Winemaker Robert Paul responds to Tom Carson’s letter defending the Australian wine show system.
Tom Carson makes a valiant attempt to defend the Australian wine show system as it exists today (letters to the editor, 5 October 2024).
However, he makes the mistake of conflating change with improvement.
This is a highly questionable assumption and he offers no evidence as to how the changes he and his colleagues have introduced have improved the quality of wine show judging.
Perhaps Mr Carson only intended to demonstrate that judging panels have now become more diverse.
If that was his aim, then he has succeeded.
If, however, he wishes to convince the reader that wine show judging itself has improved because of these changes then he needs to go further.
Of course, it is reasonable to assume that a more diverse judging panel may give a better result.
However, it is just as reasonable to assume that a varied group of judges will simply give a more varied set of results.
Who does this help? Certainly not the confused exhibitor.
Nowhere in Mr Carson’s letter can I find any reference to exhibitors without whom there would be no show system.
People enter wine shows for several reasons and for several outcomes but the most common complaint I hear from exhibitors (apart from the expense) is the inconsistency of results from show to show.
I suggest one reason for this is inadvertently stated by Mr Carson when he says proudly that nearly fifty people have been involved in judging at Brisbane in the last three years.
Why is this good? How does it help to improve the standard of judging? Where is the evidence?
There is no mention in Mr Carson’s letter of how important it is to select good judges, by which I mean those who can judge reliably, consistently and with repeatability. This is, after all, what exhibitors want.
If wine shows have abandoned one of their most important traditional roles, that of ‘improving the breed’ and become simply another marketing device, then selection of quality judges is not important and judging panels can be as diverse as one likes if it makes for a better story to pass on to marketing departments.
However, unless wine shows are to descend into relativism, wine show committees need to ensure that the judges they select are doing their job properly.
Yes, the AWRI has the excellent AWAC system for evaluating potential judges but I suggest that individual shows also have a responsibility to assess their chosen judges in a formal way, rather than simply by discussion between panel chairs and the chief judge.
This is a difficult, time-consuming and potentially embarrassing project but one that can provide exhibitors with more confidence in the show judging system.
With entry numbers in most shows on the decline, this is more important than ever.
Photo: Ben Macmahon.
Related content