sales increased by 38%. “The aim was to make it easier for customers to choose a wine among overcrowded shelves and excess stock."

 

Let's face it; it's no secret the major corporate producers find it far less costly to do business with two large grocers. It is far more expensive having sales reps calling on literally thousands of pubs and small independent bottle shops.

 

From Southcorp's perspective, the fewer wine brands in a given store the better; especially when those brands, (as they generally are in the chains) tend to be from the largest producers. And even better, as far as Southcorp are concerned, is when their wines are showcased in the “Winebar merchandiser.”

 

Remember in the first of Huon Hooke's articles, it states BWS concentrates on a smaller range of core products than First Estate. Any wine lover who has been through BWS will understand how completely and absolute boringly these stores are!

 

So in these two stories, we have a synergistic parallel track which naturally run in the same direction; one that happens to suit the two major grocers (and their subsidiary liquor retailers) as well as the largest wine producers.

 

Unfortunately, this is a retrograde step for wine lovers who will find it increasingly more difficult to obtain brands from intermediate and small producers. The small independent stores will find it increasingly more difficult to combat the economies of scale (and discounts) available to the large grocers.

 

In the long term, if you like your wine like Coca-Cola or Pepsi - no problem, however if your tastes run to the gourmet end of the spectrum, the longer these two parallel tracks become, the harder things will become for the rest of the wine industry.

 

Having had an extensive marketing background, I have always stated that any marketing expert worth their pay can come close to getting what ever outcome they desire in a survey by simply framing the questions in a particular manner. Clearly, in this case the results have been designed to show the smaller independent stores that they should be good little boys and fall into line buy concentrating on the major brands and forgetting about the boutique producers.

It's enough to drive you to drink! 8 June 05

Most pundits will tell you one of the greatest advantages in using Stelvin seals instead of cork is that the Stelvin closure eliminates bottle variation. Now, based on a recent experience I can confirm that whilst that may be the case in most instances, bottle variation can and does happen under Stelvin. I have no idea how or why it happens but it has happened to me.

 

Here is the story. I tried a bottle of Marius 2003 Shiraz as soon as it was bottled. The wine was suffering from bottle shock but had all the components in the right proportion and it looked like it was going to be a good wine. I tried the second bottle about eight weeks later and it was not at all pleasant; there was a dominant green streak that ran right through the wine. As I read other peoples tasting notes on the wine I was wondering what they had been smoking when they had tried it; there was no mention of the green streak in any of their tasting notes. No doubt anyone who had tried the wine and had seen my tasting note would have wondered what I had been smoking when I tasted it too.

 

Roger Pike, the owner of the winery asked asked me if I would like to try it again as he thought it was now showing much better than when I had last tasted the wine. Frankly I doubted it would be any better but agreed to another shot at the wine. Well blow me down, the third bottle was very enjoyable and showed exactly no sign of the green streak that wrecked the second bottle I tried. In fact, I enjoyed drinking the third sample over the space of the evening. What caused the second bottle to be so different? Don't know! It was not just "a stage the wine was going through" because at that time, it was being reviewed by the professional journalists. Infuriating? Absolutely! And if people tell you bottle variation is eliminated by Stelvin, don't believe it to 100% true. Here are the tasting notes on the three bottles.

 

Marius 2003 Shiraz Feb 05 - Like many of the 2003 releases that have been sealed in the Stelvin, this wine will take ages to open up in the glass. After three hours, the first signs are starting to emerge with black olive, tar, plum and menthol. At this stage, the wine is disjointed but all the components seem to be in balance with intense, youthful-fruit, refreshing acidity and well-judged chalky, drying tannins. Aniseed, plums and pepper together with moorish dark and milk chocolate combine to form a very enjoyable wine which finishes both long and persistent. An excellent result from a very difficult vintage, I am sure that in a couple of months once the wine settles down, it will be rated as Highly Recommended with **** for value. Time is all it needs. After ten hours, it had come together and tamed down, the disjointed aspects had vanished and it was very enjoyable with intense fruit and softer (normal) tannins. 

