Three Publications

Australia is a nation of magazine junkies and has what is reputed to be the most competitive and highly-saturated magazine market in the world. There is hardly a subject, no matter how obscure, that does not have at least one magazine covering the topic. In the case of wine, no matter how diverse your taste, you have an excellent choice of homegrown options dedicated to Australian wine. This article will examine three of them in detail.

Winestate (WS) is the oldest and seems to have been around forever. I first read it in the late 70’s (established 1978) or early 80’s and have watched it grow and change. It is by far and away the most popular wine magazine in Australia today but it is not a hard-core wine publication and now could best be described as a wine lifestyle publication. There are seven issues published a year and it costs $60 to subscribe or $9.95 per issue at the newsagent.

It’s a glossy magazine running to about 150 pages and contains its share of advertising. Despite all the protestations of its editor as being “fiercely independent” and advertising not influencing wine ratings, skeptical readers simply do not believe it.

As well as wine reviews, there are a number of regular features. They include sections on (wine) education, travel, history, news and views, who’s up who in the restaurant scene, who is paying the rent in the wine auctions, as well as feature articles.

WS undoubtedly reviews more wines (over 10,000 per annum) than any other magazine and they do it in a number of sections. A wine can be reviewed in the New Releases section, the Regional section or in the Style section and sometimes a particular wine may be reviewed in all of them, sometimes with confusingly different results. WS have recently instituted a $25 administration fee for unsolicited wines that are submitted by producers. Any small producer who submits a wine will cop the charge but what about the bigger companies that advertise, do they get charged too?

Wines are reviewed using Australian Show system procedures. They are judged blind using the 20-point system. The scores are then converted to a star system. From my perspective, the major bone of contention in this publication is the ratings. In the capital city wine show judging convention, which WS states they use, wines are judged in classes. What many people do not realise is that a gold medal in a Premium Class would be harder to achieve than a gold medal in a Commercial Class. WS has never explained satisfactorily how they judge in classes or as they once did, adjusted the ratings for price categories. In its favour, things have improved over the years, there is no longer a kluge of low priced, bloody ordinary wines being awarded *****.  

According to WS “wine judging is an inexact art, not a science.” (Editors note: how true!) “WS uses a star rating system which reflects a range rather than a specific point score”

It is interesting to see that in the latest edition; for the first time, that there is a chart which cross-references the WS star system to the 20-point system and also shows what that is worth on the 100-point system. But whose 100 point system? Parker’s, Halliday’s or their own? To show how confusing this is have a look at the numbers

Ws Stars          Medal Rating   Show Points    WS 100

*****                  Gold                 18.5 - 20           93+      

****1/2               High Silver         18.0 – 18.4        90 – 92

****                   Silver                17.0 – 17.9        85 – 89

***1/2                High Bronze      16.5 – 16.9        83 – 84

***                    Bronze              15.5 – 16.4        78 – 82

If we have a look at Jeremy Oliver’s conversion of the 20 point to the 100 point system it looks like this

Medal Rating   Show Points    JO 100

Gold                 18.5 - 20           95+      

Silver                17.0 – 18.4        90 – 94

Most Bronze      16.0 – 16.9        87 – 89

Very confusing isn’t it and especially so as both, in theory, have based their initial ratings on the show system.

Peter Simic, the long time Editor and Publisher, is assisted by a panel of both regular and not so regular judges. In the small tasting sections, there may only be three judges, however in the large segments like the last Cabernet feature where five hundred and seventy seven wines were tasted, there were (usually) three different judges for each of the five days of tasting. That means each reviewer judged about one hundred and seventeen wines.  

Whilst this does provide a diversity of opinions under these circumstances, it is impossible for readers to align their palates to the reviewers. This is not necessarily a criticism; it is just a fact and may explain why the magazine is so attractive to the wine enthusiast rather than the wine ‘tragic’. From the magazines perspective that is a good thing as the lower down the rung you go with wine consumers, the bigger the potential target audience. That is why over 40% of wine sold is in cardboard boxes and not bottles. So whilst people like to read about drinking Grange and Dom, most of them drink the less expensive wines.

This is a magazine that you either trust or do not trust. Obviously most subscribers do trust their opinions and there is a large reliance on the star system with purchasers rushing out to try and buy the top star wines with the lowest prices. In fairness, that happens with most trusted publications, that’s why people buy them. Touring around and talking to people in the wine business, the most frequent comments you hear from wineries is, “this wine won a medal at…” the second most common comment is, “this wine was awarded x many Stars in the next WS edition.” Wineries love WS as it helps them to sell loads of wine if their wines are rated highly.

