Australian wine is abuzz with news and controversy, not enough of which actually has to do with the taste of what our makers are putting in the bottle. I’ll come back to that. We’ve had the Jimmy Watson farce, which has put in front of the public what the wine industry has done its best to conceal for so long: that the show system willingly and consciously aids and abets those who want to manipulate it, which is virtually everyone. We’ve also had some interesting revelations concerning the matter of whether or not the wines that win gongs at shows and accolades in magazine tastings are actually the same as those sold to the public under the same label. It is unconfirmed at this stage, but one very large Australian wine producer is possibly under some very detailed scrutiny in this regard. As for what our makers are actually putting in the bottle, the story in the centre of this issue illustrates that despite the burgeoning number of entrants in the wine industry, what they’re releasing onto the market isn’t necessarily all that exciting. I’m occasionally asked why I get excited about some wines that I point around 16 out of 20, and from this cross-section of new releases, perhaps you can see why. It’s not a bad score at all. To follow up a recent theme of mine, it’s also been fascinating to watch the reaction of the share trading community to the recent very positive Southcorp results. Hate to say I told them so, but recent events have done little to stiffen my confidence in the ability of this new generation of experts to assess wine businesses. Given their track record of grossly over-exaggerating the impact of small and essentially irrelevant happenings at corporate level that have absolutely no effect on the key mechanics of wine companies, share analysts clearly regard 48 hours ahead as a long-term forecast. Given that five years is a short-term in wine, it’s clear that the two cultures simply do not yet mix. Heads of wine companies are now spending far too much time and resource leaning backwards to communicate with the share trading community, at the expense of providing forward leadership and direction for their businesses. Regrettable, but inevitable when you raise public money to expand your business. As for OnWine, 2002 has so far proved the most challenging year of change to date. 2003 will be arranged differently to help schedule this publication more regularly. The redesigned OnWine Australian Wine Annual is making its way to the shelves and can be ordered through this publication, and after a significantly longer research period than I ever imagined, the OnWine website is about to be relaunched. My sincere congratulations to Dr John Middleton and his team at Mount Mary for winning the OnWine Wine of the Year, which is covered on page 17.