 

Marius 2003 Shiraz March 05 - Like many of the 2003 releases that have been sealed in the Stelvin, this wine will take ages to open up in the glass. After three hours, the signs are starting to emerge with plum, tar, dark chocolate, mushroom and hints of menthol. At this stage, the wine is disjointed but all the components seem to be there with youthful-fruit, piquant acidity and chalky, drying tannins. An intensely off-sweet attack of plum, spice and dark chocolate are carried through the palate on a wave of sappy tannins. Hopefully, in time it may come together but the sappy tannins will always be noticeable. Rated as Recommended with *** for value.

 

Marius 2003 Shiraz June 05 -  After a couple of hours in the glass, the bouquet shows restraint, indeed it was more intense when first opened; plum, earthy notes, black olive, coffee and chocolate are all evident. Plate flavours of black dark chocolate, plum, coffee, black olive and aniseed combine to produce a very attractive flavour profile. Interestingly enough, at one stage there was a slight sappiness but it completely disappeared over time. Ample in weight with very fresh acid (which calmed down with time in the glass) and chewy, long tannins; it finishes with good persistence. Rated as Highly Recommended with **** for value. This is worth buying!

Recently, in the Drops ‘n Dregs Section (see below) I outlined my reasons for stating that the Saltram Mamre Brook 2003 Cabernet Sauvignon was a wine to be avoided. Since that time, both my friend Brian and I have had further experiences and have both carried out further research into this wine.

 

Firstly Brian's experiences – copied from his web site. “In the interests of science and objectivity I slipped a Mamre Brook 2003 Cabernet double-blind into an otherwise single-blind tasting tonight, five other 2003 Shiraz and Cabernet under $15. 

 

The groups preferred ranking was: Maglieri Shiraz 2003 ($14), Taylors Clare Shiraz 2003 ($12), Saltram Mamre Brook Cabernet 2003 ($19.99), Glaymond Shiraz Cleanskin 2003 ($12.50, only one point behind the MB), Taylors Clare Cabernet 2003 ($13), Maglieri  Cabernet 2003 ($14).  The MB Cabernet received one first ranking, three second rankings, two third rankings, one fourth ranking, two fifth rankings (including mine) and two last rankings.  I didn't get as much of the rubbery character in this one, but it did though finish hard and unpleasant to my palate and one other person remarked on it fading and becoming harder as the hour progressed.  Conclusion:  Some like it, about as many don't, make up your own mind. The Glaymond, Maglieri and Taylors shiraz were the only wines people indicated they were likely to buy (or had already bought.)”

 

When Andrew Kemeny of Kemenys Liquor Store saw Brian's comments, he was quite concerned and contacted Brian to discuss the matter. As a result, Andrew opened two bottles from his stock together with a Beringer Blass rep in Sydney. Andrew stated they found no problems, it was a young Barossa Cabernet and they rated it 92 points.

 

The wine was also re-tasted by Nigel Dolan, Saltram wine-maker. According to Andrew, Nigel said, "I see no rubbery character, or any other fault / defect. The wine is a good example of 03 Barossa Cabernet having the expected richness and depth, plummy chocolaty fruit characters, warm alcohol palate and typically firm tannins as normal for a young Cabernet."

 

Now for my further experiences and research.  A double-blind sample given to my mate Tom Porter the publican of the Moss Vale hotel and fine wine purveyor/drinker: When he first sipped it, he said "that's all right" and about 10 seconds later said "what is that horrible aftertaste."

 

I then sent a double-blind sample to a Master of Wine that I am acquainted with and asked his opinion. He emailed this response “Just tried your sample……YUK!! Full of Brettanomyces -- I think--metallic /mousey notes………. Certainly does not seem to be a sound or stable sample. Suspect hygiene or low SO2 issues.”

 

An email was sent to Jeremy Oliver asking if he had tasted it and his reply was “I didn't see anything wrong with the bottle of Mamre Brook CS 03 I tasted the other day - gave it 17.0. Bloody cork-derived variation working against you? Happens all the time with me and remains the major blight in my existence...”

 

Finally, I re-tasted another sample only this time left and it in the glass of three hours before tasting it. The rubber had definitely metamorphosed into mouse characters, both on the bouquet and on the palate.

