nouveau / liquid assets / preview / review CSWWC 2022: The French sparkling empire strikes back
Tom Stevenson, the competition’s chairman, gives the results and behind- the-scenes story of the Champagne & Sparkling Wine World Championships
competition since the standout year of 2019. It was also the year when France stepped back up to the plate. Until 2019, France had always taken top place, but in 2020 and 2021 Italy roared ahead. In 2022, however, France fought back strongly, winning 55 golds and 48 silvers compared to Italy’s 53 golds and a whopping 129 silvers (more than half of the silver medals awarded in the entire competition). In pure Olympian terms, this makes France the clear winner, but Italy missed out by only two gold medals, and with such a massive number of silver medals, it can hold its head up high.
W This was the year when Roger
Jones, the CSWWC’s ambassador extraordinaire and super-talented former Michelin-starred in-house chef, decided he would be Dr Dolittle. (See this 26-second clip, https://tinyurl. com/2529bud2, no special effects involved!) In 2020, when we were locked down at Merrieweathers at the height of the Covid pandemic, we were forced by circumstance to overwork Roger and confine him to a bunk bed. In 2022, however, we had the means to make amends at Jon Carter’s New House Farm Country Retreat in the High Weald of East Sussex, where we enjoyed spoiling him with a spacious suite overlooking the swimming pool. Roger was ably assisted by his lovely wife Sue, whose charm, calm, and efficiency pervaded the entire team. Unhampered by the pandemic, we were also able to give them both a day off when we took everyone to The Bell Inn in Ticehurst, an establishment that the CSWWC happily endorses for its amazing Sunday lunch and friendly service.
26 | THE WORLD OF FINE WINE | ISSUE 79 | 2023
ith a grand total of 147 gold and 248 silver medals, this was the most successful
How we score All medals must be agreed by all three
judges tasting blind. n Gold: 18.5–20 points n Silver: 17–18 points n Bronze (theoretical, not awarded): 15.5–16.5 points
n No award: 12.5–14 points n Possibly faulty: 12 points n Definitely faulty: 11 points (and the judge must name the fault).
This is a 20-point system, and the top three are pretty much standard the world over. Some wine competitions have adopted the 100-point scale, but that is merely a matter of calculation, and any professional taster should be able to jump from one to the other without difficulty. In recent years, we have seen the introduction of an upper level of so-called double-gold or platinum medals at various other competitions, but in my opinion, skimming off the top layer of gold-medal wines devalues the other gold medals. This was also the opinion of Tony Jordan, who always used to say that gold medals should be regarded as the ultimate achievement in any competition. Any awards beyond gold should reflect a specific purpose, such as Best in Class or a trophy. There can only be one Best in Class or trophy winner: These are not categories of medal and do not affect the stature of gold. Best in Class is the last truly objective verdict in any competition. All wines are judged blind, of course, but up to and including Best in Class they are judged blind exclusively against other wines of the same provenance and style. Take one step beyond Best in Class, and the judging starts veering from objective to subjective. For example, a Regional Trophy still retains provenance, but it is a choice
between different styles, whereas a National Trophy is a choice between different regions and quite often different styles. World Champion Trophies strictly adhere to one style, but the choice is between wines from different origins. Neither the style nor the provenance will be revealed when judging for such awards, but the decisions made can never be fully objective. If asked which is best between a Non-Vintage blend, Vintage blend, blanc de blancs, blanc de noirs, and a rosé, it comes down to a subjective judgment in the end, even if they all come from the same provenance. It’s like being asked to judge apples against pears. We try to resolve this dilemma by looking for the best balance of purity, finesse, and complexity, but the choice will ultimately be a personal preference.
No award, possibly faulty, and definitely faulty
Allowing a score of between 12.5 and 14 points enables the judges to indicate how bad a technically correct wine can be. However, we use a single, fixed score to distinguish between a no-award wine and one that is possibly (12 points) or definitely (11 points) faulty. To receive the lowest-possible score of the competition and the dubious honor of being labeled definitely faulty, the judge making that call has to name the fault in question.
Unique to CSWWC n All wines received in clear glass
bottles are double-bagged in thick, lightproof plastic bags to protect the contents from light-strike.
n Rather than taking just days and using hundreds of judges, leaving producers to wonder who might be tasting their wines, the CSWWC takes weeks and uses
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220
