Michael Fridjhon: The Tim Atkin Special Report and the question of independence
By Michael Fridjhon, 10 June 2026
-
Share:
55
The news, announced recently by Wines of South Africa (WOSA) to its members, that henceforth producers would have to pay to have their wines rated by Tim Atkin MW for his annual South Africa report, has unsurprisingly elicited a certain amount of outrage (see, for instance, here). Atkin has been reviewing Cape wines for his report since 2013.
In clarifying that producers would have to contribute directly to the costs of their inclusion in future reports, WOSA has made it clear that over the years it has paid a substantial share of his travel and accommodation overheads. In other words, South African producers, through their export body, have borne the costs of generating the content for the report. This means that by their paying the expenses incurred in producing what goes into the report, the revenues which flow to Atkin (from the sale of the report, from the sale of stickers, and from hosting the tastings) are largely profit.
The report is a thorough document and sells in digital format for GBP 20. The 2025 edition runs to over 300 pages. 2,000 wines from 397 producers are reviewed. Atkin comments on the Cape wine scene, delivers a classification of the best 325 producers, adds a list of best restaurants, and much else besides. For those who are interested in South African wine and willing to consider his scores as a reliable guideline, the purchase price is not unreasonable.
However, there’s no evidence that the organisation which has picked up a substantial chunk of the costs in order to promote South African wine and some South African wineries via the text, has properly interrogated the value of its investment. How many copies are purchased every year, and in which countries? The location of the buyers is very important. WOSA’s brief has always been the promotion and sale of Cape wine abroad. That South African wineries and their local distributors might purchase a copy is good business for Atkin, but it’s irrelevant from the perspective of WOSA’s mandated responsibility. The mere fact that over the years the organisation has invested several million Rands of the budget destined for raising the profile of South African wine abroad without any attempt to quantify what it has obtained in exchange is deeply worrying. Now that we know as much, this cannot be ignored: WOSA’s directors have a fiduciary responsibility and the mere fact that they have allowed this to happen should be of real concern to the exporters whose levy payments may have been squandered. (We don’t know for certain because as of now no one has been able to report on the size, location and quality of the international audience.)
So much then for the governance failings at WOSA, but what now about the proposed User Pays arrangement that has really brought the whole sorry deal into the limelight? I cannot help thinking that the controversy around WOSA asking its members to foot the bill for their reviews from now on is nothing other than a long overdue epiphany. What we are witnessing is the anguish of the lover who was happy to accept the gifts and the high life as long as the relationship looked like a romance, but suddenly baulks when the blunt details of the trade-off are reduced to a contract. As long as WOSA (using funds collected from the producers) offered a fig-leaf for the transaction so that it didn’t look as if the wineries were paying directly for their reviews, the arrangement seemed perfectly acceptable. Now the mercenary nature of the transaction is in plain sight there’s a whole lot of uncomfortable squirming.
There are things which I have never liked about the report, and the business model. However, I avoided commenting about them (or at least in much detail) because since we are perceived to be competitors in the same space it would seem inappropriate coming from me. My concerns relate primarily to the sighted tastings (confirmation bias undermines any claim to objectivity), to the score inflation which now sees 212 wines collecting 95 points or more, and the cynicism with which Atkin has wielded his allocation of 100 point scores. However, from the moment I discovered that WOSA’s contributions to his travel and accommodation were not a once-off cost as they might have been for other influential writers, but were instead an ongoing subsidy, it became clear that the report lacked the independence essential for its credibility.
South African wine is not – and has not been for sometime – an object for him to review. It’s an employer which pays a large chunk of his expenses. If the reports don’t get brighter, shinier, glossier – and with more and more high-scoring wines appearing every year – the deal is at risk. He is a contractor and WOSA is the client. We all know how the dynamic in relationships like this plays out. All that has changed is that with the removal of the veil the crass nature of the engagement is there for all to see. What once appeared to be editorial is now plainly advertorial and has been devalued accordingly.
What should wineries do, confronted now with a suite of options (R2000 for a premium one-on-one, R1000 for a less exclusive encounter, R100 to present a couple of discovery bottles en masse)? They can elect to withdraw, to pay nothing and see what happens. If enough of the really influential players simply walk away from the Ponzi scheme, it must collapse: WOSA cannot step in for some but not for others. Alternatively wineries can grumble but stay on board “for the good of the industry”. This is Eben Sadie’s position: he admits that he feels deeply uncomfortable about any arrangement where the critic is indebted to those upon whom he sits in judgement. But he has also said that if the proposed set-up is a once-off solution while Atkin revises his funding model, it’s better than an abrupt end to the report. If his view prevails and only a few producers bail, the leaky barge can stay above the water line for another year.
What cannot change now is what cannot be unseen, that User Pays is a euphemism for an arrangement which is venal in nature, transactional in its execution, and irretrievably compromised. If the wines were tasted blind, the payment wouldn’t matter – but they’re not. If producers bought medal stickers for less-than-impressive scores, it might matter less. But it is clear now, in a way which is fundamentally different, that as an industry we are paying in hard currency and getting Zim dollars in exchange.
- Michael Fridjhon has over thirty-five years’ experience in the liquor industry. He is the founder of Winewizard.co.za and holds various positions including Visiting Professor of Wine Business at the University of Cape Town; founder and director of WineX – the largest consumer wine show in the Southern Hemisphere and chairman of The Trophy Wine Show.
Editor’s Note (added 10 June 2026 at 17:00): The purpose of publishing Michael Fridjhon’s article was not to question Tim Atkin’s contribution to South African wine, which has been substantial and widely acknowledged. Rather, it was to examine the implications of a funding model whose full extent has only recently become apparent to the industry. We believe questions of transparency, governance and editorial independence are legitimate subjects for debate. We therefore welcome responses from WOSA, Tim Atkin and producers who hold differing views.
-
Share:
Related articles
Opinion & Analysis
Michael Fridjhon: Bordeaux’s bubble bursts – and lessons for Cape wine
13 May 2026
An interesting corollary of the general decline in wine sales worldwide has been the collapse of the wine investment market. This is not something immediately evident to the average South...
15
Opinion & Analysis
Michael Fridjhon: When the media dies, fine wine becomes just another lab-grown luxury
15 April 2026
We are one of the world’s top ten wine-producing nations. We have what is arguably the most creative and exciting wine industry on the planet – and yet we cannot...
6
Opinion & Analysis
Michael Fridjhon: The Trophy Wine Show – born of its time, built by many
18 March 2026
The twenty fifth anniversary of the Trophy Wine Show provides an opportunity to marvel at the distance our winemakers have traversed in the blink of an eye: a quarter of...
