Australia’s largest wine auction house has released its third Classification of Distinguished Australian wine. Its first was back in 1991, its second in 1996 while its latest is launched in this issue of Wine Magazine. In 1991 it included 34 wines, in 1996 it listed 64 and in 2000 it lists 89. How things have changed. As the auction market and the concept of wine investment have mushroomed in Australia, so has the need for product. And, since none of the top-rating wines of any classification typically increase in volume, the market needs more of them. And that’s what it’s all about. The only system of any note comparable to the Langton’s Classification is the Medoc rating of 1855. It does not reinvent itself every four years and has endured but a single change, the famous upgrading of what is now Chateau Mouton-Rothschild to First Growth from Second Growth in 1973. It may update its list more regularly than the occupant of No. 10 Downing St, but Langton’s denies any role in making its classification. On one hand they argue it’s not them that sets the prices, so how can they be either innocent or guilty of whatever emerges? After all it’s the market, the public, that determines these things. On the other hand, one could argue that no auction house in the world has been as dramatically effective at increasing auction prices than Langton’s, but I’ll come back to that. In his article elsewhere in this issue Andrew Caillard describes the Classification as a ‘form guide’, and explains that ‘it does not reflect our personal view’. If that’s the case, why all the rules, and so many new ones at that? We are informed that to be included in the Classification, ‘requires sustained interest over many years’. If it’s really a form guide, why are the highly pedigreed yearlings like Penfolds Yattarna and Grant Burge’s Meshach not included for this reason? Because they haven’t been around for twelve vintages and don’t comply with the rules, that’s why. Whose rules? Langton’s rules. But the classification is not supposed to reflect their personal view! I strongly reject the suggestion that ‘the long term credibility and integrity of the Classification allows Langton’s no room to move’. Langton’s is an auction house that profits and profits well from the prices it fetches and at the end of the day it would perhaps be more honest to stick to measuring prices. As it is today, it’s patently trying to have its cake and eat it, creating a classification based on price which somehow enables it to retain credibility as a commentator on wine quality as well. That’s the job of critics and buyers, not auctioneers. As it happens, I think I am the only person who attempts today to classify the Australian wine industry on the basis of quality but in a way that is directly comparable to Langton’s. In my yearly guide The OnWine Australian Wine Annual I rate virtually all the leading Australian wines on the basis of quality alone, allocating my ratings entirely irrespective of prices on either the primary or secondary markets. I regularly receive feedback from winemakers whose opinion on their wines is loftier than my own. These makers often point to prices their wines might have achieved or trinkets they might have collected for their pinboards or sideboards at wine shows, suggesting that to fly against such irrefutable confirmation of their wine’s inherent quality is simply absurd. For, despite the suggestion made in the 1999 edition of Langton’s Australian Fine Wine Investment Guide that ‘politics and commercial reality force Oliver to take a soft approach’, I entirely reject this view and regularly stick my neck out. Of far greater interest to me is the comment that ‘His (my) wine rankings are interesting, but are difficult to relate to the secondary market at times’. Thank you, Andrew. Like other genuinely independent critics of Australian wine, who consider ourselves a dwindling force in the numeric sense, I am delighted you have noticed. Personally, I would be appalled if anyone thought my ratings, comments or rankings were in any way affected by the prices fetched at auction. And so would any critic with any pride in his or her work. In the 1991 Langton’s Classification there was but a single entry in the premier ‘Exceptional’ category, Penfolds Grange. This wine was joined by two others in 1996, Henschke’s Hill of Grace and Mount Mary’s Cabernets Quintet. Four new wines join the club in 2000, namely Leeuwin Estate’s Art Series Chardonnay, Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Penfolds Bin 707 Cabernet Sauvignon and Wendouree Shiraz. With the possible exclusion of Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, which since the 1995 vintage is made in the same vein as was the occasional Moss Wood Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, none of these wines have altered significantly in either viticulture or making since 1991. They are doing things just as they were. Excepting Wendouree Shiraz, which on a qualitative basis alone is totally out of its class in this company, each of these wines are indeed amongst Australia’s finest. Each, for instance, has been included in the top ranking ‘1’ wines in The OnWine Australian Wine Handbook and its predecessors since their first edition. Yet more than half have only just been admitted to the executive membership of the Langton’s club. Such are the sort of differences that inevitably result when wines are rated either entirely on quality or mainly on price. Andrew Caillard also writes in the 1999 edition of Langton’s Australian Fine Wine Investment Guide that ‘On the other hand some of these (Oliver’s) rankings and vintage rankings could well point towards potential investment wines.’ Is this an admission that the auction ratings ultimately follow ratings based solely on wine quality? Langton’s great and undeniable contribution to Australian wine has been the credibility it has generated for the entire industry through the way it has presented, marketed and sold its better products. Langton’s success has much to do with the respect afforded Australian wine wherever quality wine is enjoyed. Through the presentation of catalogues created at unforeseen and unimaginably high levels of production, through a credible service to those looking to seriously invest in Australian wine, through its association with the Penfolds Wine Clinics and the Penfolds Rewards of Patience publications, Langtons has been instrumental in developing a culture of trading in wine outside conventional retail markets. It has also provided a means for retailers and restaurateurs to stock and onsell mature bottles of Australian wine, a facet of business its makers simply cannot afford to indulge in. Underneath this great achievement lies some very real and very successful commercial reality. The last time I assessed the Australian wine auction market was a year ago, when Langton’s estimated its size at $11million and their share at 60%. With a buyer’s premium of 10% and a vendor’s premium between 15-22% (figures accurate in July 1999), it’s not difficult to figure what the company makes each year. And it’s a growing market. Far from taking the typical Australian approach to other peoples’ success, which is to belittle and decry it, I think we all those interested in Australian wine should rejoice in Langton’s achievements. This company’s fortunes are closely linked to the success and credibility of this industry, which is becoming more global by the minute. The more wine that Langton’s sells and at better prices, the more incentive there is for Australian makers to create better wine. There’s no denying that higher auction prices drive up prices for current releases. Similarly, why not admit that when Langton’s enters wines into the lower levels of its classification hierarchy that it is sending strong messages to investors and drinkers (that vanishing breed) that these are the wines on whose futures they might stake theirs. Only a small number of wines falls off the list or slide into reverse. And if you want to find out what those wines are in advance, just read the views of the wine critics. So why doesn’t Langton’s do what it really should and admit Yattarna, Meshach and even Octavius to its club? Wouldn’t that be the most honest way of achieving what it’s already trying to do? This Classification is about performance under the auction hammer, which is affected by factors as diverse and as disparate as the reputations gained by vineyards under previous ownership and management and in a previous time, the hysteria generated by overseas critics who would prefer to see most Australian reds made into Australian vintage port, and the publicity generated by certain larger wine companies using cash-for-comment techniques. It’s not and never will be a reflection of the status quo in Australian wine quality. If, as Andrew Caillard writes, ‘the Langton’s Classification was and still is driven by the consumer’, it should reflect the consumers’ view in entirity and not just in part. Only then will its integrity truly lie in simplicity.
