The Following is
an excerpt from Divine
Magazine Numbers 30 and 31 and have been provided by the generous
assistance of Andrew Wood.
The 2002 Divine State of
Origin Tasting: A Postscript
The complaints started arriving in late May this year. Hundreds of Divine
readers and subscribers had attended the Shiraz State of Origin blind tastings
in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra during February.
Many of them had rated very highly wine “D8”—the 2000 vintage McGuigan Genus
4 Old Vine Hunter Valley Shiraz. As a result of their own evaluation of this
wine and then later, after the magazine came out in early May revealing that
this wine had also been picked as one of the judges’ top wines in the tasting,
many readers bought the Genus 4 when it was released commercially later that
month.
When they opened their bottles of Genus 4, however, many readers found the wine
to be quite different from how they remembered it tasting at the State of Origin
three months previously. Some consumers complained to Divine about the
difference. Some consumers complained to each other on Internet forums. One
Divine reader—who had purchased ten cases of the wine—complained to Brian
McGuigan, the managing director of McGuigan Wines.
McGuigan responded by explaining to our reader that the wine entered into the
State of Origin tasting was a barrel sample; and that the commercially
available wine had just been bottled and was suffering from bottle shock,
leading to its lighter flavour. He assured our reader that the wine would
recover in time, and offered a replacement or refund if he was still unhappy
with it later on in the year.
The reader then complained to us, rightly pointing out that much is made of the
“commercially available” emphasis of the State of Origin tastings: our rules of
entry clearly state that although the wine does not have to be commercially
available at the time of judging, it must be “finished, bottled product that
will be available for sale to the general public during 2002”. (This allows for
wines that may have been finished and bottled but may not be on sale yet—wines
such as the Hanging Rock Heathcote Shiraz, for example, one of the other top wines
in the tasting, which wasn’t released until a couple of months later.) A barrel
sample is not “finished, bottled product”. Each participating winery is made
aware of this.
Eager to address our readers’ concerns, on 21 June we purchased some of the
commercially available Genus 4 and tasted it, blind, alongside two bottles of
the wine that we had left over from the State of Origin tastings. We found
obvious differences between the two wines: the wine entered into the tasting
was significantly darker and more purple in colour, and was fuller, more oaky
and richer in the mouth. There is also a difference in the bottle shape: the
tasting wine is in a shorter, heavier bottle, the commercial wine is in a
taller, more tapered bottle.
So I contacted the winemaker, Peter Hall; the production manager, Brod
Vallance; and Brian McGuigan. I asked them why the wines would look and taste
different.
I was told by both Hall and Vallance that the wines were bottled at different
times: the first bottling (of 500 dozen) was in May 2001, and the second
bottling (of 3000 dozen) was in April 2002. The wine from the first bottling
was entered into the Divine State of Origin, as well as other wine tastings
such as the Royal Perth Wine Show where, in September 2001, it won top gold in
class 15 (a class for “finished, bottled” wine only). The wine from the second
bottling, which had been stored in tank for almost twelve months, is the one
that is on the shelves.
In a fax, Brod Vallance also reiterated that the first bottling was “a barrel
sample”.
And once again, both Hall and McGuigan stated that the commercially available
wine was suffering from bottle shock, Vallance admitting that “due to sales and
marketing pressure we released the wine too early”.
On 11 July, ten weeks after the second bottling of the wine, we compared the
two batches once more in a blind tasting. Again, there were differences in
colour and palate weight that were difficult to attribute solely to different
bottling dates and bottle shock.
So I had the two wines analysed. The tests found significant differences
between them: the first bottling contains over 2 g/l residual sugar, while the
second bottling has virtually no residual sugar, and the first bottling is half
a per cent higher in alcohol than the second. In other words, the first wine
(the wine entered into various wine shows) is slightly stronger and slightly
sweeter than the second wine—the wine which is commercially available and
carries the gold, silver and bronze medal stickers from those various wine
shows.
I have contacted Brian McGuigan about these discrepancies. I have asked for
clarification of the term “barrel sample”. I have asked why there is a
difference in alcohol and sugar between the two batches of wine. And I have
asked why a relatively small quantity of gold medal-standard wine was left to
sit in tank for so long, running the risk of oxidising.
As this issue of Divine went to press, we had not heard back from McGuigan.
When he does contact us, we will let you know. In the meantime, we will make
sure from now on that winemakers are made even more fully aware of the precise
details of the entry criteria for the State of Origin competition.
Taken from Divine #30
McGuigan's Reply
Dear Editor,
The Publisher of Divine, Andrew Wood, has allowed me the right of reply
following Max Allen’s article in the last edition of Divine. Mr Allen’s
comments related to concerns expressed by consumers that a product produced by
my company, was not the same as the original product under the same label from
an earlier tasting.
Let me make our position clear. Our 2000 Genus 4 Shiraz was bottled in two
tranches. The first bottling took place in May 2001, the second in April 2002.
The wine tasted at the Divine tasting was from the 2001 bottling which was
packaged in an experimental pack and which was being sold at that time.
As stated in the article, there were slight differences in alcohol and sugar.
What was not stated was that all the other tests results were the same. Given
the time difference in the bottling, topping up, fining, stabilisation,
filtration and final pre-bottling adjustments these slight variances regularly
occur with all wines. However, I do apologise for the fact that we released the
second bottling too soon after bottling. Like a number of wood matured wines it
suffered filtration and bottling shock. Immediately following complaints from
people who attended the Divine tastings, we offered to repurchase the wine from
any disappointed buyer.
Following Mr Allen’s complaints there was an independent investigation of the
matter by an industry authority, and I am pleased to advise that, we were
informed there had not been any impropriety.
Yours sincerely
Brian McGuigan, A.M.
Managing Director
