WS article: Schild Estate -- Bait and Switch?

[Dan_Hammer]

@M.Twelftree

This is a very sad chain of events
My only real motivation was protecting the consumers, because in my eyes, if you don’t protect them who do you think will buy your wine.
Every one has a line in the sand and Schild’s line is obviously different to ours.

Thank you.

[Mike_Maguire]

@Dan Hammer

@M.Twelftree

This is a very sad chain of events
My only real motivation was protecting the consumers, because in my eyes, if you don’t protect them who do you think will buy your wine.
Every one has a line in the sand and Schild’s line is obviously different to ours.

Thank you.

+1

[Steve_Ritchie]

@M.Twelftree

This is a very sad chain of events
My only real motivation was protecting the consumers, because in my eyes, if you don’t protect them who do you think will buy your wine.
Every one has a line in the sand and Schild’s line is obviously different to ours.
What would have you done Jay?
MT

+1 I am not here to speculate as to motives, but the fact that Schild apologized and made an offer to refund indicates to me that a line was crossed.

[chaad_thomas]

@Steve Ritchie

@M.Twelftree

This is a very sad chain of events
My only real motivation was protecting the consumers, because in my eyes, if you don’t protect them who do you think will buy your wine.
Every one has a line in the sand and Schild’s line is obviously different to ours.
What would have you done Jay?
MT

+1 I am not here to speculate as to motives, but the fact that Schild apologized and made an offer to refund indicates to me that a line was crossed.

I don’t think it was Schild that offered the refund, but a retailer as noted a few posts back.

In any case, it was an ethically treacherous move by Schild, and they knew they were gambling. They’ll take the heat and probably learn their lesson. My guess is that they won’t even pull out of the USA market, and that it’s more or less a non-issue in the domestic market, so maybe they get fined. I think that’s appropriate and sufficient punishment, and hopefully they refocus on making honest, quality wines.

The more interesting question to me is why they did it. With declining market share and dropping average case cost for Oz wineries, I’m sure many of them are feeling the economic crisis more than we imagine, and we should remember to show a little compassion when judging them. It was shady, but without knowing them, I think it’s wise to temper our admonishment…that, or Twelftree does knows 'em and that’s why he ratted them out! Maybe they are a bunch of grotty arseholes!

Unfortunate no matter how you slice it.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Out of curiousity, would there be the same outcry if a Champagne house bought in more wines from growers after a good review of their latest vintage?

[chaad_thomas]

@Mark Golodetz

Out of curiousity, would there be the same outcry if a Champagne house bought in more wines from growers after a good review of their latest vintage?

Well, no, but that’s because it’s a different thing, if you are in fact referring to a non-vintage wine. Those have no pretense to origin, age, or anything other than consistent “house style”. I got the impression that the Schild shiraz was supposed to be estate fruit, and the purchased fruit was therefore dishonestly presented.

Now, if you’re talking about a Champagne house subbing Clos de Mesnil fruit with fruit sourced from elsewhere, then yeah, that’d be equally outrageous at a minimum, and probably more so.

[jay_bonfili]

@M.Twelftree

This is a very sad chain of events
My only real motivation was protecting the consumers, because in my eyes, if you don’t protect them who do you think will buy your wine.
Every one has a line in the sand and Schild’s line is obviously different to ours.
What would have you done Jay?
MT

What I would do is unimportant. However, I’ll bite.

What Schild did is dishonest. I would never personally participate in such a practice.

You, OTOH (after some investigation) found that Schild (a competitor) was making “another run” of the wine in question.
They did not break the law (as far as I understand) and then chose to go public with this information for the sole reason of protecting the people of Australia from a $18 dollar bottle of wine which may or may not be a perfectly fine bottle of wine.

I don’t know…seems a little weird. That’s all. (and I take a dim view of tattletales)

[Mark_Golodetz]

@chaad thomas

@Mark Golodetz

Out of curiousity, would there be the same outcry if a Champagne house bought in more wines from growers after a good review of their latest vintage?