The current edition, due to space limitations has now stopped including tasting notes for the *** wines. Whilst I can understand this move, it is a retrograde step for wine lovers as it is further increasing the dependence on scores and lessening the importance of the description on the wine. It is also very difficult to tell which wines were tasted but not reviewed, the list of wines tasted is supplied, but you have to look very closely and compare to the wines appearing in each section to identify those that didn’t rate.  

Never the less, the magazine has been a great inspiration for those getting into wine and incredibly successful in helping build the enthusiasm of potential wine-lovers, which is great for the industry.

Winewise (WW) is a more serious publication that WS. Firstly, it accepts no advertising so no one can accuse it of a conflict of interest (although Lester Jesberg does import and sell a small range of French wines.) The publication has been going for almost 20 years and is only available by mail order subscription. None of this modern web stuff or email editions for them (at the moment but that could be changing, eventually.)

Each of the six (per annum) editions is over 32 pages and costs $55 a year. They cover at least 2,500 wines per year and although they review about a quarter of the wines that WS does, many of the tasting notes are more detailed and provide a better picture of the wines.

In no way can I criticise their rating system, the TORB system was originally based on the Winewise system. They rate wines as 'Outstanding', 'Highly Recommended', 'Recommended', 'Agreeable', 'Acceptable', and 'Unacceptable' and there is also a notation for wines that represent great value. They should also be commended for publishing the ratings of all wines tasted, even the bad ones because it is as important to know what to avoid as what to buy.

Judging is done by a panel of four regular players. For those trying to do a palate calibration to a publication they can trust rather than just buying the highest pointed wines, this has real benefits. Over time, the reader can get an understanding the reviewers’ stylistic preferences and that calibration should remain reasonably consistent as the same small group of people are involved.

Some small sections or stories are only reviewed by one or two writers and their initials are next to the wines which further help the reader with palate calibration.

Winewise reviews an eclectic range of wines and covers the complete gambit of what is available. Unlike other publications (that have a chip on each shoulder so they are balanced) that review a large amount of Shiraz and Cabernet in comparison to everything else (which is great for red bigots), WW covers the lot, not once but twice each year. They can and do cover everything right down to Sherry even if there are only nine in the tasting.

Lester looks like he has a sense of humour, for example in a story on rosé he states “I enjoy a good rose with light summery food, and consider it to be a serious wine style, not as one of my winemaking friends put it, “like sex without intercourse.””

The quality of the publication is excellent and the reviews are honest but make no mistake about it, the reviewers tend to like more elegant red wines than the huge Barossa blockbusters. This publication appeals to those that are a little more serious about their wine and have a broad cross section of wine styles they enjoy, are not afraid to trying new things and prefer more subtle reds. There is no right or wrong in this stylistic preference; it is just different tastes between different people and WW will appeal to those in different stages of wine appreciation to those that are first attracted to Winestate for example.  

The publication appears to have an “international outlook” on both wine pricing and wine styles. For example, on page 31 of Oct 2003 edition there is a story titled ”Hardys Take On The World.” It goes on to describe a 150^th birthday bash where Hardy pitted their Chardonnay and Shiraz against the best the world has to offer.

On the Chardonnay it said “Bear in mind the price differential ($895 for the Le Montrachet and $260 for the Mersault – and even $75 for the Leeuwin) and the Eileen Hardy looks good value at $40.”

And on the reds, here is what they said, “However it was with the (1998) shiraz that the Aussie wines really showed their strength. My top five were Hill of Grace, Grange, Tintara, Astralis and Eileen Hardy, leaving the likes of La Chapelle, Chave Hermitage, and Gangloff La Sereine Noire in their wake. Once again, the Hardy wines excelled in terms of value.”

Both the Tintara and Eileen were rated as “Outstanding” by WW in this article.

In the case of the Chardonnay, it depends on your point of reference; if you are comparing a bottle of Chardonnay that costs $895 a bottle to one that costs $40 bottle, almost any $40 bottle will look good in terms of value. But how will it compare against many other $40 bottles?  To my way of thinking that is a significantly more relevant comparison to most wine drinkers.

Likewise, if you are comparing a load of expensive French wines or even Grange at $500 a bottle to Eileen at $90 a bottle then the Eileen will look like good value but once again, if you compare the Eileen to many other wines that cost about $50 then the Eileen does not look like such great value after all. The same could be said with $35 bottles of wine compared to the Tintara.

