On Tuesday morning August 9, Fran Kelly did a segment on this thorny topic. Interviewees included the Grand Old Man of Australian Wine, Huon Hooke, Tony Keys and yours truly.
Grab the 6 minute podcast on ABC RN Breakfast
I don’t have much to add to this issue, except that the ABC’s lawyers sanitized the piece to prevent libel claims, but there were 3 other claims by James Halliday that puzzled me:
- That it was only people in the industry complaining, and that consumers have not
- That his scores are higher these days because we make better wines
- That inflated scores aren’t a problem as long as they’re consistent in the reviewer’s world.
Point 1 is most likely valid, except that some of you have told me that you stopped paying attention to Halliday’s scores years ago. A wine friend of mine said to me not long ago: Halliday’s scores might be a bit OTT but he never recommends a bad wine. That’s generally true, but I’ve had plenty of really ordinary wines James gave 94 points to. Most punters wouldn’t know if a wine is ordinary or not. I have a wine-loving friend who thinks McGuigan’s $6 black label Merlot is manna from heaven.
Point 2, Halliday’s scores going up because we make better wines is a joke. We make oceans of ordinary wine, more than we used to in the days when little wine was made and consumed by enthusiasts (fifties & sixties). What we are better at these days is making wines for early consumption, fruit-driven wines that are more approachable, easier on the gums when young.
Point 3 is nonsense and ignores the fact that Halliday has skewed the system and is misleading consumers into thinking they’re getting outstanding wine when in fact it’s just a good or fair wine.
Kim