Well, no, but that’s because it’s a different thing, if you are in fact referring to a non-vintage wine. Those have no pretense to origin, age, or anything other than consistent “house style”. I got the impression that the Schild shiraz was supposed to be estate fruit, and the purchased fruit was therefore dishonestly presented.

Now, if you’re talking about a Champagne house subbing Clos de Mesnil fruit with fruit sourced from elsewhere, then yeah, that’d be equally outrageous at a minimum, and probably more so.

I used the word “vintage” in my original post as I think like you, NV is really not that well defined. But my question is, if for example, a house had sold out of its 2002, and then went out and bought more 2002, blending as closely as possible to the original, would there have been the same outcry?

[Brian_Love]

I’m more than a little surprised at the folks, who claim to be wine lovers, on this board who appear to be taking up for what this winery did. Or trying to somewhat rationalize it. Pure and simple it was and is wrong.

And to snark at a ‘tattle tale’ is surprising, too. Frankly the benefit of transparency and your competitors calling you out is one of the things that capitalism is all about. I guess Jay also wouldn’t want a bystander who witnessed a shooting to ‘tattle tale’ to the police either. I guess if one witnesses a crime, in his eyes, people shouldn’t report it. They call that the Mob and gangster code.

[jay_bonfili]

Brian,
No crime was committed in this case. That was my point.
You are making quite a leap with your other statements.

[Lewis_Dawson]

@Mark Golodetz

@chaad thomas

@Mark Golodetz

Out of curiousity, would there be the same outcry if a Champagne house bought in more wines from growers after a good review of their latest vintage?

Well, no, but that’s because it’s a different thing, if you are in fact referring to a non-vintage wine. Those have no pretense to origin, age, or anything other than consistent “house style”. I got the impression that the Schild shiraz was supposed to be estate fruit, and the purchased fruit was therefore dishonestly presented.

Now, if you’re talking about a Champagne house subbing Clos de Mesnil fruit with fruit sourced from elsewhere, then yeah, that’d be equally outrageous at a minimum, and probably more so.

I used the word “vintage” in my original post as I think like you, NV is really not that well defined. But my question is, if for example, a house had sold out of its 2002, and then went out and bought more 2002, blending as closely as possible to the original, would there have been the same outcry?

I think Yes for the Champagne as well. Champagne X harvested and/or bought 2002 grapes, or still wines. They made a blend, bottled the wine, re-fermented and aged on the lees for a period of years. They disgorged the wine and released to the market. Wine Spectator loves the stuff, gives a high score, ranks it in thier Top 10 or whatever. Demand surges and the wine is selling out.

The director of Champagne X now starts calling around to co-ops and competitors to find some 2002 Champagne that he can slap his label on. And you are OK with this? I’m not.

Furthermore, in the Schild Estate example, I understand that estate-grown wine was replaced by buying bulk wine. If Champagne X was a grower and not a negociant, it would be illegal to replace the original product with purchased wine, whether vintage or non-vintage.

[M.Twelftree]

Jay,
There was no investigation, my warehouse is in the building next to the bottling line, we have to drive past to get to our warehouse,
over the past few months we keep seeing more and more pallets of 2008 Schild Shiraz magically appear??
I just hope the authorities investigate this situation and change the laws for the future
MT
BTW: we will be running more 08 Bella’s down the line next week but its only going to be sold in Venezuela, so its all okay.