Tabbers | 10 June 2026
I think it’s long past exposure over the arrangement. Unfortunately, the wine trade exists in one of the greatest echo chambers that’s ever existed.
Speaking as someone who’s lived in both countries and worked within the wine trade in both, I can assure readers that 99.9% of people in the UK have never heard of Atkins. Just as it is in South Africa. The 0.1% who have work in wine. Of course, this is entirely anecdotal, but the only people who rejoice whenever his report comes out are those who’ve been rated highest within it, along with their agents abroad and a handful of aficionados at home.
Now, maybe their agents getting excited helps to promote South African wine abroad, maybe it doesn’t, but as is typical of all medal competitions (because that’s really what the Atkins report is) the consumer is clueless. As far as they’re concerned if a wine has a sticker, it must be good. The wine trade is informed enough to know which ‘sticker’ is meaningful and which are not, the consumer isn’t.
The Atkins competition may survive but it will just become another competition that’s the same as all the others. However, as Michael has pointed out, one in which one man’s opinion is what decides the fortunes of its entrants. And this gets my goat.
If WOSA is to continue to be involved in a ‘South African Report’, why does it not use the miriad of talent in the SA wine industry to create one. Then use the considerable entertainment budget they’ve wasted to distribute it for free to the global trade. It would have far greater reach and be able to establish its value for producers.
Sure, it may not have Atkins name on it, but it would be rigorous and credible. Which exposes another echo chamber within the SA wine trade, the perceived mystical power of those with MW after their name. Rather than promote people who seem perfectly capable of self promotion, why not promote the whole South African wine industry along with its considerable talent?
James | 10 June 2026
When did Tim Atkin become the pariah? This is the second article within a few weeks (Tim James’ piece too) that has poked at how he conducts his business.
Speaking as someone who has come to fall in love with wine through Tim’s reports (first edition 2019), I can can tell you his insights and passion for the SA fine wine industry has seen most of my wine loving friends elevate their wine experiences and become more engaged with the topic (and put our wallets under enormnous strain).
He gives out no less 95+ scores than Winemag (~190 in 2025 to Tim’s 212 and to Platter’s ~310).
Tim and Winemag (generally speaking) taste and rate our best wines. To think there are between 200 to 300 single bottles a year out of thousands (platters tastes 8000 I think?). Worst case you’re looking at a ratio of 3.75% of our wines being worthy of world class status – hardly alarming.
The wine industry keeps spewing we’re in the golden ages of our wine years and the quailty never better – yet we seemingly are to believe that a ratio of 3.75% is too high.
When you study Tim’s report – who here can argue with his top produce list (paid or not) or even his 95+ wines? Sure, we won’t all agree but on the whole his scores will be not too far off most other critics.
Why do we hate so much? It is ego? Jealousy? It would be so good if producers can quantify the demand in sales post Tim’s report (or not). It would also be good to hear from the likes of Meerlust, who only recently rejoined Tim’s report after a period on the outside. Why did they choose to come in and what were the results?
My gut is that Tim’s report has been great for those who choose to participate – even at the sub 95 point level and I would like to think has boosted the status of our wine overseas and here locally.
Long may his reports continue.
Tim Atkin | 10 June 2026
I don’t usually bother to read, or comment, on articles on Wine Mag. But I would like to make a few, brief points about the ad hominem attacks that have appeared about me and my report in recent weeks.
1. Both Michael Fridjhon and Wine Mag are my competitors in a sense. What appears here is motivated by a number of things, jealousy being one of them, but also money and lack of influence. It’s disappointing that fellow wine writers see the need to attack someone who has done a good deal for South Africa. I won’t stoop to attacking them back.
2. Almost all journalists who visit South Africa do so on WOSA’s dime. How many people were invited to Cape Wine? Very few, if any, pay their own way. What changed this year is that my trips have become user pays. This was a decision taken by the WOSA board. This is how Wines of Chile and Wines of Argentina also work. None of this money, in any of the countries, goes to me. It just funds my travel. I spend seven weeks a year in the Cape. No one pays for my time or expertise. It is disingenuous to state that people are “paying” to be reviewed. People are not even required to buy my report. I am not “indebted” to anyone. I am, and have always been, an independent journalist.
3. People who wish to enter the competitions runs by Wine Mag or, indeed, Michael’s “Trophy” Wine Show, pay to be judged. No one pays me. Nor have I ever consulted for South African wineries, as Michael has. I’ll leave readers to decide if this is a conflict of interest.
4. I spend six weeks a year in the Cape visiting wineries and a further week, at my own expense, promoting my report. No other journalist works a hard as I do. Michael hasn’t even been to half of the wineries I go to see every year. It makes no sense to question my work ethic or professionalism or tasting ability. Anyone who wants to taste the wines I rate can attend one of the 95+ point events I run in South Africa and the UK.
5. Talk to most Cape producers and I think that they would acknowledge that I have done a lot to put South Africa on the fine wine map. The two trips come at a modest cost to the industry.
6. One day, I will stop writing my report. It is a document that has considerable influence around the world. I’ll be sad when I stop. But I will say this. I never have to deal with articles like Michael’s and Tim James’s in Spain, Chile or Argentina, the other three countries I write about. In South Africa, it’s different. There some people attack me for doing a good job. It’s all rather sad. And, frankly pathetic.
Years ago, when Michael and Neil Pendock started attacking me for their own ends, I was chatting to Eben Sadie. His response was interesting. “Where are their reports?”
Jamie Johnson | 10 June 2026
Totally agree. Thanks for the work you do – many of us do appreciate the time and effort you put into your reports. It feels like WineMag is running out of valuable content to post for readers and is resorting more to provocative articles like this that add little value. Certainly making me consider my future subscription.
The whole conversation of tasting wines blind is also getting long in the tooth – maybe if consumers drank all their wines blind it would make sense. On one hand the storytelling and emotional side is important and then on the other everything should be tasted blind and with no references.
I love tasting the latest releases with the winemakers and hearing their stories about the vintage and then remembering this moment a few years down the road when I pull those same bottles from the cellar to enjoy at home. It’s a huge part of the enjoyment factor for me and will always have more of an emotional impact than tasting a wine blind ever would.
Mark Davids | 10 June 2026
I wouldn’t worry about it. MF is an asshole and CE is a daddy’s boy whose opinion means nothing. Ive met all 3 of you briefly and id far rather have dinner with TA.
