NOW IN OUR 24TH YEAR……..

In April 1985, Volume 1 No1 of Winewise was published and we now begin our 24th year.  We must have done something right to have survived for so long when many other publications have fallen by the wayside.  So forgive the indulgence as we take a short trip down memory lane and discuss our origins and achievements.

Speaking at the 6th Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference in 1986, James Halliday is reported as saying:

"Overall the relationship between the industry and the press has been too incestuous. The industry has been too sensitive to the relatively mild criticism that has emanated from wine writers.  I honestly believe that both Wine & Spirit Buying Guide and Winestate have effectively been neutered over the years by the wine industry. I have never in my mind - though I admire many things that Penfolds do - ever forgiven them for boycotting Wine & Spirit in Sydney for something like five years for refusing to submit wines for judgment. In turn this led the publishers of those journals, because they had to rely on advertising material, to progressively soften and downgrade their judgments to get people on panels who (gave) the industry a fair run..."

James went on to say that this situation "created a gap, a vacuum" in which
Winewise emerged.  Times have certainly changed but, in the mid-80s, the prevailing philosophy was 'if a wine doesn't measure up, don't write about it'. There was little or no coverage of small winemakers or objective reviews of emerging new wineries which were charging an arm and a leg for wine of unknown quality.  Who could the consumer turn to?

With high optimism, eight wine enthusiasts launched a free, half-size preview issue of Winewise onto an unsuspecting public in February 1985.  Controversially, we decided to follow the example of Choice in adding a Not Recommended category to our other categories of Outstanding, Very Good, Commended and Acceptable in a tell-it-like-it-is approach [these categories are now: Outstanding, Highly Recommended, Recommended, Agreeable, Acceptable, Unacceptable].

One of our fiercest critics was journalist Mark Shield (now deceased), who described us as “the wine haters”.  In March 1986, he wrote: "this is a document devoid of humanity, humour and journalistic skill.  It is bumptious, pompous and pretentious.......... I would detest the company of the publishers".

This tirade prompted one of our readers, a winemaker, to write:

”you'll need to wear down that guy down a bit and being consistent will be your best asset..... You're a great asset to us in the industry who seriously want to attain...international greatness". 

Right from the start we had a core of winemaker/producers who supported us. One such person wrote:

"If the wine industry wishes to be taken seriously, it must learn to expect, and respect, constructive criticism. Respected film journalists, theatre critics, restaurant reviewers and motoring writers are free to indulge in 'honest opinion'. Wine should be no different, even if our delicate sensibilities are slightly bruised occasionally".

And, of course, we enjoyed strong consumer support: "Congratulations on a well presented publication. Thank God there's at least one impartial magazine available".  

Mark’s criticism was quite surprising as his own view of the state of the industry at that time matched ours.  In 1988, he wrote:

“Pinot is the holy grail, never mind that most of the pinots made in Australia are wimpish buckets of strawberry pop….the street smart consumer is drinking shiraz, semillon and riesling and pocketing the change”. 

Mark, God bless him, simply misunderstood us and we are pleased to say that eventually he did have a drink or two with us.

From the outset, we decided not to accept advertisements so that our editorial independence could never be compromised and we have maintained that stand to this day, although we now promote our very own Winewise Half-Dozen, being a sample of the best value wines selected from our blind panel tastings.  The fact remains that only our subscribers determine whether or not we survive.

Initially, we refused to accept wine samples from producers but some three to four years after we started, we found an increasing number of producers approaching us to review their wine - they welcomed our frank, independent and expert assessments.  Undoubtedly we helped break down the barriers with extensive visits to the vineyards, regularly exchanging views with winemakers in Australia and overseas; a practice we still follow.  Today, samples for review are provided freely with no strings attached.

Also, right from the outset, we drew on our expensive experience of overseas wines, our many visits overseas, our experience as wine educators and, for some of our panel, the experience of winemaking and marketing. Today, we can add wine show judging. Our editor, Lester Jesberg is one of Australia’s leading show judges supported by fellow judges Len Sorbello, Deb Pearce and Phil Trickett.

In an article entitled "There's a pen in my soup" in the November-December 1987 issue of Epicurian, Jenny Ferguson, writing about food critics asked the question "who's entitled to criticise?"  She said an essential balance of knowledge and wisdom was vital to a position which yields tremendous power.  She went on to say:

"If in the practice of my discipline I research every magazine and book on food that I can lay my hands on, and spend a month of every year travelling to many places, in Europe, and most specifically France, to broaden my horizons, then I expect that anyone who is going to criticise me publicly will put in similar spade work.  Eating out every Saturday night simply does not qualify one to sit in the seat of judgement"

Similarly, drinking lots of wine doesn't qualify one to write about wine although, judging by the number of wine blogs on the Web, many people still think that’s all there is to it.  It’s important that a critic gains the respect not only of his or her readers but also of those who are being evaluated.  I think that’s one of the notable achievements of Winewise.

Speaking of achievements, we pride ourselves on imparting knowledge to consumers, increasing their level of appreciation and enabling them to discover new sensory experiences.  In this regard, perhaps our proudest achievement has been the development of the Winewise Small Vigneron Awards.

The first Awards event was launched in 1990 with James Halliday and Ian McKenzie joining our panel as guest judges – and this year (2008) we welcome these two outstanding judges yet again.  It’s been 18 years since we decided to give the “micro makers” a chance to be evaluated against their peers to national wine show standards. Then, as now, because of their small production, many such makers could not afford to exhibit in the normal show circuit and many wineries remained a mystery to the wine community at large.  From a modest 100 entries in 1990, the Winewise Small Vignerons Awards has grown to over 1300 wines a year and gained accredited show status.

It was around 1990 that the magazine increased in size from 16 to 20 pages and, in late 1992, the magazine included, for the first time, photographs on its front cover.  By the year 2000, the magazine had grown to its present size of 32 pages.  But it took until October 2001 (our hundredth issue) before we moved to the publication we have today with its glossy, coloured front and rear covers.  We rewarded the best wines we had tasted blind up to that point in time with the accolade Winewise Classics.

Indeed the blind panel tasting remains the cornerstone of Winewise today as it did in the beginning.  In our view, the blind tasting remains the best method of evaluating wines.  It’s not infallible but it’s the best means of eliminating prejudice and judging the real worth of a wine.  We judge like with like and, as far as possible, only wines of the same variety and of the same year are assessed together.  These days we have gone one step further and increasingly assessing wines from the same region together.  Our panel has remained fairly constant over the years, changing slowly to accommodate changing circumstances, but ensuring a large measure of consistency.  What’s more, a panel enables differing wine styles to be given a fair go as robust debates ensues amongst the panel members – that’s been a real strength of Winewise.

We judge wines together regardless of price. Our practice is in marked contrast to many publications which rate wines according to "under $10.00"/‘under $15.00” categories and the like.  In our view price should not enter the equation until the quality of the wine has been determined.  In this way one avoids making excuses for poorly made wine and the real bargains stand out. 

I haven’t mentioned our vertical tastings, our preview of wines in barrel, our discoveries etc but these simply all add to the durability of our magazine.  Some years ago, I summed up the Winewise philosophy as:

“Winewise is a buying guide for consumers – it’s about the consumer’s hard earned dollar and how to spend it wisely.  We seek to guide consumers to the best wines and the best value wines, without regard to labels, reputations or vested interests”

This is what you can continue to expect in the coming years.

Len Sorbello

Note: This is an updated version of an article which appeared in Winewise in April 2005 for our 20th anniversary issue.