WW also sponsors the annual Small Vigneron Awards. Because of the absolute number of wines that need to be assessed for this show and possibly to increase credibility, WW enlists the help of the likes of James Halliday, Huon Hooke, and Ian McKenzie etc to help in the judging. After they have tasted their way though a large lineup of wines and pronounced the winners, there is a road show that gives the public the chance to try the wines. This is a winning situation for all involved. It gives WW publicity and potential new subscribers, it gives the public a chance to try some new wines they may otherwise have difficulty in tasting and most importantly, it helps promote the new up-and-coming wineries that can do with all the help they can get in today’s tough conditions.

As a result of WW association with the Small Vigneron Awards, the publication tends to review a higher proportion of boutique and little known wineries than most other magazines.

WW does produce some very different, interesting, and diverse special interest articles like the “Canberra District Feature” and the 2000 Bordeaux article. It went from a very thorough, extremely well covered write up covering the Canberra region of eight pages, to a one page article covering 2000 Bordeaux. Being a small publication, it is impossible to cover every subject in depth so some areas just get skimmed, that is not a criticism, just a fact of life.

It is easy to understand that it is difficult to say a lot of positive things about a lowly-rated wine, but it is another thing when a highly-rated wine has a very short tasting note. Either they are very economical with their descriptors or (in some cases) they are not telling very much about the wines. Many of the c-throughs have short notes.

For what it covers and within its stylistic framework, it is a very credible publication without a lot of extraneous advertising or pseudo advertising content.

The final publication in this story is Divine Magazine.  An annual subscription for four issues cost $38. It is a high quality, spiff looking, classy publication with lots of articles, and of course, advertising. Unlike the other two publications in this article, Divine is not a specialist wine magazine, it is devoted to both food and wine; in some issues the food component comes first, whilst in others, the whole issue may be devoted to wine. The reason it has been selected for inclusion here is because of its sterling reputation and whilst it does not cover as much wine territory as the others, what it does cover, it manages to do with a high level of interest.

Andrew Wood is the man behind the publication which is now in its ninth year. It has a list, longer than a baboons arm, of highly credible, contributing authors. Names like Max Allen, Andrew Callaird, Campbell Mattinson, Gay Bilson and Steve Manfredi to name just a few.

Stylistically it is very classy and well written. Some of the contributing authors are professional writers first and winos or foodies second whilst a few of them are professional fangs or sipper-and-spitters, which provides the magazine with both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.

To illustrate this point, take Campbell Mattinson as an example (who is one of the contributing journos.) Campbell was trained as a scribe and then he developed an all-consuming, passionate thirst, for wine. So, whilst he could spit out a few well-chosen words from his computer, he needed to hone his wine tasting skills when he moved from writing about aerial ping-pong to plonk.

It is easier to train a writer’s palate then it is for a super taster to suddenly acquire the artistic skill to write beautiful prose. Unfortunately, very few good writers have sufficient experience or training in wine to make great wine writers and that is why there are so many superficial “puff pieces” in many of the smaller papers. Divine has a diverse cross section of writers and whilst some of them may write very interesting and entertaining articles, their wine tasting ability and knowledge is not as proficient as others.

The writing can be extremely vivid and graphic; it sucks the readers in and keeps the eyeballs glued to the text. And whilst on the subject of eyeballs, the pictures are a work of art. In the wine stories, no pictures of boring barrels or vertical vines, but you will see five o’clock shadowed winemakers lying in a bed of yellow flowering weeds, winemakers scoffing beer, stunning backdrops, spectacular use of vibrant colour, and wondrous artistic use of lighting.

The wine content is interesting and diverse. Unlike other publications which concentrate on tasting notes, Divine concentrates on wine narratives with the tasting notes forming an integral part of the story. Due to the very nature of the publication, it cannot begin to cover everything and does not try to, however some subjects get a complete workout. For example, there was one issue totally devoted to the Barossa with thirty-five wineries visited, over five hundred wine tasted, many verticals reviewed and almost every good eating-place examined.

(Editors Note: After reading this issue my mate, John Davis (aka The Pie King of SA) cancelled his subscription to the magazine, as there was not a single bakery or pie reviewed.)

On the positive side, this issue was entertaining reading; indeed I had trouble putting it down. It contained everything, history, romance, wine and food with a bit of irreverent comment thrown in. It is not pitched at the stodgy, old, bald, conservative Tory wine drinker, more like the young, progressive middle class swinging voter who has the ability to appreciate life and live it to the full.