[Mike_Opdahl]

I posted this on the ebob board, but as it is critical of WA’s methodology, I expect it to be taken down promptly:

This is an interesting discussion on many levels, and as someone ITB, here is my take on things:

1. This happens a lot. How do you stop it? A big first step would be to stop reporting barrel scores or impressions and only taste/rate wines based on the finished product (as WS & WE insist on doing). The potential for “stretching” a wine’s production off a favorable barrel score will be greatly eliminated. It also will go a long way towards eliminating the “best barrel” submission for a barrel review that is endemic with the current methodology.
2. Stop reviewing wines directly with producers, and only accept finished wines & taste in peer groups, ala WS & WE. I’m not saying don’t taste with producers/importers/winemakers, but for purposes of actually putting a score/review to a wine, the sit-down-over-lunch practice is just not objective, and WA’s current methodology is ripe for abuse. If you don’t believe that there have been multiple instances of a winery/importer/winemaker putting together a “tasting” blend just prior to a WA sit down, you are dreaming. Review whats in the bottle, that is the exact product that is available to consumers on the shelves, and you’ll go a long way towards eliminating such malfeasance.
3. Publish, (and then publicly hold producer’s accountable for when discrepancies arise) actual production/importation #s. When R Wines went into receivership in Australia, what was infinitely amusing was the actual volume of available case goods (i.e. bottled wines) that had received HUGE scores from WA (but from nowhere else) and whose published “case production #s” were actually a very small % of what was actually produced. If a producer is publicly held accountable (shamed) when they “lie” to reviewers, it will go a long way towards ending the ongoing, ridiculous practice of under-reporting a wine’s production to create an image of scarcity. This happens WAY more than “stretching” a wines production. You’ll never stop it (I know of one VERY highly acclaimed winery who sourced from the bulk market tens of thousands of cases of one of their lower end wines & sold them directly into Canada solely b/c of the score…and China is even worse), but getting caught doing it ala Sierrea Crapche & now Schild, will make the scrupulous producers think twice.

Of course doing the above would eliminate (or at least heavily curtail) the current Bordeaux futures market, as well as general wine speculation for the cherries, and we couldn’t have that now could we?

[mike_pobega]

@M.Twelftree

BTW: we will be running more 08 Bella’s down the line next week but its only going to be sold in Venezuela, so its all okay.

As long as you guarantee it stays in Venezuela it’s cool…

[Andrew_Morris]

@Mark Golodetz

Out of curiousity, would there be the same outcry if a Champagne house bought in more wines from growers after a good review of their latest vintage?

This is an interesting comparison. The issue is that if it is a vintage Champ., it is likely 3+ years on the lees. So, to get more wine after getting a good review, the winery would not only be getting other fruit, but another winemaking approach, since they would be purchasing sparkling wine already through secondary ferm., just not yet disgourged. Kind of like dodge getting a mitsubishi truck but writing dodge on the back. Of course this is legal. As long as you don’t try to claim that it is made by dodge.

Frankly, I question the part about what they did being legal. If they knowingly and deliberately (at any point) presented the newly purchase wine as the wine that earned the high score, this is a false representation. If that false claim is the basis of a transaction, is that not fraud?

Does anyone have a clear timeline? When did they disclose? Which wine was being sold when the disclosure happened? Was it being promoted as the high score earning wine at that point?

[Lewis_Dawson]

@Mike Opdahl

I posted this on the ebob board, but as it is critical of WA’s methodology, I expect it to be taken down promptly:

Many on this board are quick to criticize The Wine Advocate, but TWA has nothing to do with this deal. TWA rated the wine in question 87/100 and drink up pretty quick.It is a Wine Spectator review that propelled this scandal, but I think it is a real stretch to lay this at their feet as well. They tasted a wine, issued a rating, and the winery decided to capitalize on that by buying bulk wine so they could sell thousands more cases of the product. How you can blame the reviewer on that is beyond me. As for barrel samples, none was involved here. I don’t get it. BTW, when did WS stop reviewing barrel samples?

[Mike_Opdahl]

Two points here—first, WS hasn’t accepted barrel samples in years, with the exception being when they occasionally do an issue on Bordeaux to talk about a great vintage. I would guesstimate that 99% of the wines they review are from finished products—their submission forms are very specific about this; they simply won’t review wines that are labeled as barrel samples.

