Wolf Blass range

Wow! Really low scores for the cheapies!

That shiraz-cabernet was an award winner at the great Australian blend competition. The other wines ranked equal were all $20+.

Halliday gave 94 points to the Red Label GS(M?) (not reviewed here, but similar in style to the other Red Label reds.)

Me thinks you may be prejudiced against cheap wines. Maybe you could do a blind tasting of a range of wines to be a bit more scientific and eliminate the stigma of cheapness from your judgement.

To be honest I'm actually quite comfortable with the scores for the cheaper wines.

I've given these same wines similar scores in blind magazine tasting lineups for NLN in particular and I'd probably give them similar scores in a wine show lineup too. As for the reference to Halliday well I respect the man but do not ascribe to his scoring system and particularly see no need to 'score up' cheap wines. On that topic it's probably best to look at the way I score to realise where I'm coming from (and understand that I score like a show judge and use Jancis Robinson as more of a scoring guide than Halliday. Hard but fair is the best way to describe it I believe).

Scoring policy: http://www.ozwinereview.com/2008/10/australian-wine-review-scoring.html

It's not easy to get your point across in a few words…..

It's very fashionable to knock Halliday. Tall poppy sydrome and all. But he is the most respected critic of Australian wine in the world – and not just by chance.

I see his scoring as something like this (***completely subjective!***):

100 Never seen this score from him – despite some sniping that he over scores
99 See 100
98 Maybe one or two top wines receive this score per year
97 fantastic wine – only a handful of wines get this score every year.
96 Really good wine – expensive wines (approx $40) really should be getting this to deserve their high price.
95 Almost in the very top tier
94 This is a big watershed for his wine scores – below this means the wines are NQR 😛
93 Mid range wine score(RRP20 or less) in a very good year
92 Almost there!
91 As high as the better very commercial wines (RRP$15 or less)can score
90 This is where wines become more than just acceptable and start to be truly enjoyable
89 As high as most very mainstream wines (RRP$10 or less) can usually get
88 Bearable if you like that style
87 Typical score for a commercial wine in a decent year
86 You wouldn't put anything below this score into your mouth!

I've heard plenty of armchair wine critics state that he gives everything 94 points! Totally wrong (if you refer to the facts.)

Numbers alone are meaningless, though. And to say he scores too highly is to miss the point. It's about being consistant. I know that if he gives a wine 93+ and usually like that style of wine, then I can quite confidently buy it.

I'd think that wine critics should be consistant wrt other critics for the scores to be meaningful to all but their 'loyal followers.'

Given, for example, Halliday is the key critic here, I'd think it would be a good idea for others, especially small timers, to align with his system.

I'd say that giving 78 for a wine (that many professionals rate quite highly!) is rather disrespectful. It is, of course, ***totally down to personal opinion.*** But without any standardisation it is, at best, completely confusing for all but the biggest wine tragic.

PS Jancis Robinson is a big fan of Jacob's Creek wines………

Fair enough Anon, now let's break that down.

Firstly, I too like Jacob's Creek wines. The Reserve Chardonnay and standard Riesling are seriously smart wines for the dollars.

Secondly, if you look beyond just Halliday you realise pretty quickly that many other critics routinely hand out 78 for very commercial (and let's face it, I'm talking about sub $10 mass market wines here) wines. Look to Bob Campbell, Jeremy Oliver, Huon Hooke, Geoff Kelly, Mike Bennie… heck even Bob Parker JR himself (he gave Mt Mary 77 or the like I think) who hand out these scores regularly (and that's not even touching on the far less enthusiastic 20 point scoring system using Europeans).

In fact many international critics view the high scores of Halliday's ilk with a degree of veiled contempt (read some of Andrew Jefford's critical pieces on Australian wine writing to get a grasp of that).

Regardless, the scoring system I base my scores on (here it is again – http://www.ozwinereview.com/2008/10/australian-wine-review-scoring.html) is indeed a standardised one, (I'm even more positive than the original scale) was proposed in the World of Wine Magazine (which I believe is the best wine magazine in the world. Personal opinion of course) and built upon a score out of 20, a score that has a correlation to the scores that get handed out in Australian and international wine shows (and even Halliday would be forced to use when judging at said shows. He doesn't judge much any more though). The same system is also utilised in said WFW mag as well as Decanter (amongst others), and thus mirrors the system used by European wine writers (Like Jancis, Broadbent, Schmidt, Johnson, Jefford etc).

Given this context I would argue that I am thus being loyal to my followers by scoring consistently against a scale adopted by many more writers than just Halliday and thus one I would argue is more universally applicable. The standardisation – in other words – is firmly established and Halliday is an anomaly.

To clarify however I would also argue that you are misinterpreting me if you believe that I am Halliday bashing – far from it. I absolutely agree that he is the leading (or at least the most respected) wine critic in Australia. I just don't agree with the scoring scale he uses.

