First, a warning: this is a boring post. The subject does, though, matter. If you’re looking for pure entertainment, though, I’d skip this one.

The background can be found in the entry for February 10th: Fairtrade or rogue trade? In a footnote to that post, I wondered what controls there might be to stop producers (or retailers) who had won a gold medal at either the International Wine Challenge (IWC) or the Decanter World Wine Awards (DWWA) committing fraud along the following hypothetical lines.

• Win your medal with an outstanding sample offered at an attractive price: hurrah!
• Purchase enough medal stickers for three times the amount of wine you actually have of the medal-winning lot.
• Bottle enough of the medal-winning lot to launch the wine to acclaim and applause.
• Extend the original lot with less good wine, but hold a sizeable proportion of that stock back for later sale.
• Offer it via a pricing mechanism which takes the notional single bottle price well above the category in which it was judged, but keeps it in that category via multi-buy purchase.
• Keep selling the (now diluted) medal-winning wine for several years, and if anyone complains about the quality just say ‘the wine is changing as it matures’.

I have now had responses from the two Awards schemes.

The first issue is the declaration of lot size. Mike Florence and Julie Campbell of the IWC tell me that producers are asked to specify overall production information for each wine they submit, as well as how much of that wine is actually available in the UK. Christelle Guibert of the DWWA tells me that there rule is simply that wines must be available in quantities of at least 2400 bottles (or 600 bottles for sweet and fortified wines), but amounts need not be specified.

Is there any limit on the number of stickers you can order? IWC: No – though the sticker is only valid for three years, must be used with the correct vintage of the wine, and producers must submit updated production and availability information for the winning wine when they order stickers. DWWA: No.

Is there any downstream testing of gold-medal wines to check that they are still genuinely of gold-medal standard? IWC: “Yes. We have done re-testing and some analysis work in the past and we are currently expanding our programme to include a more rigorous review of medal winning wines during the months post judging.” DWWA: No.

Are wines judged in price categories and is there any policing later to check they are still being sold in the price category for which they were judged? IWC: “No they are not. We believe in a level playing field, although similar style wines are grouped together. While we do not present our judges with pricing information, the wines are flighted into price brackets. This ensures that wines are given the opportunity to compete amongst their peers.” DWWA: Wines are judged in two categories: below £10 and above £10, and judges have further information about sub-price brackets when they judge. But what if a sub-£10 wine was being sold at over £10? “We do state in the magazine that all the information regarding stockists and prices has been supplied by the submitters and we can accept no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. We also state on the entry pack to submit a retail price not a promotional price.” Christelle Guibert confirmed that if told about such an infraction they would discuss the matter with the retailer in question. She knew of one occurrence where a medal-winning sub-£10 wine had been sold at over £10, and after discussions with the retailer, the price was subsequently re-lowered.

My conclusion from all of this is that both schemes rely on the goodwill and good faith of producers. In the absence of this, it seems to me that both schemes are wide open to fraud.

There is surely nothing to stop a producer overstating the amount of wine he or she has available for the carefully prepared sample which is being entered. Once the award has been won, the producer could order as many stickers as he or she wishes.

The schemes also rely on the goodwill and good faith of retailers regarding price points. This is particularly glaring in the case of wines judged (at the IWC) among a cohort of inexpensive wines, or judged (at the DWWA) as ‘sub-£10’ with the judges actually knowing (as they would) that a wine was in category A, meaning under £5. As we all know, a sub-£5 gold may look very much less attractive if it is sold at £7.99 or £8.99, yet there is nothing to stop a retailer doing this in either scheme.

Solutions?

I have four proposals.

1. Downstream auditing of gold medals is essential, and for silver and bronze advisable.
2. Lot sizes should be stated for all entries, and a limit should be placed on the number of gold, silver and bronze medal stickers available for purchase based on the stated lot size.
3. Any producer winning a gold medal should immediately be asked to supply further samples of the wine in question to be retained by the organisers and used for downstream audits.
4. Both competitions should adopt at least three price bands: under £5; under £10 or £15; and over £10 or £15. Gold, silver and bronze stickers should then be redesigned to specify the price band in which the medal has been won.

This will add an extra administrative burden and cost, but the reputations of both competitions rests very heavily on those medal-winning wines delivering the value and excitement they promise to the consumer. It has to be worth it. Even my proposals aren’t watertight – but they would be a disincentive to fraud, and they would underline the seriousness with which both competitions are run. At present, producers could exploit the loopholes I have outlined above, and retailers manipulate the clout of a medal from either competition by inflating the wine’s price. The result is that consumers will be disappointed … as I was disappointed with the medal-winning wine described in my blog entry of February 10th.