A fascinating theory by Matt Kramer; Australia leads the wine world.

And not for the reason you might expect:

"And when he says that our greatest wine export is not an ocean of well-made plonk but the notion of egalitarianism - the level playing field - it appears on the surface to be a lovely thought he might have stumbled across while rummaging through the cleanskins wine shop down from his South Yarra apartment. But it comes with a typical Matt Kramer sting in the tail.

"Whether Australians know it or not - and I don't know whether they do or not - Australia has emerged in the last decade as the most powerful wine force in the world," Kramer says over a cappuccino at his favourite South Yarra meeting place, the Observatory Cafe in the Royal Botanic Gardens.

Kramer talks about the "rip-tide" of egalitarianism running through our society - the notion of equality of opportunity - and applies it to our wine. He argues that we have elevated our commodity (non-premium) wines to the equal of "old world" wines. We defer to no one, we started with a blank sheet (unlike the Americans, he says, who were deferential to France from the beginning) and we are the masters of applying wine science to benefit the consumer, through aids like oak chips and reverse osmosis to concentrate wines. We celebrate the here and now with thousands of wine brands.

The rest of the discussion is here at the age.com.au

Lots of people buy Australian wine....Don't they.

Any country that can produce Stump Jump GSM for $10 U.S. has to know what they are doing!

I visited Australia last summer and tasted from cellar doors in Victoria, Barrosa, McLaren Vale, Padathay, Kangaroo Island, Langhorne Creek, Coonwara, Mornington Peninsula. Some remarkably great wines for a great price. But I also ran into some very awful wines from bigger producers. With the grape glut then present in Australia, there were a lot of wines that never should have been made/sold. With that said, 2005 and beyond should be good vintages with the 2005s being the new lead.

At the end of the article Kramer is quoted as saying:

"There are really only two kinds of wines in the world, wines that taste like they come from somewhere, and wines that taste as if they could come from anywhere. Australia, to both its benefit and its detriment, has become the world's master of wines that taste like they could come from anywhere."

And I don't tend to disagree with him. Technology will some day allow something which tastes exactly like a Chablis Grand Cru to be made from genetically modified grapes grown hydroponically somewhere north of Boise. Like the song goes, it'll be an imitation copy of a fake Dior. If all we want is good taste and not good grammar, then that should be enough. If we attach more depth to our "hobby," then this is a sad, sad thing.

I know that, when I am consciously tasting wine, I close my eyes and ponder its origin and perhaps the times I spent at the source. OK, so I'm a foolhardy romantic. The democratization of wine in this way just doesn't appeal to me.

Ahh the Botanical Gardens in Melbourne... my favourite oasis of peace.

Seemed all very sensible to me. But if I can rework the old line about "all happy families are the same, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way", I'll say this: small, quality focussed producers are the same all over the world, big industrial wine commodity companies each dominate their own market in a different way. It's perhaps because Australia's large companies have such a large share of the national market - and the export one - that the smaller producers tend to be tarred with the same brush.
Add the sub-group of high-profile warm-area makers chasing Parker points, and you get a odd sort of view of the Australian wine industry. And yet, for all the protestations of we geeks, the general perception is accurate enough. The vast bulk of prodcution, both by litre and dollar terms, does fall into these camps.
Where Australian wine really struggles from the external perspective is in the quality 'terroir' end of the market - and mostly for reasons of sheer volume. There are lots of small artisan makers - but for all Australia's 2000-odd wineries, they're all very small, and still short in number by world standard. Plenty export only in desultory volumes; so that although anyone living here can find many interesting wines that speak 'of their place' such wines are scarce enough on world markets, and no bargain anyway.
Doubtless Kramer will return to the States, look around him at the Australian wines widely available there and wish for a better selection.

As a sidenote, some big companies in the past were really very good. The old Southcorp (pre-2000) was clearly a company driven by winemakers. They had a massive product range, carried all sorts of labels that must have been of marginal profitability, had wineries all over the country. I always pictured the Rosemount marketing manager walking down to the winery and saying 'I want 40,000 cases of soft red from the Riverland, 13% alcohol, 12 grams RS, we'll sell it for $9... whereas at Southcorp the winemaker would wander into the office with a couple of bottles and say to the marketing guy "This is a straight grenache from the back-paddock we've been watching for a few years, and it deserves bottling separately. Probably be between 1500 and 3000 cases a year, depending on vintage. Let me know how you go..."
Fosters, of course, has no idea at all...

cheers,
Graeme

matt kramer says

"There are really only two kinds of wines in the world, wines that taste like they come from somewhere, and wines that taste as if they could come from anywhere. Australia, to both its benefit and its detriment, has become the world's master of wines that taste like they could come from anywhere."

which is probably why i've only bought one of them that i can remember in at least 10 years.

I'm in Australia right now and some of my preconceived notions have been dispelled. There are some beautifully made wines to be found here. I just tasted a lovely Riesling from the Clare Valley that is the closest thing to Alsace Riesling in the New World (from my experience). I am bringing back a case with me.

All shiraz is overoaked, high alcohol, high extract messes -- not true. I've found many elegant versions that are just delightful.

The people here could not be more friendly and helpful. The foods have been very creative as well -- another myth of mine dispelled.

There is only one problem that I've found with Australia -- two weeks is barely enough time to scratch the surface of Victoria and South Australia. You need two or three months just to do justice to the wine country. As Arnie said, "I'll be back."

Great report, Randy, thank you. I agree with everything you write.

And, chiming in on Kramer's points, here are some notes from my wine diary five years ago on what Oz Clarke believed after a similar voyage to Australia:

Today, Australia leads the world in innovation and in paying attention to customer preference. California once did. France once did. They, or another, may take Australia’s place in the future. But today no other country pays as much attention to consumer preference. And, in the States, Australia is now the third leading importer, and catching up quickly on France and Italy, the current leaders.

Medicine and wine have historically been closely tied together. In 1788, the wardens ordered grapes planted as soon as the convict ships arrived. The express belief was that wine would keep people healthier and mentally more stable. And later, great wineries were created by doctors, like Dr. Lindeman and Dr. Penfold.

In the 1960’s Oz winemaking was changed by OE (Aussie for Outside Influence).

And what is almost unique is how the “big boys” in Australia are as committed as the boutiques to making the best wine they can. Of course, there is bad wine made in Australia, but new styles often come from the largest houses: Shiraz by Penfolds, Chardonnay by Rosemount, Riesling by Orlando, Hunter Semillon by Lindemans. Clarke said this was almost unique in the wine world; there are no big company leaders in France, Germany or Italy and in the US only Gallo Sonoma Valley has done the same, but there is very little connection, he asserts, between the Central Valley and Sonoma Valley branches of Gallo.

In Australia: “You gotta have a go.” Or, in Patrick Smith’s words: “The enemy is complacency.” The economic reason for this is that there just aren’t that many Australians, and they live in a gigantic country. Australian winemakers have to meet the requirements of Australians for better and different wines, and Clarke is sure they will.

He cites: Dolcetto (planted first in 1860), Malbec (150 years), Petit Verdot, Tempranillo, up 1500% from a small base in five years.

EU winemakers curse the “Australian Profit Margin”. But, it is cheaper to ship wine from Australia to London than the same quantity from Marseille to London. Administrative inefficiencies give Australia an enormous advantage and better margins.

Wine lovers bitch and moan about the big guys in Austalia, but I found that they really do "give it a go" on low volume boutique wine,even though they are making relatively simple wines in large quantities that have great market acceptance.

Thanks again for the report, Randy.

Regards, Bob