It doesn’t just cover mainstream subjects like the Barossa, Shiraz, and Chardonnay; it gets right into diverse subjects with articles on offbeat matters like the Tempranillo feature which was informative and interesting.

The wine content is hugely important to the magazine in an indirect way. When scanning through the publication, it is easy to see the majority of advertising revenue is generated from wine advertising. In the long term, it will have to ensure “wine appeal” is maintained otherwise it will loose revenue and that would be a big problem. The advertising dollar could possibly decide the future direction of the content.

Divine sponsors an annual State of Origin event. Each state is asked to select their best ten, finished and commercially available wines in the given category. The chosen sixty wines are assessed by a panel of judges. The reason this event is so popular is that the public and subscribers have the opportunity to taste the wines and cast their own vote in a “public section.” 

One of the most regular wine aspects you will see in Divine is the Winery story. They take a winery, tell the history, interview a couple of people, include a tasting note or two, and sometimes, produce tasting notes on a vertical. These stories are interesting, worthwhile and are perfectly suited to those with more of a journalistic bent than wine experience. Some other publications used to do these stories but unfortunately, many of them have stopped.

If you look hard, these stories do show up some of the writers’ inexperience or shortcomings when it comes to accessing wine. For example, “…. 1999 E & E Black Pepper Shiraz is in the same mould as Grange.”

Some of the tasting notes look like a combination of techno babble which has come straight from the winemaker’s mouth and a few words from the taster to describe the wine.

And whilst on the subject of techno babble, the magazine manages to walk a very fine line between, at times, well written but superficial floral content and highly technical descriptor to make the text look credible. For example, “The soil is granite loam on a pink-orange clay base.” Now unless you are a wine wienie with a tech head, this is going to mean nothing to you, but it does sound impressive and bolsters the credibility of the author that has managed to throw it into the mix. 

The publication also does not use any scores which is unusual. I am also a little suspicious when I see projected drinking windows from a vertical tasting that look like this-

1994 drink 2004+

1995 drink 2006+

1998 drink 2008+

1999 drink 2009+

2000 drink 2010+

And sometimes things that you write can come back to haunt you. This was from page 49 of Issue 35 December/February 2004 in the Beechworth feature.

“Kinzbrunner has a clear vision of where he wants his wines to be. He sees his Rhône-style shiraz as becoming his top red, and this certainly seems to be the case after the stunning examples of the 03 vintage that we tasted from barrel. With hints of tar, spice, mineral and graphite on the nose, it brought to mind a single-vineyard Guigal. The palate was similarly impressive, with length, texture and an impressive as well as linear development on the palate. The batches of 03 pinot we tasted were looking good, too, and Kinzbrunner believes it to be one of the better ones he has made with tannin structure approaching some of the good Burgundies.”

The wines were, of course, Giaconda. About a year later, in a recent scoop, it was announced on Wine Front Monthly, “that it will not release an estate chardonnay, pinot noir or shiraz from the 2003 vintage. A release from Giaconda winemaker and founder Rick Kinzbrunner simply read: ‘There will be no Giaconda wines released this year except the Cabernet. We feel 2003 was not a year which gave us good enough quality for Giaconda wines as we have always kept our standards at the absolute highest level.’”

A journalists worst nightmare is when their words come back to haunt them in such a big way and in this instance, it does illustrate a lack of technical wine tasting credibility but despite that, the magazine is a bloody good read and worth the cover price. Just treat it as a good read and not words from upon high!

Summary – The three publications are very different and have their own spot in the market. Many wine-lovers will feasibly subscribe to two publications but due to the diverse nature of the three, I cannot imagine all three appealing to many people.

Winestate has the biggest wine coverage and biggest circulation but biggest does not necessarily mean best. It is the most influential of the three and a bible amongst many wine-lovers.

Winewise has more credibility then the others but covers less than Winestate. Even though it is not the biggest, it covers a broad base with balance. Palate calibration is also possible, a big plus with serious wine-lovers.

Divine is by far the best written, the most enjoyable, graphic (both visually and descriptively) and eminently readable. Treat it, as a “good read” about a subject in which you have an interest rather than a wine bible and you will get a lot of pleasure from it.

As we all have different levels of wine experience and tastes, there is no one wine publication that is perfect for everyone. Just as when we drink a bottle of wine, some will appeal more than others.