Gareth I | 15 June 2026
CE’s opinion doesn’t matter? Most readers of this site would disagree. Not sure why you felt it necessary to take a swipe at him. He’s the only one involved in this who conducts himself with decorum
Josua | 10 June 2026
This article firmly steps past the ‘good faith criticism’ line into saltiness. No method of tasting is perfect and, in a world where monetary considerations exist, practicality will always supersede ideal outcomes.
That said, while there are perfectly valid criticisms of TA’s report, some hidden among the salt in this article, it will be very hard to argue that he hasn’t been a net positive for our wine industry.
Lastly, this obsession among some with blind tasting is a bit baffling to me. For wine competitions, it has its merits, but for a retail-facing report? Maybe Michael Fridjhon enjoys his wine blind at home, but I, like everyone else, drink my wine sighted. So, while I care a lot about quality, I also care about the stories behind the wine. When I read a report on wine, I don’t mind if those factors come into play to a degree.
James | 10 June 2026
I am glad I am not the only one baffled by this obsession with blind tasting. It only serves to be a brag point for those qualified to be able to accuretly assess wine tasted blind and even then, there are completely bizarre scores. Nederburg Shiraz scoring 98 points and winning an entire competition, Alheits entire range and not a single 95+, the list can go on.
For the majority of wine consumers (and those we hope to attract), the story, the setting, the people, are all contributing factors to the enjoyment of wine and score – and I see no problem with that.
The ‘experts’ need to get off their high horse and start to see that most wine consumers – even fine wine consumers – can about the whole picture and not blind tastings.
DION VENTER | 11 June 2026
That Nederburg Shiraz was a shocker.
Matt | 11 June 2026
Did you blind taste it Dion? Or did you let your prejudices and preconceived ideas guide your tasting?
Josua | 12 June 2026
If the supposed gold standard blind tasting competition gives it 98 points, how can people not have preconceived ideas and expectations?
I too drank that wine, and it was a great value braai wine, not a wine that rivals the best Syrah’s in the world – which a wine that gets 98 points should.
Milly | 15 June 2026
Would it drain their business model if they made the reports and decanter accessible to people who actually buy the wines just by merely pairing it as a free gift particular places (online wine club membership) Whether it’s when buying 24 cases per annum or 48 case per annum then you qualify for a free gift as a valuable client. I mean the reports or books on south African wine and destination. Don’t you think that kind of knowledge can go a long way in empowering the consumer with more options without having to go reserved spaces?
Louis | 10 June 2026
As a foreigner, I have to admit that Tim Atkin’s report played a major role in my discovery of South African fine wine. Aside from the Platter’s Guide, I struggle to think of another publication that provides such a comprehensive and accessible annual overview of the Cape wine industry. For many international wine lovers, it has become an essential reference.
Much of the world’s wine criticism is conducted through sighted tastings rather than blind assessments, which is different from the format of a competition. Of course, regular readers are familiar with Tim’s preferences: certain producers he champions, stylistic tendencies he favours, and what many would regard as relatively generous scoring. But overall, it is difficult to argue that he has not put the spotlight on wines and producers of genuine quality.
The introduction of a user-pay model is unfortunate because it inevitably raises questions about perception and independence. At the same time, producing a report of this scale comes at a cost, and those costs have to be covered somehow. I suspect that report sales alone are unlikely to fund the amount of travel, tasting and research required.
Perhaps the bigger issue is that South African wine still lacks the international profile and commercial support enjoyed by some competing wine regions. Until the industry attracts greater global attention and investment, funding initiatives like this will remain challenging. Whatever one thinks of the new model, it would be a loss for South African wine if one of its most influential international advocates were to disappear altogether.
Tim Atkin | 10 June 2026
Thank you, Louis and Josua, for your comments. Just to reiterate, I am not being paid anything. WOSA, who organise the trips, has changed the way that they are funded. Attendance at Prowein or Wine Paris, are user pays too, I understand.
Alan Glass | 10 June 2026
I subscribe to Platters and buy Tim Atkin’s SA report every year, and plan to continue to do so for as long as they are published and I find them useful.
The content in Tim’s report, particularly the commentary against the 90+ scored wines, are well written and assist me greatly in choosing what estates to visit and what wine to taste and buy.
Some competitors appear to be throwing their toys out of the pram.
Allister | 10 June 2026
As a very active participant in the industry, and someone who hasn’t even met Tim, I think this opinion piece is lacking substance and impartiality. Well refuted Tim. Carry on!
Megan van der Merwe | 10 June 2026
Tim, what I’ve always admired is that your contribution to South African wine has never been limited to scores and reviews. You have consistently engaged with the bigger picture — the people, the stories, the culture, the evolution of our industry and the conversations that shape its future.
I am incredibly grateful for the encouragement, belief and support you have shown not only to me, but to so many producers across South Africa. You have helped shine a light on our wines and our industry on a global stage, often long before others recognised the potential that was here.
While there may be differing views on funding models, I think it’s important to acknowledge the enormous contribution you have made to South African wine over more than a decade. Few people have invested as much time, energy and passion into understanding, promoting and celebrating what makes this industry so special.
And let’s not forget what you have done for the story of provenance in South Africa. At a time when place, identity and authenticity matter more than ever, you have consistently helped communicate the unique character of our regions, vineyards and wines to an international audience.
I am a huge fan of what you do and how you do it.
So my message to you is simple: Keep following your own path with honesty and conviction. If others choose not to walk beside you, that is their choice. – A wise man once taught me that.
Thank you for everything you continue to do for South African wine. I salute you.
Martin Prinsloo | 10 June 2026
Great work Tim!
Tim James | 10 June 2026
A few points. Firstly, I don’t think Tim A is correct that these are “ad hominem attacks”. Right or wrong, the problems raised concern general, not personal, principles.
Secondly, it is evasive and disingenuous to say that the considerable amounts of money spent to fund him by Wosa (and it seems their equivalents in Argentina and Chile) do not go to him. The organisation pays moneys that he would have to otherwise pay himself, and their financial and/or administrative/organisational support allows him to make money from his sponsored activities. What’s the actual difference? Note that I am not saying this is necessarily wrong. I never have, though I have problems with the conflicts of interest involved in Tim’s making money directly out of the scores he gives – effectively, the higher the scores, the more money from stickers and perhaps from funding. And if your journalism depends on such things, pardon me, but how visibly “independent” are you, however full of integrity you might be. Independent of what?
And no-one is attacking Tim for doing a good job as he claims; they are questioning the business model employed in doing the job.