In the end I attempt to score like I am in a wine show, that way I know that no matter where I am I will always score the same (and having judged at wine shows I know that my scores are usually quite similar to most other show judges) given that it is the wine show environment where you are the least forgiving.

Consistency and standardisation at work…

wine is subjective and you're entitled to your opinion. i was at the same event and the scores were fair.

OK. Let's leave Halliday for the time being.

Here's the Tyson Stelzer + Matthew Jukes organised Great Australian Red competition.

http://www.thegreataustralianred.com/The%20Great%20Australian%20Red%20Results%202011.pdf

Here are the wines on par with Red Label shiraz cabernet 2010 (you scored 78). Note the grey label you gave 91 points to (2 less than the your top scoring wine) is ranked on par with the red label! BTW I'd give the Red Label shiraz cabernet 2010 90 points.

Jim Barry Wines PB Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon 2009 Bronze medal
Jim Barry Wines PB Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon 2006 Bronze medal
K1 by Geoff Hardy Tzimmukin 2007 Bronze medal
Karra Yerta Wines Shiraz Cabernet 2008 Bronze medal
Kellermeister Wines The Pilgrimage 2009 Bronze medal
Killibinbin Vineyards Blend 2008 Bronze medal
Lake Breeze Wines SP Cabernet Shiraz 2008 Bronze medal
Lindemans Coonawarra Limestone Ridge 2009 Bronze medal
Madeleines Wines Stonesford Cabernet Shiraz 2009 Bronze medal
Majella Wines Malleea 2009 Bronze medal
McWilliams Wines McWilliams 1877 2009 Bronze medal
Metala Wines Cabernet Shiraz Malbec 2009 Bronze medal
Millbrook Winery Limited Release Shiraz Cabernet 2008 Bronze medal
Morambro Creek The Bryson 2009 Bronze medal
Olivers Taranga Vineyards Corrina's Shiraz Cabernet 2008 Bronze medal
Pepper Tree Wines Strandlines Grand Reserve Cabernet Shiraz 2009 Bronze medal
Pepper Tree Wines Strandlines Grand Reserve Cabernet Shiraz 2008 Bronze medal
Peter Lehmann Wines Futures Shiraz Cabernet 2008 Bronze medal
Rosemount Shiraz Cabernet 2010 Bronze medal
Scarpantoni Estate Reserve 2009 Bronze medal
St Hallett Gamekeepers Shiraz Cabernet 2009 Bronze medal
Taltarni Vineyards Reserve Shiraz Cabernet 2009 Bronze medal
Taltarni Vineyards Reserve Shiraz Cabernet 2005 Bronze medal
The Yalumba Wine Company The Scribbler Cabernet Sauvignon Shiraz 2009 Bronze medal
The Yalumba Wine Company The Signature 2006 Bronze medal
Warrenmang Vineyard Bazzani Shiraz Cabernet 2009 Bronze medal
Wolf Blass Wines Grey Label Shiraz Cabernet 2009 Bronze medal
***Wolf Blass Wines Red Label Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon 2010 Bronze medal***
Wyndham Estate George Wyndham Founders Reserve Shiraz Cabernet 2009 Bronze medal
Zema Estate Saluti Cabernet Sauvignon Shiraz 2006 Bronze medal

I don't think I need to add more.

I don't think you need to add anymore either Anon, suffice to say that wine competition results are variable as hell. I think we all know that…

"My scores are usually quite similar to most other show judges"

Doesn't really tally with

"wine competition results are variable as hell"

Anyway…….

As a neutral I notice a lot of tall poppy syndrome. Everyone seems to think their opinion is the right one and if Halliday disagrees, he's showing his/her ignorance.

Nobody I've met admits to agreeing with Halliday. And even Halliday is guilty of taking pot shots at RP Jnr. I've seen corrections of Parker hidden in obscure wine reviews, links to joke videos of Adolf Hitler with voice-overs pretending to be the US's big wine critic. It's all a bit childish…..

Anyway, as most of us have stated – it's all subjective in the end…

I just like the egalitarianism of Halliday that he can give quite a high score to a cheap wine if he thinks it deserves it. Saves me a lot of cash, too 🙂 A lot of other critics come across as rather snobby.

The possibilities of misuse, subjectivity and the implication of a precision that doesn't exist are all fun to talk about though….98 points on that.

Not just wine competition results that are "variable as hell".

Torbreck The Factor 2001

Wine Spectator 97
Robert Parker 98
Halliday 94

Torbreck The Factor 2002

Wine Spectator 83
Robert Parker 99
Halliday 96

There is an implication in some of the discussion above that price needs to be mentioned in the context of scoring. In my view, this is utter nonsense. Price should be absolutely irrelevant when scoring. I've no problem with a sub-$20 wine scoring 94 points or more if the quality's there.

