General

For the Record

Here’s my response to Pendock’s comparison of his and Platter’s guide. I am not affiliated to Platter in any way shape or form, I just feel Pendock’s insinuations and veiled accusations of corruption in Platter should be addressed. I have used Platter on countless occasions, and while I do not always agree with its ratings it is the most useful publication on South African wine. 

Pendock writes:

1. John Platter no longer tastes for the guide, having been replaced by a committee of nearly two dozen tasters including importers, educationalists, sommeliers, commentators and retailers.  Neil Pendock is himself and Aníbal Coutinho, winemaker and buyer for Portuguese supermarket chain Continente.

Alright, there is a difference here. It is not as if Platter covers up for this and it is very clear ‘Platter’ is a brand. Open up Platter and it’s obvious who tastes what. Nothing dodgy here.

2.Pendock insists on tasting blind.  Platter tastes sighted, recommends a handful for the ultimate honour and then re-tastes them blind and calls it a blind tasting.

The 5 star tasting is tasted blind. The tasters do not know which wines are which although they would have an idea that some wines are in the line-up somewhere. Platter is not misleading anyone when they say the five star tasting is blind.

Blind tastings have their own issues, especially when you only have two tasters. You are getting what two people prefer, rather than any attempt at objective results. This is fine, but should also be made clear.

Also, tasting sighted gives the tasters the ability to judge a wine over various vintages. Is it perfect? No. Is it useful? Yes. Can the same be said of blind tasting? Of course.

3. Platter has wines shipped at producer’s expense to tasters.  Pendock travels to appellations and tastes them in situ, even paying wine routes to organize blind tastings, in some cases.

If wineries feel the fee to be included in Platter is exorbitant I would like to hear it. It’s great that the Pendock guide does not charge. As a criticism I would need it  explained to me how the fee skews results. If it did, nearly every competition I can think of would also be at fault. If it doesn’t, why bring it up?

4.Platter accepts paid-for advertisements from restaurants, B&Bs, retailers and producers; Pendock does not.

If this is a criticism of Platter, the insinuation is that these advertisers somehow sway ratings and results. I would expect some evidence if this is the case. Having chatted to a number of tasters asking how they go about assessing wines for Platter, the idea of an advertiser influencing them seems ridiculous at best. If it is not a criticism, again, I wonder why he brings it up at all.

5. Platter accepts wines made from grapes grown in multiple appellations.  In a quest to pin down regionality, an important component of terroir; Pendock does not.

Fair enough. Platter is not a guide to terroir, I have never thought it was. If Pendock’s guide goes some way to helping understand terroir in a South African context I will be delighted. We will wait and see.

6. Platter rates non-vintage wines; Pendock does not as the consumer has no way of knowing which one was tasted.

This is tricky, and Pendock avoids the issue by not tasting the wines. The Platter guide’s assessment of these wines is hardly an attempt to screw the consumer. Surely non-vintage wines are an attempt at consistency by the producer. As platter tasters taste the same producers’ wines for a number of years, the system works well for keeping up with NV wines from year to year. Again, this reads as a criticism of Platter, but I don’t understand how it is.

7. Platter rates tank and barrel samples; Pendock does not as the consumer has no way of knowing if the finished wine will taste like the sample.

As far as I can tell, when a barrel or tank sample is tasted it is made clear in the Platter guide. Would you rather have a suggestion at what the wine is going to be like or nothing at all? Also, the producer has the choice of submitting a tank or barrel sample or not. So really, it is trying to assist the consumer rather than screw them as Pendock makes out.

8. Apart from a good-value swoosh, Platter disregards retail prices; Pendock ranks wines within an appellation by price.

Good for Pendock. I do not see how price has anything to do with quality, so this has no effect on the ratings themselves. Do consumers prefer it? If they do they should buy Pendock’s guide.

9.Platter gives  ★★★★★ to a couple of CWG Auction wines which is totally ridiculous as the auction is ancient history and the wines are not commercially available; Pendock does not.

I am happy to see how the CWG wines are judged by Platter. What if a consumer sees a bunch of CWG wines in a restaurant and would like to see what other tasters have thought of the wines? They will not be using Pendock’s guide, that’s all I can say.

10. Platter is sponsored by Diners Club.  Pendock is not.

So? Again this seems to be another insinuation of corruption by a sponser, if so I would like some evidence. If not, who cares?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s