Secondly, to address your point re WA; the methodology that WA extensively employs, from rating & reporting on barrel samples to non-blind tastings with the actual importer/winery owner/winemaker, practically encourages (or at the very least doesn’t detract) unscrupulous producers to take advantage of the built-in flaws to the system. No system is perfect, but WA’s is very problematic.

[Matt_Snow]

Although we apparently are now moving on from accusations of “fraud” to more violent crimes, no one has answered my question about whether consumers of $15-20 wines in Australia (which is where the additional Schild production is being sold) even read the Wine Spectator, much less care about its ratings. Is there any reason to think that anyone is being deceived (much less shot?!)?

– Matt

@Brian Love

I’m more than a little surprised at the folks, who claim to be wine lovers, on this board who appear to be taking up for what this winery did. Or trying to somewhat rationalize it. Pure and simple it was and is wrong.

And to snark at a ‘tattle tale’ is surprising, too. Frankly the benefit of transparency and your competitors calling you out is one of the things that capitalism is all about. I guess Jay also wouldn’t want a bystander who witnessed a shooting to ‘tattle tale’ to the police either. I guess if one witnesses a crime, in his eyes, people shouldn’t report it. They call that the Mob and gangster code.

@Matt Snow

The “fraud” label may or may not be fair to apply to the situation GregT is discussing, but what seems to have gone on in the Schild situation is a little different. Schild apparently attempted to capitalize on the high WS rating (and the consequent anticipated popularity of their 2008 Estate Shiraz in the US) by exporting to the US more of the original blend that was rated by WS. That is not fraud; arguably, it is a boon to the US consumer who would otherwise have had to pay an inflated price owing to the ostensibly higher demand.

Schild then blended another run to meet local demand in Australia where their wine is sold as a commodity product that is expected to be continually available – like a $15-20 Beringer wine in the US. To assert that in doing so they were trying to “pass off” the second blend as the one favorably reviewed by WS presupposes that Schild’s purchasers in Australia read and care about WS ratings. I have no idea whether or not that is true, although I am not surprised that WS thinks it is.

If Schild really thought, wow, we can sell an extra 5K cases of wine in Australia because of the WS rating, let’s blend 'em up, then I think it is fair to say that creating the second blend was at least deceptive. They have, however, mitigated any such deception by deciding add “second blend” to the label.

Another possibility is that they thought, wow, great rating in the US press, let’s send more wine there so the distributors/retailers don’t gouge our US customers; meanwhile, for our local customers, we can produce a new blend that we think is up to the quality level they expect from us, and they don’t know a Wine Spectator from a wallaby anyway. If that is the case, then I say more power to Schild!

– Matt

[Sean_Devaney]

Matt: it is not apparent that the additional wine was intended for only the Australian market. Michael Twelftree stated in post #32 “the comical part is that the day the WS ran the story they were bottling more 08 Shiraz with a US back label.”

[Matt_Snow]

@Sean Devaney

Matt: it is not apparent that the additional wine was intended for only the Australian market. Michael Twelftree stated in post #32 “the comical part is that the day the WS ran the story they were bottling more 08 Shiraz with a US back label.”

The published story that people are posting about quotes the winemaker saying unequivocally that the additional wine was intended for distribution in Australia. It seems only fair if we are going to hang someone based on a published story that we do so based on the facts set forth in that story. I understand that the competitor is now posting additional accusations on an Internet message board. I don’t question his right to do so, but it seems to me that the published article is the more objective source for now (although WS is not absolutely objective either, having become part of the story).

In any event, the accusations of fraud and the analogy to “a shooting” were both based on the story that the wine was going to Australia, before Mr. Twelftree made the insinuation about sending the wine to the US. (I say “insinuation” because he does not purport to know where the wine is actually headed. Also it strikes me as strange that he says he just happened to see pallets of the Schild wine while driving by the bottler, but then claims to know what was on the labels…) So I ask again, based on the simple facts in the story, what is the basis for crying fraud? If the retailer wants to send the highly-reviewed wine to the country where it was highly-reviewed and make additional wine to sell locally, isn’t that a plus all around?

– Matt