Veritas Competition: Who Judges the Judges?

In an opportune and thoughtful article on winemag regarding wine judging, editor Christian Eedes is accurate in stating what ratings, competitions and reviews are expected to represent. Namely: “Wine criticism long ago became more than tasting notes and scores – it is a lens through which the industry, its makers, and its consumers understand quality.”

I found Christian’s opining especially relevant in light of this year’s results at the Veritas competition, the ultimate grand-daddy of South African wine shows with a history dating back to 1990 and a gig enjoying a greater degree of backing from official industry bodies than any other local competition. The fact that Veritas falls under the auspices of the South African National Wine Show Association, underscores this reputation of gravitas and blue-blooded wine industry pedigree.

Among South African wine consumers, too, Veritas has gained a reputation as a brand whose highlighting of the country’s top wines makes a Veritas gold or double gold medal affixed to a bottle a reputable underscoring of the quality behind that gilded producer’s label.

This provenance and reputation make the aforementioned “lens through which the industry, its makers and its consumers understand quality” a supposedly lucid and influential viewer when it is framed by the Veritas brand. Entries to the competition are vast and diverse in their inclusivity, leaving many people with a wine interest believing that Veritas reflects trends, direction and progress in the South African wine industry.

A certain segment of the results turned in at this year’s Veritas, however, left me wondering if this “lens” through which the competition’s displaying of South Africa’s wine offering had not been smudged, warped or cracked.

The specific case of irksomeness lies in the Chardonnay judging, where the Veritas judges could only see it fit to award one double gold medal (93pts and above) in a category that has over the past two decades become one of the South African industry’s most reputable and distinguished segments. 

From the outset, I’d state that my incredulous reaction would be the same if Veritas 2025 had only found one Chenin Blanc or Sauvignon Blanc wine good enough for a 93pts and above rating. Together with Chardonnay, these two varieties constitute South Africa’s most important white wine categories, both in terms of production levels as well as the quality affirmations they constantly receive in local and international wine shows, as well as from the pens of critics and writers.

At this year’s Veritas, Chenin Blanc took 12 double golds to Sauvignon Blanc’s four with as mentioned, Chardonnay’s lonely one.

What is thus hazily visible through the smudged Veritas lens is a scenario swimming against the tide of local and global opinion that Chardonnay has of late become one of South Africa’s most reputable wine categories, thereby undermining Veritas’s reputation as an honest and relevant reflector of the state of Cape wine.

I mean, can anybody with a sense of vinous reality truly believe that South Africa produces better Petit Verdot – two double gold medals – than it does Chardonnay? Put that on the international bill-board, and it is a laughable suggestion.

If the scoreboard doesn’t lie and one has to accept that the poor Chardonnay showing was the result of the relevant judging panel, I’d expect the Veritas organisers to have an own lens affixed with which to, well, judge the judges. For surely, in a competition bearing this gravitas, reputation and importance the management of Veritas cannot be totally detached from its judges and their findings?

Thus, if a questionable set of results is turned in – something the Chardonnay category fell victim to this year – the findings need debating and introspection to determine whether the findings were in fact an accurate reflection of the initial status quo reached by the judges.

Going through the list of gold and silver medals handed out, one can see that some of South Africa’s leading Chardonnay producers did enter the competition with wines whose quality is undisputed. I would thus expect that the judging panel responsible for a single 93pts wine among a glittering array of reputable wines and producers be requested by their employer to, well, work harder and work better. (Previous Veritas judges confirmed that this has been done on numerous occasions in the past.)

The employer, namely Veritas, is surely more important than the employees, considering its leadership role and reputation in the wine industry. Thus, re-taste the wines, debate and question, and if need be, get a new panel. Or is wine judging cold, clinical and absolute, elements swimming against the very grain of wine appreciation?

This is by no means a call for coercion and dictatorial control of the wine judging process, heaven forbid. It is simply an expectation of thoroughness and the grasping of reality, something those judging a certain category and those managing the reputation of their wine competitions should be in synch about.

Rose-tinted lenses are not the answer, but ones of clarity offering a view of reality are.