I suppose Tim’s being supported by Wosa is the same as Michael Fridjhon being supported by Investec and Winemag being supported by Prescient (and Tim has similar sponsors in his public tastings, so is getting doubly supported). The real difference is that Wosa is funded by the producers who are now asked to reimburse them for their work for Tim. And Wosa, apparently, has had little idea other than thumbsucking whether or not Tim is delivering support for the whole SA wine industry to an extent commensurate with their support (I have heard they don’t even know how many of his reports are sold, or where). To me that is, arguably, what is closest to scandal in this whole slightly unsavoury business.
Ben Zur | 18 June 2026
Am I missing something? I found myself re-reading this piece: “I have problems with the conflicts of interest involved in Tim’s making money directly out of the scores he gives – effectively, the higher the scores, the more money from stickers and perhaps from funding.”
Help me understand? In genuinely confused by this.
Maybe I had too much nederberg Shiraz tonight.
Ryan Coetzee | 11 June 2026
At the risk of wading into troubled waters, I have what I hope is a constructive suggestion.
But first, let’s be clear about the problem. The problem is this: no critic or journalist has enough paying readers (or readers who pay enough) to do the work they do, especially if that work involves spending long periods abroad or tasting large numbers of wines. There is, in other words, a mismatch between demand and supply, which means unless there is outside money, the business (of being a critic or journalist) fails.
The other part of the problem is that the industry needs the critics and journos. They are relevant (if not always essential) to brand building and marketing. So it would be a pity if the lack of demand for their work meant they couldn’t do what they do. (Also worth noting that those of us who do pay for content would be bereft.)
That is why people look for funding in various other ways.
Getting third party “outsiders” like Prescient and Investec is helpful because they are not from the industry, but there are very few brands for which fine wine overlaps with their market.
Getting the industry to pay is a bit easier, because it has a stake in the output. The trouble, of course, is that the fact they have a stake is also a problem – it can create conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived – and both sorts are damaging, fairly or unfairly. It’s just how it is, and not just in the wine industry.
So if that’s the problem what might be the solution?
Well, the people most likely to pay the expenses of journalists and critics are the industry – because they have a stake. So why not create a fund to which industry players can contribute – but contribute anonymously? It could be administered by WOSA. That way, any critic or journo accessing those funds can’t be conflicted. In other words, it’s not the wines that need to be tasted blind; it’s the funding that needs to be blind!
Now I am sure there are practical challenges to overcome here (I can think of a few) but conceptually a solution that allowed critics and journos to be funded blind is the solution.
I would add that one complexity is who gets the funding. I am very happy for Tim’s trips to be funded – his reports are great and the effort he puts in is extraordinary. But I also wish Christian had access to more wines. I trust his judgement. Could the fund not support local critics in that way? The question is, which ones, and one would have to think about how to deal with that, but again, conceptually the solution lies in blind funding – unless or until the market of readers is big enough and rich enough to make it unnecessary.
Shoot me down if you think this is a bad idea, but I offer it constructively.
Ryan Coetzee | 11 June 2026
Come to think of it, consumers could also contribute to such a fund. For some of us it would be worth it to maintain and improve the range of content we want. WOSA itself could contribute. Plus who knows, perhaps we could persuade the WC government and some of the councils to make a contribution (no promises!). The wine industry is critically important to the WC – both directly and in so far as it generates tourism revenue.
Elizabeth | 11 June 2026
Michael who ? Tim i have no clue who this Michael is , thank u keep your report going please.
Jono | 15 June 2026
I’ve been reading the comments section for half an hour, and this is the first constructive comment I’ve seen. Thank you.
Here are just a few other problems that exacerbate the situation:
1. “Pirated” copies of Tim’s report get circulated every year – often by wine lovers who I know spend more on a single bottle of “Wednesday wine” than they would if they paid for Tim’s report. Which is theft of intellectual property, and worsens this situation.
2. Local wine consumers have a bizarre obsession with international critics; viewing them as the only source of valid critique. Which – rightly or wrongly – creates a vicious circle wherein local wine media swirl between being underfunded and underexposed (and perhaps under-appreciated as well)
3. The wine industry dramatically under-values it’s own intellectual property. I have had conversations with multiple MWs and CWMs who regularly have estates asking them to “drop in and taste through their wines, and share some insights”, with the assumption that this is being done for free. Some of our “most prestigious” local wine competitions refuse to pay their judges at all!
4. As a culture, we have allowed the value of the written word to drop through the floor. Convoluted business models, with financial smoke and mirrors, exist because no one is willing to pay what these things cost to produce. In the mining industry, when the price of the commodity drops below a sustainable level, the solutions are far more decisive.
Siobhan Thompson | 11 June 2026
Wines of South Africa (WOSA) notes the recent discussion regarding the funding model of the Tim Atkin MW South Africa Report and welcomes the opportunity to provide context and clarity on this matter.
Firstly, WOSA has never hidden the fact that certain operational, travel and accommodation expenses associated with Tim Atkin MW’s annual visits to South Africa have been supported by the industry. Historically, these costs were funded through industry levy funds and, more recently, through a user-pay model approved by the WOSA Board. This information has always been reflected in WOSA’s annual business plans and budgets, which are available to members and are subject to review and approval through our established governance processes.
It is important to emphasise that WOSA does not make decisions of this nature in isolation. Our programmes, budgets and strategic initiatives are reviewed and approved by a Board comprising representatives from across the South African wine industry. The evolution of the funding model was considered within this framework and reflects the industry’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that South African wine continues to receive meaningful international exposure.
For more than a decade, the Tim Atkin South Africa Report has played a significant role in raising the profile of South African wine on the global stage. It is one of the most comprehensive annual reports dedicated to any wine-producing country and has become an important reference point for international trade, media, importers, and consumers interested in South African wine.
As Tim Atkin himself has noted, he spends significant time in South Africa each year visiting producers, tasting wines, engaging with winemakers and subsequently promoting South African wine internationally and within South Africa, of recent. The report provides extensive commentary, producer classifications, regional insights and detailed tasting notes that help position South African wines within the global fine wine conversation. Many producers have credited the report with helping open doors in export markets and drawing attention to the quality, diversity and provenance of South African wine.
While there are differing views on the merits of various tasting methodologies and funding models, it is difficult to dispute the positive contribution the report has made in elevating the reputation of South African wine internationally. At a time when South Africa continues to compete for attention in an increasingly crowded global marketplace, international voices that champion our wines remain valuable.
It is also worth noting that participation in the report remains voluntary. The continued and significant participation of producers across the industry demonstrates that many wineries continue to see value in being included. The industry’s engagement speaks for itself.
