Tim James: How South African wine coverage really works

When I suggested last week that perhaps some wine commentators – and others in the wine trade – tended to ignore older-established producers in favour of what is new, it felt more akin to a confession than the accusation a few people seemed to think it was. I have, in fact, no problem with wine-writers (or distributors for that matter, or even retailers) specialising in different areas of wine. In the 20-years or so that I spent, as I thought, chronicling the South African wine revolution, I myself paid most attention to the new.

Furthermore, for many of those years I was most attentive to the Swartland, partly because I thought someone had to be, and I was glad it was me. I worked at it. My increasing involvement there and growing acquaintance with the area and people, and occasional friendships, allowed me to do it better. Then the Swartland became widely fashionable and my depth of experience more shared. Also, the “revolution” once most associated with the Swartland spread inexorably and there were plenty of people now covering that, including international critics.

Now I thought it might be useful to say something about how wine critics get to taste and report on the wines they do, whether or not they are specialists to any degree. It seems relevant to start by looking at what happens in the most important wine-critical part of this website, so I did a bit of basic research into what Christian Eedes had written about this year (leaving aside the Prescient reports), with reference to my previous ponderings about newer-versus-older producers.

I wouldn’t swear to my arithmetic, but I counted that Christian had for nearly the full first five months of this year tasted wines from 50 different producers, occasionally with more than one report on a producer. (Platter’s guide lists “well over 900 producers, merchants and brands”, to put that in context.) Of those 50, just 12 were producers that had bottled wines before the start of this century. The other 38 were, therefore, essentially part of the “new wave”. My guesswork based on observation suggests that a significant proportion of the producers tasted are tasted every year; it’s not that everyone gets a turn.

Incidentally, eight of the 38 mostly new-wave wines are distributed by Ex Animo. There’s not necessarily any problem with the fact of Christian’s having a close, mutually beneficial, relationship with a distributor (in which his wife has a senior position, as has been openly acknowledged on this website). It’s worth noting, however, because it leads me to a more general point. Which is that the few independent local critics in this country (and probably elsewhere) tend to taste and report mostly on what they are given – wines either sent as tasting samples or offered at more formal “trade tastings” held by producers or distributors. There is very little going forth and seeking.

So, for example, Michael Fridjhon told me that for his Wine Wizard website “I solicit samples from time to time though usually there’s a steady flow.” Christian too sometimes asks to taste “topical” wines that haven’t been offered him, “but mostly it’s a fairly organic process”.

This, of course, puts much onus on the producers, and doubtless many of them don’t seek to be tasted and rated, for whatever reason. Platter’s tastes so many because it works hard to get wineries to participate – and I know it’s not always easy to do so: many need nagging, and some choose, again for their own reasons, not to participate.

Could and should independent wine critics taste and report on a wider range? Probably. After all, in my opinion at least, the most significant thing critics can offer is the range of their experience for the comparative purpose implied by their scoring (forgive my not always being amazed by their skill and insight). A cabernet, say, really doesn’t have a somehow eternal, inherent value, although there are certainly some agreed-upon criteria; it doesn’t deserve to get any particular rating except to express its position in context – hopefully both local and international. Critics like Michael and Christian can, of course, also adduce the experience they get from the blind competitive tastings they do – quintessentially comparative things.

Apart from the collaborative effort of Platter’s, however, the critics that taste and report widely on South African wine are a small handful of international ones. Crucially, unlike the locals, they can afford to put in the great deal of more-or-less expensive effort involved. The British critic Tim Atkin, for example, says that, for his annual Report, he “spends six weeks a year in South Africa researching the report and a further six weeks writing the copy, scoring the wines and writing tasting notes on each wine included”. I’ll come back to his funding. The few other international critics who report extensively, and those who report in a smaller way, are generally paid for by the media organisations they work for. Some take advantage of being invited out here for paid gigs to also get around and about and explore. As far as I know, the great Jancis Robinson, for example, has never paid her own way to come here, but has only responded to offers to fly her out and accommodate her as part of an invitation to judge or to speak. (Not often enough, in my opinion.)

The Tim Atkin case is interesting, and has become more overt just recently, so it’s worth looking at. A recent email to producers, sent by Wosa (Wines of South Africa) says that for Tim’s undoubted hard work in producing his annual report, he is not paid: he “generates his income from sales of the report and stickers with the annual scores”. He does also organise public tastings here of the highest-scoring wines. Presumably these are profitable – they are pretty expensive and for a few years have been sponsored by a financial institution. (Personally, the only problem I have with all this is the income from score-giving stickers: there is a glaring conflict of interest where the taster’s score is so connected with the taster’s income: inevitably, the higher the score the more likely the producer is to pay for the stickers. One marvels at the taster’s stout resistance to temptation.)

The logistics of Tim’s work here have also been financially supported in a substantial way by Wosa, the organisation that “promote[s] the export of all South African wines in key international markets” and is itself paid for by the industry. In effect, Wosa had decided to outsource to Tim part of their publicity effort in the UK (where he has a good audience). It was worth the money, it decided. Many would agree, some would demur. But it is pretty certain that without Tim’s resolute positivity and his very high scoring (including usefully placed 100-point scores), he might be out of that job.

From this year, with Wosa’s money being tighter than ever (its income is linked to exports, which are down), this level of sponsorship is not possible. Wosa is still acting as Tim’s agent, it seems, while he acts as its, but producers are now required to pay to have their wines tasted by Tim on his two research visits. It will cost R2,000 for those producers who ranked highly enough get their own visit and R1,000 per producer for “small group visits’. Those that merit mere participation in the larger “Discovery Tastings” pay R100 per wine submitted.

Wosa underlines in its explanatory email that “No fee is being paid to Tim and Wines of South Africa will not profit.” No indication is given of the overall budget (it never has been given publicly as far as I know). Again, I’m not going to make much comment on all this, except to say that, even if the fee is not going directly to Tim but is to pay for the logistics (if one accepts the distinction), it’s easy for the misperception to arise. It might take a bit of swallowing for producers to accept paying directly to be tasted (quite apart from the hosting parties that are presumably quite fun for all, and the camaraderie probably doesn’t make it easier to award lower scores). I’ve heard rumours of some resistance to paying, but I suspect it won’t come to anything.

Meanwhile, financially unassisted by the industry bureaucracy, the few independent local critics will carry on doing their best – no doubt grateful to those producers who help them do so. And mostly averting their eyes from the remainder.

• Tim James is one of South Africa’s leading wine commentators, contributing to various local and international wine publications. His book Wines of the New South Africa – Tradition and Revolution appeared in 2013.