Editorial: Revisiting the blind tasting era in SA fine wine
By Christian Eedes, 7 May 2025
-
Share:
7
Back in the 2000s, when old media (i.e. ink on paper) was in its pomp and the fine wine sector of the South African fine wine industry was trying to find its way, if, as a producer, you wanted your wine to be taken seriously, you had to submit it to the rigour of a blind tasting.
No name, no label, no reputation to prop it up – just the wine, stripped of context and left to speak for itself. That was the great leveller, the crucible in which pretenders were found out and those that were the real deal emerged.
These days, though, many of South Africa’s most acclaimed producers – particularly in the rarefied air of top-end Chenin Blanc and Syrah – no longer feel compelled to play that game. And why would they? They already dominate the opinion polls, their reputations hyped constantly by critics, international and national.
But it raises the question: Are we letting the elites coast?
It’s not necessarily about integrity – no one doubts the commitment of, say, Chris Alheit or David and Nadia Sadie to their craft when it comes to Chenin; or Reenen Borman when it comes to Syrah. Their wines have become benchmarks precisely because of the obsession to detail, lavished from vineyard to bottle.
But if these wines are now assessed sighted, with the name on the bottle and all its brand allure in full view, how do we guard against unconscious bias? Even the most fastidious critic is human. The whisper of a name like “Magnetic North” or “Epilogue” carries with it an aura that’s hard to entirely block out.
There’s a case to be made, of course, that these producers have earned the benefit of the doubt. Reputation, after all, is not an accident – it’s forged over years, through consistent quality, often in the face of adverse conditions and stubborn scepticism.
South Africa’s top producers have done more than just make good wine; they’ve raised the bar for everyone. Alheit’s Cartology helped rehabilitate what role old-vine Chenin could play in a top-end blend. Sadie made single-vineyard Chenin not only viable but aspirational – Skurfberg, Mev. Kirsten. Mullineux, Rall, Van Loggerenberg – each in their way has pushed the envelope, and their success has forced the big guys to lift their game.
And yet, as soon as the tasting is sighted, most of the producers that score big still come from the usual suspects – small, hands-on outfits with a penchant for old vines and minimal intervention (this website guilty as charged).
I’m not sure how to feel about this. Do we see the gap between boutique brilliance and big-brand adequacy narrowing? Top-tier Chenin from legacy producers like Nederburg, Spier, or Kleine Zalze perform spectacularly well in blind tastings. But there is still the assumption that small equals superior. There seems an inherent reluctance among both trade and punters to let the best of big match the pinnacle of boutique…
Which brings us back to the original point: If we no longer demand blind tasting from the top guns, what happens to impartiality? Should the gatekeepers of critical acclaim be more militant about it?
Maybe. But maybe not. The landscape has changed. It could be argued that the producers at the top are there not because of blind tasting, but because they’ve built reputations that endure even outside it. And with the playing field tightening, with big players stepping up and new names emerging all the time, resting on laurels isn’t really an option – even for the elite.
Moreover, sighted tasting demands more rigour, not less. Transparency around process, critical self-awareness, and a willingness to call out even the revered when they falter – these are essential if credibility is to be maintained. SA wine needs champions, yes, but it needs honest ones.
Chenin Blanc and Syrah, more than any other varieties, has been the launching pad for South Africa’s wine renaissance. It’s appropriate, then, that the debate about fairness, rigour, and recognition finds its sharpest focus around these two varieties. Whether blind or sighted, what matters most is that we don’t forget what got us here in the first place: a relentless pursuit of quality, and a refusal to settle for anything less.
-
Share:
Gavin Brimacombe | 7 May 2025
As a pre-qualifier to my comments below, we are are a small producer in Wellington.
A thought: Why do these tastings rely on a producer to submit (and in most cases pay to submit)? What if a credible independent critic/panel, purchased the wines on the open market, masked the branding, and assessed these on a blind basis? I understand there is a cost to doing so, but this is surely modest in the context of the value of a judgement based on a true evaluation of what is in the bottle/glass?
Further, would the independent critic/panel then be sufficiently independent to accept the commercial consequences of a poor assessment of a high value brand wine?
Erwin Lingenfelder | 7 May 2025
Reputation carries risk. In my profession I have seen many reputations
crash and burn. Why will it be different in the pursuit which we love?
Christian Eedes | 7 May 2025
For the record, Winemag’s tasting approach is as follows: day-to-day reviews by Christian Eedes are conducted sighted and designated as “CE’s rating,” while our category reports involve blind panel tastings, with labels out of sight.
Producers may submit wines for sighted review by Eedes at no cost, though publication is not guaranteed. Alternatively, they can opt for blind panel assessment – where their wine is judged alongside its peers as part of a category tasting. This involves an entry fee of R1,395 per wine.
Michael Fridjhon | 7 May 2025
I cannot pretend to be impartial when it comes to the blind tasting debate. Between Trophy Wine Show and Wine Wizard I have come down firmly on the side of labels-out-of-sight.
While it’s easy to understand why players with reputation may feel cautious about putting their wines into blind tasting space, many still do: they have to trust the judges, and they also know it’s the most honest feedback they will ever get.
Consumers who shop on the strength of sighted reviews/reports have only themselves to blame if they over-pay for their vinous pleasures: they have surrendered aesthetic control to the marketers and to their handmaidens – the critics who publish sighted scores as if these offer some insight into the intrinsic merits of a wine.
At the Wine Judging Academy we used to run a test where the students were served several samples while the labels were (more or less) evident. They were then served the same wines, (ie the same fluid from the identical bottle), blind. It should come as no surprise that wines poured from well-branded bottles scored higher – irrespective of what fluid had been put into the bottle.
Greg Sherwood MW | 7 May 2025
Worth noting that the phenomenon you described above applies to all global power brands, not just in SA. Few wineries ever submit for blind assessment once they have bagged a certain amount of critical acclaim. Nothing to gain, everything to lose. Way of the world… and the wine business!
Jos | 7 May 2025
As long as they are selling out vintage after vintage there is no incentive to participate. The upside is non-existent and the downside, while probably not that much, is still potentially material.
Also, blind tastings has it’s own issues, especially when doing a host of wines in a setting with palate fatigue potentially setting in.
In an ideal world you would have multiple samples per wine than you can do multiple blind tasting over a few days to truly get the best sense of each wine, but that simple isn’t realistic. It is what it is.
Kwispedoor | 7 May 2025
If you know what you’re tasting, it’s impossible to be entirely impartial. Some tasters can manage to get closer to impartiality, but it’s simply impossible to get all the way there. It really is a pity that we all have to do our own blind tastings nowadays to compare the top wines with others, because one obviously can’t exactly do that every day. The old blind tastings in the printed Wine Magazine were always fascinating. And very much missed.
I have some understanding for why the top wines (especially the really scarce and expensive ones) are not submitted. However, most of them are where they are for good reason and I don’t think the odd blind tasting will so easily do real reputational harm. What it will probably do, is put the spotlight on their relative value. Something that consumers will all enjoy seeing.