Furthermore, a review of the public responses to recent commentary suggests that the majority of feedback from producers, trade members and wine consumers acknowledges the positive impact the report has had on South African wine. While healthy debate is both welcome and necessary, the overwhelming sentiment expressed by many stakeholders has been that Tim Atkin MW has made a meaningful contribution to showcasing South African wine internationally and highlighting the country’s premium and fine wine credentials.
WOSA respects the right of all stakeholders to question, debate and scrutinise industry initiatives. At the same time, it is important that discussions remain balanced and recognise the considerable benefits that have accrued to South African wine through sustained international advocacy and promotion.
Our focus remains unchanged: to promote Brand South Africa Wine globally, create opportunities for our producers, and continue building the reputation of South African wine as one of the world’s most exciting and dynamic wine countries.
Tim Atkin | 11 June 2026
Thanks for your comments,. Tim. There’s nothing more boring than exchanges between wine writers. They remind me of that Borges quote about “two bald men fighting over a comb”, so this will be my last comment on your and Michael’s articles.
On a personal note, I’d like to thank all the winemakers who have written to me in a private capacity complementing me on the work I do in South Africa and expressing their frustration and dismay at what has been published on this site. I have always prided myself on working hard and being independent, honest and, I hope, professional.
First, Tim, I can assure you that there is nothing “scandalous” or “unsavoury” about what you call this “business”, although you seem desperate to portray it as such. I’ve been writing about wine for 41 years, and nearly all wine trips are funded in some way by producers or generic bodies. As you know only too well, journalism doesn’t pay particularly well. I’d love to fund my own travel and accommodation, but that would not be economically viable. (Remember that researching and writing the report takes up three months of my year. I can assure you that it hasn’t made me wealthy.) WOSA’s board took this decision for reasons I understand and I had a choice: accept that decision or stop doing the report.
My one rule is that I never accept invitations from single producers, the staple of many influencers, because I believe that that is a conflict of interest. I have always relied on generic bodies. It also why I don’t consult to wineries or sell wine as a side hustle.
Your second point about “considerable amounts of money” needs clarification. WOSA (now helped by producers on the user pays business that is used in Chile and Argentina too) pay for two return premium economy tickets, my accommodation and a driver. (Last year, one ticket was paid for by the Swartland Revolution, where I spoke for free.) My understanding is that the total sum involved is less than the amount I pay to rent the venue for my Best of South Africa tasting for a single day in London, although the increased cost of flights may change that slightly in the future.
All of the tastings I hold, and indeed my report itself, help to promote South African wine as a category. To take only one example, the buyer from one of the Scandinavian monopolies attended my Best of South Africa tasting in the UK.
I would argue that this is a good use of WOSA’s time and resources, but you’re free to differ. WOSA knows exactly how many reports I sell and, indeed, the media value of my work. I have supplied both of these things to them. So what you’ve “heard” is incorrect.
Your third point about stickers made me laugh, and also shows that you haven’t done your research. The South African market is extremely competitive. Have a look at a few bottles. Most of the people who get high scores from me do not buy stickers from me, nor are they obliged to. These are often small volume wines. There are several businesses who sell way more stickers than I do. Indeed, it’s their raison d’être. Stickers are a very small part of what I earn from my SA report. As a journalist, you might like to wonder why. Maybe taste a few of the wines that have been selected by other tasters, competitions or businesses. Do they deserve these accolades?
Overall, I would argue (of course) that my report delivers “support” for the whole SA wine industry, as you put it, although I obviously like some wines more than others.
The debate about how journalism – and wine writing – is funded and works is a broader topic that I’d be more than happy to discuss with you over a good bottle some time.
Vernon | 11 June 2026
TA’s comment “I never have to deal with articles like Michael’s and Tim James’s in Spain, Chile or Argentina …” is perhaps a reflection on those societies where debate is less open & robust than it is in SA.
The real questions concern WOSA. Siobhan Thompson deploys masterly generalisations: “It is difficult to dispute the positive contribution the report has made … ” or ( my favourite) “a review of the public responses to recent commentary suggests …” One hopes this isn’t the best WOSA can do to evaluate the VFM of their financial support. WOSA needs to come clean about this rather than hiding behind “established governance procedures”.
Gerard de Villiers | 12 June 2026
The main reason I enter my wines for tastings to respected sources is to get positive ratings so that I can sell it easier. Tim Atkin is exactly such a source and his ratings are of the the first go-to’s for many tender boards, importers and buyers. If I enter a wine for a top competition just the courier cost invariably exceeds WOSA’s R1000, and the enty fee comes with a hefty exchange rate impact – R3500 courier and customs cost plus R4500 entry fee per wine for Syrah du Monde recently. Commercially it is a no brainer to get Tim’s rating, and it comes with added value that it is from a source that is ethical, respected and very professional. Please keep up the good work Tim.
Michael Fridjhon | 12 June 2026
Tim Atkin dredged up the much-used cliché of two bald men fighting over a comb to describe the kind of bickering of which this comments section is a perfect example – and then promptly snuck in through the back door in a surreptitious attempt to steal the apparently useless hairdressing item. For someone who wasn’t going to say much about my column, he has now said a good deal—very little of which adds to the substance of the discussion and nothing that addresses the key points in the article.
This is partly because—difficult as it may be for him to believe—the article was not about him. Its focus was the revelations about WOSA’s funding strategy and the governance failures at the organisation charged with promoting South African wine sales abroad. Where it did concern Atkin, it questioned the likelihood of complete impartiality in his notes and scores, given the methodology and the funding model. The Michelin inspector does not announce himself at the restaurant and then ask to be paid to eat the meal. That observation does not diminish the quality of the report or the considerable work that goes into producing it.
Many of those who have responded have chosen to debate Tim Atkin rather than the issues raised by the article. Those issues remain straightforward enough. Can a publication funded by those who stand to benefit from its scores be regarded as wholly independent? How was WOSA’s investment in the report evaluated? What metrics justified the expenditure? What evidence exists that it influenced buying behaviour or increased exports?
Siobhan Thompson’s extensive comment was remarkably short on answers to those questions, which only reinforces my concern that the merits or otherwise of this decade-long sponsorship were never subjected to rigorous evaluation.
The same applies to Atkin’s attempt to imply value in terms of South African wine exports. The news that someone from Sweden flew to London to attend one of his tastings may gladden the hearts of producers whose several million rand helped fund the report over the years, but anecdote is not evaluation. It does not demonstrate that the expenditure represented value for money, nor does it answer the questions raised in the article.
It is now for the industry to decide whether this remains an appropriate use of its resources. The report has a reputation. It ought no longer to depend on financial support from the very industry whose wines it purports to judge independently.
