Home // News

The Laurium Capital Signature Red Blend Report 2016

By , 27 July 2016



New logoIn conjunction with Laurium Capital, an asset management firm, winemag.co.za is pleased to present the inaugural Signature Red Blend Report featuring wines distinctive of their South African producers. 63 entries from 46 producers were received and these were tasted blind (labels out of sight) by the three-person panel, scoring done according to the 100-point quality scale.

Wines to rate 90 points or higher were as follows:

Joostenberg Bakermat 2014
Newton Johnson Family Vineyards Granum 2014

Solms-Delta Hiervandaan 2014

Eikendal Charisma 2014
Ernie Els Proprietor’s Blend 2014
Guardian Peak Summit 2014
Ken Forrester The Gypsy 2012
KWV The Mentors Canvas 2014
Leipzig Master Blend 2015
Nederburg Ingenuity Spanish Blend 2012
Opstal Carl Everson Cape Blend 2014
Orange River Cellars Lyra Vega 2013
Rust en Vrede Estate 2013

KWV Cathedral Cellar Triptych 2013
Romond Vineyards Rebus Cape Cuvée 2011
Zonnebloem Shiraz Mouvèdre Viognier 2014

To read the report in full, download the following: Laurium Capital Signature Red Blend Report 2016

To view a photo album of the awards function, CLICK HERE.

There will be public tastings of the top performing wines. To buy tickets for the Cape Town event on 17 August, CLICK HERE. To buy tickets for the Johannesburg event on 18 August, CLICK HERE.

To find out more about Laurium Capital, CLICK HERE.


12 comment(s)

Please read our Comments Policy here.

    Barend B | 29 July 2016

    glad to see Nico is getting more recognition for his style of wine making with Charisma. A very special wine

    Donald Ackerman | 29 July 2016

    Well done to the panel of evaluators. According to my interpretation a wine critic, while acting with all due courtesy to all stakeholders involved, must, judge any particular wine with commitment and courage and exercise its functions impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.

    Christian, we all know that a taster’s palate varies and sometimes quite considerably so, depending on various factors i.e. just before one fell ill of just after illness, your mood, your biases, the time of the day etc. Wouldn’t it be better if a wine critic rate a particular wine on the basis of a probable range as opposed to an exact definitive figure i.e. 90-93 as opposed to 91 for the purpose of valuation of a wine for general consumption by me and/or everyone else? [Similar to the evaluations done in respect of the Bordeaux en Primeur evaluations?] This will furthermore, accord with a star rating system as well.

    According to me and I may very well be wrong, the final point a wine is awarded in a wine competition is in any event the average of a range of scores of the judges of that specific category?

    For me, it just makes better sense to give a score in a probable range as opposed to any definitive score to enlighten me, or us, the public with regard to the quality of a specific wine. Your thoughts?

    Then lastly, Tim, I always understood a score of 87 or 88 to be pretty damn good and certainly not “rather dismal”. Using a five star rating system of zero to five stars to rate wines, where one star is “acceptable”, two is quite good, three is recommended, four is highly recommended and five is, well I suppose just superlative. As a result a score of 87 or 88 equals four stars, which is highly recommended. Thus, your comment that a score of 87 or 88 is “rather dismal” simply means that 90% plus of all Platter wines is “rather dismal”. Can that be correct?

    Reg Ferreira Snr | 28 July 2016

    Newton Johnson Granum an absolute brilliant wine.

    Tom | 28 July 2016

    I would really hope an industry figure like Tim James would know the answer to his own question here, as laid out by CE.

    Hennie Taljaard | 28 July 2016

    …and who blends Pinotage with Merlot..?! Ag nee man, get some structure for heaven’s sake! and a lesson in Cape wine heritage; the quintessential Cape blend is Cab/Shiraz/Cinsaut!

      Christian | 28 July 2016

      Hi Hennie, While Alto Rouge might have originally been Cab/Shiraz/Cinsaut, my research to date suggests that the Zonnebloem Cabs and Chateau Libertas of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were real hodgepodges. Why be rule-bound?

    Hennie Taljaard | 28 July 2016

    confusing mix of producers, confusing scores..not sure what to make of this.

    Tim James | 28 July 2016

    Agreed about NJ and Granum. Some of us also rather like David & Nadia Elpidios, two vintages of which here scored rather dismal 87 and 88 respectively. Christian gave them 92 points on previous occasions. Which ratings do you think winelovers should go by, Christian?

      Christian | 28 July 2016

      Hi Tim, As it so happens, I was again quite partial to both vintages of Elpidios but this was a panel tasting, the rating of any particular wine arrived at after discussion with each member of the panel taking joint responsibility and the feeling regarding the Sadie’s wines was they were particularly light. In addition, we were tasting blind which removes the persuasive powers of David and Nadia themselves from the equation. I would suggest that wine lovers take into account the different contexts in which scores are generated and draw their own conclusions.

        Grant Dodd | 1 August 2016

        A wine always tastes better in the company of the winemaker. So much better that one of the bigger companies in Aust doesn’t send out samples of their top wines anymore, instead preferring that one of their team is present to ‘explain’ the wines.

        You tend to get lower scores in blind tastings, but honest ones nonetheless.

    Kevin R | 27 July 2016

    Newton Johnson just keep proving that they are a First Growth in RSA terms. Need to stock up on more!

Leave a Reply

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

Like our content?

Show your support.