The idea that "small timers" must cohere with Halliday's scoring system is, to be frank, a bit on the risible side. Surely no one person should be bigger than the industry. I think Andrew is sometimes a little bit harsh in his scoring (in comparison with my own score for the same wine), but I understand him on his own times – and I've found value in his work as a consequence.

I, for one, am utterly sick of reading or hearing about Halliday points, as if to disagree is contravene holy writ and risk being handing over to the secular authorities. It's almost embarrassing to all concerned. The horror of going to a cellar door where all you are told is what Halliday scored a wine … the implication being that the drinker is not capable of forming his/her own opinion. The industry needs to be more mature than this. I enjoy Mr Halliday's writing, but feel that his scoring adds comparatively little to my purchasing decisions, compared to other scribes. I know I am hardly alone in that view.

I've tried sublime 94 Halliday point wines, and ones that are simply lacking in any character or interest, that I'd struggle to put into the 90s. As a result, I'm confused about his scoring. His concept of scoring Champagne and other sparkling wine on a different scale is also just plain baffling – to me at least.

I will admit that I DO often agree with Halliday and think he has hit the nail on the head – especially with Hunter wine. So there you go. But on many occasions I find his points too high.

In short, there must be SOME reason why so many reasonably informed wine afficionados do have issues with Halliday's scoring. It's too simplistic to say it's "tall poppy syndrome". You can respect a person, but not respect everything that he/she does.

MichaelC

Other Anonymous:

I'm saying exactly that. That Halliday does give cheap wines high scores some times. Many others seldom do.

And nobody says you have to agree with Halliday (or anyone else), but I do see tall poppy syndrome big time in almost every comment about him. Like I said, he even feels the need to snipe a Parker, so it's almost universal. But that doesn't make it right.

There is always going to be a 'leading authority' on everything and some are going to dislike that. There does, however, need to be experts to act as a guide and a starting point for making selections from the seemingly infinite number of varietals, terroirs, vintages, etc, etc.

You don't have to agree. But you needen' get angry, either. Take it or leave it.

I'm very confident Halliday gets scores of correspondance disagreeing with him. He deals with it. Other wine critiics need to, too.

I really don't like the inequity of scoring cheap wines higher either – why should a good $9 wine score better than a very good $14 wine? One rating scale for everything methinks if purely for consistency.

Ultimately though what I, and MichaelC, are saying is that to slavishly follow the rating system of a single commentator is both short sighted and problematic.

I'm at pains to again emphasise that I often agree with Halliday and he is clearly at the top of the wine writing tree within Australia. What I am saying is purely that I don't agree with how he scores. The Tall Poppy effect thus alluded too simply isn't there with me and you're barking up the wrong tree.

I agree that wines should be judged on their merit and not their pricec, but with some critics, I like to play a game. I look at the price and I can roughly guess the following score. With Halliday the correlation is much lower.

I have already stated that any scores are just a starting point and if you are going to use just one critic, the one who reviews the most wines and is regarded the most highly (except by his wannabe rivals) Halliday is your man. ***Just a starting point, I repeat again*** Nobody can taste all wines by all producers and all vintages. We need some consistant guide. By choosing X based on A's review and wine Y on B's review is rather arbitrary.

It's funny how you are 'at pains' to praise the man. Almost every comment I read say "I greatly respect him, but……" I seems like people are scared to disrespect him, but make it quite clear that they don't really respect him.

Interesting set if tasting notes AG – typically straight up and honest. Also, nice responses to an anonymous poster with a few (vanillan-soaked, American oak) crosses to bare.

'set of'…. 😛

Brown,

Penfold's rather like American oak for shiraz…….

Personal comments = argument lost

'Anonymous',

Posting comments without putting your name to them = an argument lacking all credibility.

The good thing about this discussion was that personalities were left out of the discussion. Rather a refreshing thing on an internet maessageboard. I congratulate all the other posters for their maturity.

It just takes one 'typical Aussie' to come blundering in and making it all rather childish. You would probably threaten me with violence if you were able to.

It's idiots like you that think you are better than everyone else because you drink more expensive wine than the rest that I was getting at with my comments. Thanks for proving my point.

Woah. That's a serious over reaction there Anon – we're all adults here and I all I can see is a reference to whether you had some crosses to bare as a personal attack (and a question mark about posting comments without putting your name to it). Neither of which in my opinion justifies such a response (especially not when you read Brown's blog and realise he is definitely not the sort of person who would threaten you with violence or even drinks more expensive wine than the rest. Have a read of his blog. http://redtobrownwinereview.blogspot.com/)

Regardless let's all keep personal attacks out and stick to just debating about wine.

Thanks for your reply AG, it covers most of the points I would want to raise in regards to the anonymous response. Given your last sentence, no need for me to continue the 'conversation' by adding any fuel to the fire 🙂
Rod