Gerhard | 16 June 2026
Michael, just to make sure all the metaphors don’t get mixed up here between barber shops and liquor stores: The Michelin star restaurant analogy is, unfortunately, not a valid one. Restaurants don’t pay an entry fee and send their food in for anonymous review by a panel of judges, who sits for a few days and tastes tens or hundreds of plates of food blindly. Or, in the inverse, the analogy would have been true if secret wine judges visited wine farms on their own volition, and paid for the wine tasting from the pocket of the competition sponsor.
In its essence, the Michelin process results in an annual review report (like Tim’s), not a podium (like your Investec Trophy Wine Show).
Since you activated the analogy, I wonder if we shouldn’t perhaps learn from Michelin on how to go about this business of rating and scoring in the wine world? Or to understand the difference between review reports and competitions, and where they fit in the ecosystem. I’m sure you have thought about these differences long and hard before, and that there are reasons why you prefer the blind competition and not the non-blind review report. But that still doesn’t mean that the one is less valid than the other, right? It just simply means that the one is your personal preference.
Keep up the good work!
Ashley Westaway | 18 June 2026
Morning Gerhard. In my opinion, you comments here have been the most useful, practical and balanced of all.
Mookesh Desai | 21 June 2026
Imagine Michelin having to do blind tastings…
Tim Atkin | 27 June 2026
Benoude katte maak benoude spronge
Marcelo Solá | 13 June 2026
All points raised here by Michael are spot-on and relevant. They also apply to how things are going on in Chile and Argentina. Ridiculously high scores resulting from non-blind tastings are being blatantly sold to wine producers and have become largely irrelevant to consumers.
Fergus Stewart | 13 June 2026
One of the things I admire most about the South African wine industry is the overwhelming attitude of its producers to work on the “rising tide lifts all boats” attitude and help each other. What a shame these petty, vindictive attacks seem to happy in the journalistic sphere. There is space in the playground for all of you. Time to stop the sniping about Tim A and Platters et al. I can assure you in the UK, a huge market for South African wines, Tim’s contributions are seen as overwhelmingly positive.
Vernon | 14 June 2026
Unquestioning positivity suits most of the wine industry, including UK wine merchants. Continually wooed by the unmissable, the exceptional, all those vintages of the decade and suchlike flimflam, consumers are entitled to question. And, dare I say it, wine critics are also entitled to question & challenge on behalf of the wine buying public.
Neither Michael’s or Tim James’s earlier article are “petty vindictive attacks”, unwelcome as they may be to those seeking to shift as much stock as possible on “a rising tide” of prices.
Martin | 14 June 2026
Wow read this , i think wosa must fund TA a lot more !!!
https://novanews.co.za/hermanustimes/american-trevor-deruise-in-agulhas-vineyards/
Alexander Steyn | 14 June 2026
Michael raises questions that needed raising, even if the messenger’s own conflicts of interest deserve acknowledgment — the Trophy Wine Show is hardly a shrine of disinterested criticism either.
That said, three things stand out for me:
First, there absolutely is a place for the Tim Atkin report. SA wine needs credible international voices. The problem isn’t the report’s existence — it’s the funding architecture that was allowed to quietly corrode its credibility. Fix the model, don’t kill the product.
Second, WoSA needs a genuine rethink. Not just of Atkin, but of what it’s for and who it serves. The fact that no one appears to have properly tracked how many copies are purchased, or in which countries, suggests an organisation that has confused activity for impact. That’s a governance failure, not just a PR problem.
Third — and this is the point that frustrates me most — the outrage directed at the Nederburg Shiraz scoring 98 at the Trophy Show tells you everything about what’s wrong with wine culture. That a wine from a large commercial producer can’t receive a high score without people questioning the integrity of the result is pure snobbery. Blind tasting exists precisely to strip away those prejudices. Nederburg has an extraordinary story: a historic brand, still crafting genuinely excellent wine from inside a global beer conglomerate, and doing it with pride. If it scores 98 blind, it scores 98. The wine doesn’t know who made it.
Wine’s relevance problem isn’t Tim Atkin. It’s the gatekeeping culture that decides certain wines aren’t allowed to be great.
Gareth I | 15 June 2026
Purely on the 98 point Nederburg Shiraz: I bought a bottle and tried it. Sighted, of course, but I really *wanted* it to be great. It wasn’t.
It was a decent bottle of wine but far, far off of 98 points. On no planet would that wine have been a 98-pointer.
There is just no two ways about it, the contents of the bottle tasted at the competition was not the same as the bottle I tasted.
And that itself raises further questions. When a wine is made in such quantities, homogeneity cannot be guaranteed across batches. So how can it then be rated as if it could?
If an ordinary retail bottle tastes nowhere near 98 points, then either the sample was unrepresentative or the scoring was absurd. Neither does the award any favours.
Josua | 15 June 2026
This has been my experience with a number of the 97/98 pointers from the ITWS. Nice wine, but not anywhere close to world class. And the batch variation excuse is not acceptable. As you mentioned, if drastic batch variation is a problem, then a wine should not be considered.
Michael Fridjhon | 15 June 2026
There’s very little that any competition (and any reviewer – so this includes the Platter Guide, Wine Mag, Decanter etc) can do about batch selection. At Trophy Wine Show we only judge a particular batch, the details of which are posted with the results on the show’s website. A producer can only obtain the number of stickers applicable to the award-winning batch. Beyond that it’s up to the buyers to check: if the wine has the award sticker it should correlate to the seal code batch as disclosed on the website.
We also check that a producers hasn’t “designed” a set of samples solely for the show. We send a sample of every wine winning a gold medal or trophy (drawn from the wines submitted for judging) to VinLab to check that its analysis tallies to the SAWIS analysis applicable to the batch.
I can say that I know that the winning Nederburg Shiraz 2024 is no longer available from the supplier: the cellar more than complied with the minimum stock requirements of the show but when Port2Port requested additional stocks OF THE SAME BATCH no more wine was available.
peter bishop | 14 June 2026
S A winemakers having been paying for pseudo-friendships for years. Rate before Taste? Taste before Rate? Smile and be a Villain. And up go the prices – to the decided disadvantage of what could be an emerging youthful market that may never emerge or develop.
Donald Griffiths | 15 June 2026
One thing is clear from all of this, WoSA needs to step up and get its house in order. Its funding model, how it uses those funds and the impact and RoI those funds have all need to be monitored and fully disclosed to members. Its not enough to roll out a new logo and have a stand at Prowein. I say this with a tinge of sympathy – zero support from government can’t make it easy, funding is sparse. But then even more reason to be lean and mean, to track every single cent spent and fully evaluate return? Clearly this is not happening and its perfectly fair of MF to question this and of TA to agree to the perceived benevolent terms.
