Home News

Old Mutual Trophy Wine Show 2018 results

5
SHARE

The results of the 2018 Old Mutual Trophy Wine Show were announced earlier today. Of the 977 wines judged, 40 gold medals and 23 trophies were awarded.

Old Mutual Trophy for Most Successful Producer Overall
Warwick Wine Estate

Makro Trophy for Best Shiraz, Old Mutual International Judges’ Trophy and Old Mutual Trophy for Best Red Wine Overall
Leeuwenkuil Heritage Syrah 2015

Harold Eedes Trophy for Best Chenin Blanc, Old Mutual Trophy for Best White Wine Overall
Spier 21 Gables 2016

Old Mutual Trophy for Discovery of the Show / Best Value Gold Medalist
Arabella Pinotage 2017

American Express Trophy for Best Cabernet Sauvignon
Rustenberg Peter Barlow 2015

Old Mutual Trophy for Best Sparkling Wine
Laborie Méthode Cap Classique Blanc de Blancs 2011

Old Mutual Trophy for Best Dessert Wine (Unfortified)
Buitenverwachting ‘1769’ 2015

Riedel Trophy for Best Bordeaux-Style Red Blend
Diemersdal Private Collection 2016

Miele Trophy for Best Chardonnay
Tokara Reserve Collection Stellenbosch 2016

Nestlé Pure Life Trophy for Best Sauvignon Blanc
Stark-Condé Round Mountain 2017

Grand Roche Trophy for Best White Blend
Backsberg Family Reserve White 2017

Trophy for Best Sauvignon Blanc Semillon Blend
Warwick Professor Black 2017

Trophy for Best Cabernet Franc
Warwick 2015

Trophy for Best Shiraz-Based Red Blend
Middelvlei Momberg 2016

Trophy for Best Pinotage
De Grendel Amandelboord 2016

Trophy for Best Niche Variety
Springfontein Limestone Rocks Child in Time Petit Verdot 2012

Trophy for Best Merlot
Eagles’ Nest 2014

Trophy for Best Fortified Wine
Landzicht Wit Muskadel 2016

Trophy for Best Museum Class Sauvignon Blanc
Steenberg Reserve 2011

Trophy for Best Museum Class White Blend
Vergelegen G.V.B White 2013

Also Gold Medal Winners
Arabella Pinotage 2017
Backsberg Pumphouse Shiraz 2016
Beaumont Family Wines Dangerfield Syrah 2016
Boschendal Appellation Series Elgin Sauvignon Blanc 2017
Buitenverwachting Christine 2012
Cape Point Vineyards Noordhoek Sauvignon Blanc 2017
De Grendel Koetshuis Sauvignon Blanc 2017
DeMorgenzon Reserve Chardonnay 2017
DeMorgenzon Reserve Chenin Blanc 2017
Diemersfontein Woolworths Reserve Collection Pinotage 2016
Fleur du Cap Unfiltered Chardonnay 2016
Glenelly Estate Reserve Chardonnay 2016
Grande Provence Chenin Blanc 2017
Marras Swartland Los Tros Chenin Blanc 2017
Meerlust Rubicon 2015
Middelvlei Cabernet Sauvignon 2016
Olifantsberg Silhouette 2014
Rainbow’s End Cabernet Sauvignon 2016
Springfontein Daredevils’ Drums Bunches Broken Shiraz 2016
Stellar Organics Woolworths No Sulphur Added Organic Shiraz 2017
Survivor Sauvignon Blanc 2017 (Overhex Wines International)
Zandvliet Shiraz 2015

For full results, click here.

5 COMMENTS

  1. The Old Mutual results is a sad day for South Africa Cape Ports. A Cape Ruby out scouring the Cape Vintage Reserve’s? (the 2015’s and 2016’s are world-class). Amongst the panels members are judges that understand Cape Ports. Maybe they must be used in a specialized panel.

    Carel Nel

    • I agree, Carel. One might well expect some other strange results, though, like quite a few wines scoring 95-100 points at the Decanter World Wine Awards and scoring in the seventies here (despite the different scoring systems; it’s still top-of-the-hill gold vs. lowly bronze). Or sublime, big-name wines getting bronze here (some deservedly, some arguably not at all) while comparatively modest wines score gold (again, some also deservedly get highlighted in a blind tasting like this). This sort of thing is bound to happen when humans attempt to taste so many wines, but the port category was small and its results are just strange.

      So is the generally huge difference between the lowest scoring gold medal wine and the highest scoring silver medal wine, as far as most categories are concerned. Just go to the full results and click on “Winners by Category”. Take the Red Blends category: there are 49 wines that scored between 70 and 85, absolutely zero wines between 86 and 93 and two wines at 94. The Cabernet category is much the same and many others similar. With so many wines entered, I can’t really fathom those huge gaps…

  2. winemakers must hold onto credibility and not try to ape the ‘winner’. trust yourself. if you want to make a full red or a lighter, or accessible – whatever style, trust yourself. Panels – if indeed it is a panel – are losing credibility. They condition their tasting to what is expected, and they taste to avoid any standard deviation whatsoever. in this way middle of the range stuff ‘wins’. but the winemaker loses if he/she changes his style so as to ‘win’ as a myriad of decisions would have gone into what he/she has produced. Trust yourself.

  3. In response to Carel first, and then Kwispedoor. The reason there weren’t any spectacular “Port” results is that there weren’t many entries, and none were deemed good enough for a gold (and therefore no possible trophy). It’s hard to fault the judges if the line-up on the tasting bench is small and not particularly inspiring.

    As for the apparent scoring gap on red blends – that’s a result of the methodology. There were only two wines above 85 and they both won gold, so they left the primary panel with a score of at least 90. At the trophy judging they get their final score, which is an average of all the scores of all the judges, which is how they both landed up at 94

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here