 

The Brett explanation is now up the most likely one and indeed virtually justifies the reasons for all the other results and experiences. As most readers would know, Brett does vary from bottle to the bottle and in minor doses can add complexity. In addition, some people do find it attractive whilst some others can't stand it, even at low levels.

 

This would also explain why the bottle Brian presented to his tasting group was not as noticeably ugly as the three previous bottles he had tried, or at least why it was unpleasant to only some of the group.

 

However, from my perspective this is still wine that should be avoided. If there is Brett in the batch, it's like a potential time bomb waiting to go off, when you pull the cork, you never know if you are going to get a good one or one that is loaded with Brett.

 

Prior to writing the first article below, I tried to make contact with Saltram but the person I wished to speak to was unavailable on the day. Since that time, two messages have been left for other people to ring me but they elected not to return my calls.

 

It is also interesting to note that three of Melbourne's large fine wine retailers who heavily promoted the 2002 vintage of this wine appear to not even be stocking the 2003, let alone promoting it.

Thankyou to all the readers who took the time and trouble to respond to last week’s article. Unfortunately, there were so many that I cannot possibly post all of them, or every message in its entirety, but I have chosen a broad cross section of messages which represent readers’ thoughts and feelings. The comments are fascinating. There were some even more fascinating responses which, unfortunately, I cannot publish as the authors are professional, many in the wine business, and wished to remain confidential, but somewhere along the line, I will try to use the material provided.

 

From Andrew Ryan

 

“I was very disappointed to read the comments made by Michael Twelftree on the Squires Board, and have the following comments in regard to your question:

 

Play the ball, not the man

 

In assessing a wine the aim should be to provide an objective opinion and constructive criticism where appropriate. Of course of most importance is to express whether you enjoyed the wine and why, and what value the wine represents.

 

To make a personal criticism of a winemaker says nothing about a wine that person has made and just comes across as vindictive. It adds no value to anyone. Michael Twelftree does not provide a tasting note for a Mount Mary Quintet, nor does he say what experience he has with the wine - he just lets fly with abuse of the owner / wine maker.

 

As a side issue, he attributes the winery's reputation to positive reviews by Australia's best known wine writer (James Halliday). It is well known that for many years James Halliday and John Middleton were not on the best of terms. For years Halliday excluded Mount Mary tasting notes from his wine guide as MM did not submit wines for review. However, throughout this time James Halliday maintained his professional integrity by listing the winery and rating it highly and by openly praising the wines. This despite personal disagreements with the owner/winemaker. Mount Mary's success can not be attributed to Halliday - Jeremy Oliver has long rated the wines very highly, including recent vintages.

 

Also, I did smirk at Michael Twelftree criticising Mount Mary for success due to positive reviews from Australia's best known wine writer. Isn't a large degree of Two Hands success due to positive ratings by a certain US writer?

 

Back to your question Ric......if you have specific constructive criticism of a certain wine, then fine. But to broadly lambast a winery for no reason other than vitriol does damage and has no benefit.

 

It is often written that Australia needs to make more great wines; selecting the best sites, matching the ideal varieties and then having the best vineyard treatment and winemaking techniques. I would have thought that Mount Mary is one winery that could be pointed to as trying to do this. Fine if the wines are not to your taste, or you think the pricing is unjustified, or are annoyed at not being on the mailing list. But shouldn't other wine makers and owners be trying to make the best wines they can, from unique sites and with the best techniques as well. Think Torbreck, Giaconda, Cullen, Clonakilla.

 

In summary, for a winemaker to be broadly criticising another winery in a generalised, personal manner represents poor form.”

 

From Martin Edwards

 

“I just read your piece on disparaging comments which clearly underlines the problem of unsupervised Forums and the saying:

 

"Please ensure that brain is engaged before putting keyboard into gear!!"

 

- The first comment you reported is totally unacceptable, even actionable if it were published in any other medium. It also illustrates the small-minded, vicious and probably jealous nature of the writer... My comment applies whether the writer was a winemaker or not. 