Izak Smit | 15 June 2026
Michael, thanks for raising the pertinent issue here, which seems most are missing to grasp. I am just as shocked that WOSA would support any of it as it is enough for WOSA to publish results from all blind wine tasting competitions. Why deviate from it? However, that in itself doesn’t help much as it is not so easy as well as very timely if one wants to quickly look up a result for any choice of wine. Call it impossible. However, it does present a window if one wants to see how our SA wines compare with others at any competition.
As you know well, the SA Wine Index covers all blind tasting results and that over a 10-year window. See http://www.sawineindex.com, while we have also never charged anyone a cent to be rated.
And then just to add too, I regret the unkind words thrown at you and the loss of decorum some people here show.
rob tiffin | 15 June 2026
After recently reading The Emperor of Wine: The Rise of Robert M. Parker, Jr. His tasting reviews single-handedly created huge demand for French wines(especially Bordeaux) in the USA. He faced a lot of criticism, a little like what we have been seeing in this thread. I think it’s the nature of the game, as it’s not an exact science. The huge contributions by both Michael Fridjhon and Tim Atkin, while having different modus operandi, have educated people in South Africa and overseas about what constitutes good wine from South Africa and they have helped push winemakers to make better wine. We must continue to encourage people who undertake these tasks of tasting and scoring wine by supporting their shows and reports. Let’s not get distracted by the detail here, as interesting as it is, let’s stay on the big picture – selling more good wine
Guy | 16 June 2026
As something of a “commoner” when it comes to wine knowledge, I find it difficult to take Tim Atkin seriously. He gets what to these untrained eyes amounts to an all expenses paid annual six week holiday (sorry, “work trip”) to the Cape, to be driven around South Africa’s best wineries and taste our best wines – wines by the way that mere mortals such as myself generally cannot afford and may never get to taste (chances are high I will go an entire lifetime without so much as a sip of Columella or Paladius) – and then he goes home, writes a report where he basically just shuffles some wine-relevant adjectives for each of the wines he tasted next to a score of 94 or more; and profits of all off it.
I think it’s fair to offer some criticisms of this whole model, or at least ask some questions, chief among which is what exactly the SA wine industry is getting in return for indulging this guy, especially now the producers are expected to fork out for this themselves (especially if they already fork out for WOSA membership!).
Gareth I | 17 June 2026
I think you’re collapsing two different questions into one.
One is whether the funding model creates a perception problem around independence. Fair enough. The other is whether Tim Atkin’s report has any value at all. That’s a different argument entirely.
Whatever one thinks of his scoring, the report is clearly influential and widely used as a reference point on South African wine and has undoubtedly helped put SA fine wine on the map. It’s also actually a pretty good read. So reducing it to a six-week holiday at WOSA’s expense seems a bit reductive.
If the criticism is that the arrangement is too cosy, fine.. that’s a serious point. But as written, this feels more snide than substantive.
Tabbers | 17 June 2026
The issue there is nobody knows whether it’s influential or not because WOSA hasn’t enacted sufficient corporate responsibility to assess its ROI. Only anecdotal comments, including my own, as to who might or might not read it. On that point the producers who have unknowingly paid for it over the years surely have a right to know?
As for credibility, the days of one man/one score in wine evaluation have long been discredited. The days of a Robert Parkeresque ratings are behind us. Wine competitions charge and spend that money ensuring the highest degree of impartiality. As such, there is no perception of headline grabbing scores to draw attention to the competition. Again, the consequences of such are unknown. Has the ever increasing 100 point scores helped to sell South African wine? What impact has it had on publishers who run competitions as an important revenue stream, thus keeping wine publications going and relevant?
Frank von der Beek | 17 June 2026
I have only just found out about the raging war against Tim Atkin MW. And I was shocked of the aggressive jelousy of people like Mr. Fridjhon, Tim James and Christian Eedes.
As a fine wine collector from Germany I only discovered the great wines of the Cape 10 years ago. It was by the study of Tim Atkin’s faboulous Special Reports that from then on I learned almost all that I needed to know about the fascinating scenery of cape winemakers. With the report as a guideline I then started to visit the estates and the independent producers.
In the meantime I spend thousands of Euro annually stocking up my cellar with the premium wines of the cape. Besides, every fine wine merchant in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Great Britain relies on Mr. Atkin’s profound knowledge of not just scoring but describing in detail the SA wines they have in their portfolio. So much for the lack of reach and location of the buyers. If WOSA did just only fund Mr. Atkin’s travel expenses to promote the emerging SA fine wine scene – every single cent/Rand was spent wisely and tremendously successful. It can only be described as quite infelitous that WOSA now goes from merely subsidizing Mr. Atkin’s enormous efforts to directly and individually adress the wineries with the costs. It should stay in the context of the ordinary budget.
Almost every line of Mr. Fridjhon’s or this Tabbers (?) or Tim James and winemags Christian Eedes is soaked in jelousy and envy. Probably Mr. Fridjhon did so much blind tasting that he not just lost his taste but cannot see clearly anymore. Tim Atkin’s report, like Platter’s (the other reliable guide), is not about competition, but for comparison and understanding.
Fridjhon’s Investec Trophy and winemag’s Prescient reports (no funding here?) play absolutely no role for us Europeans and are utterly meaningless. And most serious SA winemakers don’t seem to bother, either. 98 pts. for Nederburg Shiraz is a laugh at the absence of, say, Mullineux, Porseleinberg or Sadie Family. And Eben Sadie made it it all so clear in asking “where are their reports?”.
My experience with SA winemakers and farmers is that they all share great respect and support among them – and they value the work done by Mr. Atkin promoting their wines overseas. What a shame these unimportant self proclaimed experts are trying to disrupt and poison the great bond between SA fine wine producers at the verge of international success. Success in large parts because of Tim Atkin’s Special Report.
Hannes Meyer | 19 June 2026
I would like to know why only some producers are getting the option to pay for a one on one tasting and others only to have wines in the discovery tasting where the wines get tasted between 100’s of other wines.
Julian Wannell | 20 June 2026
Gosh – there goes 15 minutes of lost lifetime, starting with ‘Tabbers’, who can’t even spell Tim Atkin’s name correctly and who then continues by saying that no one has ever heard of Tim Atkin outside of the wine trade, which is utter nonsense.
As Frank von der Beek correctly points out later in the comments, many people outside of SA wouldn’t even be buying SA wine, were it not for Tim Atkin’s reports and his high standing within the wine writing community, in SA, the UK and internationally.
