Squashing that “Perdeberg Ward” proposal

Those few who are interested in the integrity of the Wine of Origin system will be pleased to know the latest in the story about Perdeberg Winery’s application to have a new ward called “Perdeberg” even though it has precious little to do with the mountain of that name. See my rather rough response to the proposal here and here.

This is how the Wine and Spirit Board informed various interested parties of their decision:

  • “The Board has considered the application by Perdeberg Winery, taking into account inter alia, the findings and recommendations of the Demarcation Committee and the objections received. The Board is of the opinion that the area can not lay claim to the name Perdeberg. In light of the above, the application for the defining of Perdeberg as a production area (ward) in terms of Section 6 of the Wine of Origin Scheme, can not be granted.”

The mystery remains as to why Perdeberg Winery pursued this silly and doomed quest. The idea of the ward was not a bad one – but the name was never going to be allowed, especially once just about every other interested party opposed it. Incidentally, the opposition included grape growers within the proposed ward, as I was vigorously informed by a private email.

What a pity the Board is not always so mindful of protecting the integrity of the system – I think particularly of their decision to allow producers of that modest variety cruchen blanc to continue calling itself Cape Riesling. Also the continuance of the fraud (in my opinion) involving, inter alia,  Perdeberg Riesling, whose totally legal label claims that it is WO Paarl, but is actually made from grapes grown in Durbanville.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Are you human? *