 

- The second comment, while a bit OTT, is probably just a case of a strongly held opinion on a particular wine and would be acceptable from a normal forum-member. For it to come from a competitor simply illustrates poor manners and a lack of understanding that "what comes around, goes around."

 

- The "rumour" comment should not have been allowed to appear on the Forum, is totally unacceptable and probably actionable in the US as it was published on a US Forum about a wine exported to that market.

 

As all these comments came from the same source, I'd be thinking that they need a lesson ion both manners and acceptable business ethics.”

 

TORB note: Just one comment Martin, that forum is moderated!

 

From James Heyworth

 

“From what I hear he slanders other wineries like this.

 

When I mentioned a piece of internet comment about the 01 Basket Press at the Rockford Stonewall room, Angela's first comment was 'that wasn't MT again was it?'

 

At the risk of sounding like Forrest Gump my mamma told me if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. There is an industry code that you don't bag the opposition, either personally or professionally. Sadly that’s being ignored in a lot of quarters.”

 

From Bob Onishi

 

“Re the comments on Mount Mary, I thought they were very much overdone.  I've never had anything from Mount Mary, so I have no opinion of the wine, but I thought the comments to be broad sweeping generalizations with no basis of support, and the personal attack on Middleton is uncalled for in a public forum. 

 

These are the type of things someone might start spouting after a few drinks with mates; they are out of place in the forum.

 

Re the Kalleske rumour statement, I find this despicable, as rumour mongering often is.  Not to mention that the rumour itself is ridiculous.  Testing for TCA?  The source of such a rumour should be tested for mental competence.

 

Re the Coldstream Hills Pinot Noir TN, I am a bit more tolerant, as they deal with a specific wine.  The exaggerations, i.e., 'luckiest man ...', 'amazement', and 'ripping it all out', are exactly as you say; merely sensationalistic exaggerations.  Still, I could discount them coming from most people.  I think a professional reviewer would be out of place making such

remarks, but I don't place winery owners and winemakers in a high public influencing position. 

 

Incidentally, on a related tangent, I am of the opinion that winery owners and especially winemakers do not make the best wine reviewers.  They are often too strongly focused on their own style and what they are trying to achieve.”

 

From Carol Smith - Warrabilla Wines

 

“I think you can comment on styles, after all we are passionate devotees of our own styles, but you can't bag the opposition

 

It tends to make the commenter look way smaller. I've got to say that when you see disparaging threads it tends to get up your nose, and when you’re on the receiving end of a bagging you tend to feel like retaliating, you’ve just got to be bigger than the person that does that sort of stuff.”

 

From K. Michael Pollard

 

“Twelftree is certainly not shy about making outlandish comments. On the eBob forum it’s acceptable as long as he indicates that he is "in the business" (ITB). He does have links to Two Hands and Mischief and Mayhem in his signature, but those links do not make clear what his role is in those "organizations".  Richard Mintz has a link to Two Hands but again it’s unclear what his role is. Forums like Auswine which allows "Guest" posts have a real problem.”

 

From Shane Metzke

 

“I haven't bothered to look at all their posts but as long as they aren't out there bagging every winery & wine and instead are just calling it as they see it then I don't have a massive problem with it.  The other thing to note on the Mount Mary thread was that they didn't start the slinging match - perhaps there words were a little sensationalist but they were in broad agreement with the other posters.  He also identifies himself in his signature with TwoHands so readers can interpret the comments however they wish.”

 

From Andre Soo

 

“I've noted Twelftree's and partner's comments on some wines for sometime.  I had found it amusing - mostly.  Perhaps it is because I'm biased towards Michael's ideals on wine- (I had personally met the man before and he had subtly explained to me that the meaning of terrior has an Aussie equivalent - "bullshit".)  Personally - I think Mt Mary is overpriced swill.  

 

Taken with a huge pinch of salt; I feel that Twelftree is entitled to make his opinion's known on any wine forum.  Similarly, any other winemaker who feels disparaged could make a defence of their personal winemaking stance.  Simply put - if Twelftree is prepared to "slime" other's on any public forum - he must be prepared to make defences of his stand.”