Platter’s 2012 – highly recommended

November 9, 2011
by Christian
in Opinion & Analysis
with 5 Comments

“Must try harder.”

There were 140 wines put forward for 5 Stars in Platter’s 2012 of which 45 were endorsed. In what must be something of a record, I nominated 13 wines, none of which my colleagues thought were worthy of the guide’s ultimate accolade. These were:

De Grendel Koetshuis Sauvignon Blanc 2011
De Grendel Viognier 2011
Ernie Els CWG Auction Reserve 2009
Hermit on the Hill White Knight 2009
Kanonkop Pinotage 2009
Mulderbosch Barrel Fermented Chardonnay 2009
Mulderbosch Faithful Hound 2009
Remhoogte Honeybuch Chenin Blanc 2010
Scali Blanc 2009
Scali Syrah 2008
Spioenkop ‘1900’ Pinotage 2010
Stellenzicht Semillon Reserve 2009
Teddy Hall Hercùles van Loon Cabernet Sauvignon 2008

Tagged ,

Share this post

5 Comments

  1. BobbyNovember 16, 2011 at 5:08 pmReply

    Hi Christian
    I remember reading that for the first time this year, those wines put forward for the 5 star blind tasting could have their scores knocked down below 4.5 stars. Did this eventually happen? How many were knocked down and how far down did they go? If there is distribution by each half-star rating of the final 140 wines that would be very interesting

  2. Greg de BruynNovember 16, 2011 at 12:43 pmReply

    Let’s face it: the whole system of applying numeric values to an aesthetic subject is contentious, but in the absence of a better alternative…..
    I feel really sorry for these entrants at the 5-star event, especially when pursuasive rhetoric is delivered in stage whispers. Having achieved a 7/12 hit rate (& Superquaffer), I could gloat, but I think Team Platter should think-tank the procedure before next season.

  3. ChristianNovember 10, 2011 at 7:04 amReplyAuthor

    Hi Tim, If we agree that blind vs. sighted tastings each have their strengths and weaknesses and one is not an inherently better methodology than the other, it does seem peculiar that so much of the Platter process should be “sighted” only for the 5 Star wines to be decided “blind”. Much deliberation by the individual taster whether or not to nominate a wine and then its ultimate fate determined by a quick swirl, sniff and spit. On the day of the 5 Star tasting, Scali Blanc was subject to so much derogatory discussion about its perceived shortcomings by my colleagues that I could not help being swayed. The wine has high volatile acidity which I think is a point of interest rather than an outright fault. As for the Teddy Hall Cab, I goofed. We won’t talk about your disinclination to taste the Pinotage nominees.

  4. Tim JamesNovember 9, 2011 at 6:49 pmReply

    Interestingly, Christian, it’s not only your colleagues who disagreed with your nominations, so did you in a few cases. There were two of these wines you nominated which you also voted against (I happen to have seen the voting record): the Teddy Hall and the Scali Blanc. Two of your nominations you did vote for – the others were tasted by the panel you weren’t on.

    Whether this is because you changed your mind or, as I suspect, because of the usual element of roulette in a big line-up tasting, I don’t know. Which do you think?

  5. HarryNovember 9, 2011 at 10:21 amReply

    I’m sorry Christiaan, but that opening paragraph made me giggle. 

    Kick-ass wines nonetheless (well, the ones I have tasted, anyway.)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

SHOP ONLINE
winemag-storm
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING
HOT AND HAPPENING
AEC v1.0.4
  • No upcoming events
AEC v1.0.4
ADVERTISING
newlstter2 Get the biggest stories of the past fortnight sent directly to your inbox. subscribe
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
ADVERTISING
BE SAFE

Wine magazine was published from October 1993 until September 2011 & now lives on in digital form as Winemag.co.za. We cover everything to do with SA fine wine.

XSLT Plugin by Leo Jiang