Then Martin’s brief comment and link, further up, help to illustrate exactly how such a respected critic can bolster sales of hitherto unknown wines.
As for Guy, who thinks Tim Atkin is just enjoying an all-expenses paid holiday…..what an insulting, ignorant & worthless contribution to this thread. Anyone who thinks tasting wines non-stop for weeks on end, travelling relentlessly and then writing some serious prose about it is some kind of joke, must be a fool.
The fact that Tim Atkin is a UK MW with huge international experience and considerable respect from his peers is precisely the reason that the majority of people take him seriously, whether they be within the industry, or amongst its customers.
He has the ability to judge SA wine not in isolation, but against its international competitors; that is what non-SA consumers want to read about, something which seems largely lost on SA-centric commentators (both professional and lay), many of whom know little about wine from outside of SA and who write, in the main, for local consumers who are unlikely to buy non-SA wine.
Whilst the author of the original article claims this is not a direct attack on Tim Atkin, it is hard not to detect elements within the piece and the subsequent comments of some respondents, which question Tim Atkin’s integrity and worth.
I don’t see much in the way of suggestions as to how Tim Atkin might change the model – the funding for which in any case is organised largely by WOSA, a SA wine industry body.
Also, I wonder how many SA wine writers would be able to fund their own expenses should they decide to become experts on, say, French wine and follow in Tim’s footsteps with respect to depth of on-the-ground coverage, travel & accomodation arrangements etc.
No takers….? Exactly – I didn’t think so.
Excepting only a handful of very successful wine writers (Robert Parker, Hugh Johnson come to mind), I very much doubt that international travel to South Africa would be a viable expense. In any case, it is accepted all over the wine producing world that trade bodies and individual wine makers set aside a marketing budget which includes ‘assistance’ to wine writers, all the way from free samples to international travel.
Some of the woeful comments on these pages seem to be symptoms of that rather insular mindset all too common in SA, which in keeping with its position on the southern tip of Africa, make some of its denizens’ mindsets appear backward and parochial.
But maybe a few commentators would be happy to see the back of Tim Atkin; if so, I can assure you SA needs him much more than he needs you.
Mookesh Desai | 21 June 2026
YAWN!
Mark Maynard | 28 June 2026
Speaking as someone in the UK who is spending a fortune on SA wine to be cellared (far more than the cost of a return premium economy flight) and uses both Tim’s and Neil Martin’s reports for research on what to buy and drink, I would say that the investment in his report is worthwhile.
Michael clearly doesn’t like Tim and his article is written in bad faith.
The way he tries to deflect from the personal attack by saying that people haven’t understood the article reminds me of the same trick he pulled last year when starting an article on wine criticism with praise of Donald Trump and a two paragraph attack on the trans community.
Christian, I respect your wine reviews and enjoy your podcast, but you need to exercise better editorial control over the author of this piece.
Jason | 28 June 2026
It wasn’t just a strange trans analogy that made no sense, he regurgitated right-wing propaganda about children getting gender changing surgeries, something that doesn’t happen in reality. You would expect someone who claims to have journalistic integrity to not get swept up with these far-right lies, but Michael seems like a feelings over facts guy.
And you are 100% correct that this article is bad faith and him pretending it’s not really about Tim Atkin is so transparently disingenuous.
Schalk Burger | 29 June 2026
This unsavoury episode has left a distinctly bitter impression. More importantly, it has done little to enhance the international reputation of South African wine journalism, particularly where intellectual honesty and integrity are concerned.
Fridjhon clearly has it in for Tim Atkin, and his subsequent objections to the contrary are unconvincing. He could have made his point (such as it was) about the acceptability of the financial model he decries, which is surely not limited to only this one example in the entire world of wine reports, without constant derogatory reference to Atkin (and no-one else), even referring to Atkin’s arrangement as a “Ponzi scheme”. Then, he doubles down on his unwarranted attack against Atkin with a snarky comment, viz. “Tim Atkin dredged up the much-used cliché of two bald men fighting over a comb”. His professional jealousy is on full display throughout.
As for Tim James, he attempted his usual ineffective sniping from the sidelines, generating much heat and no light as always. He lost any vaguely humorous interest he may have previously offered (and he has steadfastly offered no other) around the same time that he gave up his Widow persona, other than his unintentionally hilarious attempts to prove his relevance by constantly reminding us that he was there at the start of the vaunted Swartland Revolution, and attempting to insinuate that the latter would never have occurred without his invaluable contributions, grudgingly admitting now and then that someone named Sadie may have had a minor role to play. How many copies of that famous work, “Wines of the New South Africa – Tradition and Revolution” have actually been sold, I wonder, in comparison to Atkin’s report – I regularly peruse the food & beverages section of every bookstore I come across and have yet to come across one blighted with a copy.
Regarding the relative influence of the authors involved in this little mud-slinging match, we are fortunate to have the makings of a lovely real-life, empirical experiment the likes of which would make any economist salivate. Producers now have to pay to participate in Fridjhon’s Trophy show, Atkin’s annual report, and WineMag’s Prescient reports. Let’s see which of these the majority of the top producers of wine in South Africa pay their hard-earned money to support. Also, which of these the punters, both local and international, choose to pay attention to. And let’s not forget that there will always be a strong causal link between the punters’ interest and the producers’ spend, via the medium of the chosen publication – if Atkin’s scores are indeed over-blown because of his mercenary attitude towards the whole exercise as Fridjhon fears, then he will soon lose the trust of the punters, who are a savvy lot and (believe it or not) are quite discerning as a crowd. They do their own tastings and assessments and if Atkin’s scores are nonsensical, they will soon realise it. If they stop supporting Atkin’s report, the producers will do the same, also being an intelligent and business-minded crowd as a whole. Certain wine critics need to leave their ivory towers from time to time and realise that punters and producers are not so naïve as to continue supporting publications that are of dubious value to them as either participants or consumers, unless said critics deign to steer them along the straight and narrow.
Here’s my prediction – Atkin’s report will continue to do well, and deservedly so. Some of the comments here from our international friends in support of Atkin would tend to support this view. The Trophy and Prescient dog-and-pony shows will continue to feature a bunch of wines that don’t really showcase the true breadth and depth of the fine wine offering from South Africa, as is the case currently.
As for me, I will continue to support both Atkin’s report and the Platter guide, both of which have been of great use to me in the past and are clearly intensely disliked by the WineMag contributors. After this debacle, and a number of other disappointments and disillusionments in the publication over the years, I have cancelled my WineMag subscription. Farewell and good luck.