WSET® Level 4 Diploma in Wine

Examiners’ Report for:

• D2 October 2021
• D3 October 2021
• D4 October 2021
• D5 October 2021

This report is designed to assist candidates and those involved in the teaching of the Diploma
by giving feedback on examination performance in the October 2021 exams.

1
D2 – Wine Business

D2 October 2021
TOTAL NUMBER OF CANDIDATES 452
PASS RATE 67%

Examiners’ comments:

Question one asked about the different options for selling wine directly to consumers. Candidates
were required to describe the different options and the benefits of each. Generally, the main options
were covered adequately, but often with limited explanation. Some candidates wrote about the
disadvantages, which the question did not ask for and was therefore irrelevant. There were a lot of
answers that focused on the perceived ‘soft’ benefits of selling directly to consumers (being able to
tell the wine’s story/enhance consumer experience and sense of authenticity etc.) rather than
demonstrating an understanding of the commercial realities/benefits of this distribution model.

Question two asked about the en primeur process and candidates were required to explain the
process. In the main this was well-handled although many answers were too brief. Candidates were
also required to outline the advantages and disadvantages for consumers. In some cases, there was
confusion around who the ‘consumer’ was, and some missed this distinction and wrote about the
advantages and disadvantages for producers, which was not answering the question as set. While
candidates weren’t generally penalised for poor spelling, examiners would expect Diploma students
to be able to spell en primeur, regardless of their native language – this is a key wine term (and was
part of the question).

Question three was the best answered on this paper and it asked about the different stages in the life
cycle of a product and how the aims of the marketing strategy would differ at each stage. The best
answers showed solid understanding through the use of examples, rather than near verbatim
reproduction of the materials.

Question four asked candidates to identify three factors that could result in wine being in short supply
and then why an undersupply might lead to a decrease in demand. The first part was straightforward
to many, but some candidates failed to answer as set e.g. a number of candidates gave more than
three factors, which gained no extra marks. Often answers lacked detail – e.g. bad weather was a
correct factor, but simply stating “bad weather can lead to wine being in short supply” was too
simplistic to gain all the marks. Candidates must fully explain themselves e.g. by describing how
rainfall can disrupt flowing or pollination leading to reduction in yield; or how rainfall might lead to
increased disease pressure, again reducing the yield.

A lot of candidates seemed unprepared and struggled with the spread of topics and content expected.
In order to gain a pass mark, candidates realistically need to attempt all sections, and if they failed to
address part of a question it inevitably led to low marks.

2
D3 – Wines of the World
D3 theory October 2021
TOTAL NUMBER OF CANDIDATES 460
OVERALL PASS RATE 59%
PASS WITH DISTINCTION 0%
PASS WITH MERIT 8%
PASS 51%
FAIL 31%
FAIL UNCLASSIFIED 10%

D3 tasting October 2021

TOTAL NUMBER OF CANDIDATES 357
OVERALL PASS RATE 83%
PASS WITH DISTINCTION 1%
PASS WITH MERIT 36%
PASS 46%
FAIL 14%
FAIL UNCLASSIFIED 3%

Examiners’ comments:

Tasting Paper

October 2021: Unit D3 - TASTING PAPER 1, Question 1

Wines from a single, unspecified grape variety – Pinot Noir

Wine 1 Country: France

Region: Burgundy
Wine: Bertrand Ambroise Nuits-Saint-Georges 2014

Wine 2 Country: Chile

Region: Leyda Valley
Wine: Carolina Pinot Noir Reserva 2019

Wine 3 Country: New Zealand

Region: Marlborough
Wine: Auntsfield Single Vineyard Pinot Noir 2019

This question was generally well answered; it had the highest pass rate of the four flights with a
significant number of Merit and Distinction answers and the vast majority of candidates identified
the variety without any problem. Two of the three wines showed great complexity which gave a lot
of scope for high-scoring descriptions of the aromas and flavours. Most candidates covered the SAT
comprehensively and scored well with their assessment of the structural components of the wines.

The first wine was a high-quality Burgundy with some bottle age. It had the typical red fruit, well-

3
managed oak and meaty tertiary flavour profile expected and high-scoring candidates also picked up
on its elegance and silky texture. One of the concluding questions asked for the ‘country of origin’ but
those who answered ‘Burgundy’ instead of ‘France’ were still given the mark.

Wine 2 demonstrated clear varietal character but was stylistically very different, being juicier and less
complex. The fruit character was riper and the oak less obvious but it was generally well-described
and despite the country of origin being perhaps less obvious there were still plenty of high scores,
with most deducing that the quality was lower than that of the other two wines.

The third wine was concentrated and expressive and, although it was a youthful example, its quality
was clear. Descriptions were generally accurate and although quite a lot of candidates thought it to
be from the USA this did not prevent them from scoring well.

The assessments of quality were generally good, and candidates who evaluated their tasting notes
rather than simply repeating them tended to score well. However, candidates often misunderstood
the ‘readiness for drinking/potential for ageing’ question and lost marks needlessly because instead
of explaining why the wine has or hasn’t potential for ageing, they predicted what they thought was
going to happen to the wine as it matures e.g. softening of the tannins, etc.

Most candidates correctly identified the variety, picking up on the many clues including the pale
colour, particularly of wines 1 and 2, the tannin level, flavour profile, affinity with oak and quality
potential.

4
October 2021: Unit D3 - TASTING PAPER 1, Question 2
Wines from one country of origin – Portugal

Wine 4 Country: Portugal

Region: Vinho Verde
Wine: Adega Ponte de Lima 2020

Wine 5 Country: Portugal

Region: Douro
Wine: Casa Ferreirinha Callabriga Douro 2018

Wine 6 Country: Portugal

Region: Dão
Wine: Duque de Viseu, Tinto 2019

Judging by the pass rates, this flight of wines was more of a challenge. Generally, the question was
reasonably well-answered but there were few outstanding papers and several well below average.
The majority seemed to be in the pass/merit bracket, scoring well in the appearance, nose and plate
sections but gaining far fewer marks elsewhere.

The increasing popularity, and availability, of Portuguese wines led us to select Portugal as the
country of origin for the first time. As was the case with a flight of French wines in the previous
Diploma D3 exams, this may have come as an unwelcome surprise to those who tried to predict the
flight based on previous papers. Most inaccuracies came through misidentifying the country and
regions of origin, but as this was not easy it was not surprising. It was disappointing that a common
approach was to attempt to identify the country of origin for each wine separately, which of course
made for some very forced and contradictory arguments if the first wine was incorrectly located. The
minority who examined the wines together, particularly numbers 5 and 6, and who considered
common styles, attributes, and any particularly distinctive qualities, usually did well. Following the
indicators to climate and giving logical deductions should score good marks even if the wrong country
is given.

Candidates who accurately described wine 4 found this to be a clear steer to the country of origin,
particularly when considered alongside the style of the red wines. This wine had a very distinct style
and its characteristics were well noted by many, although correct conclusions were drawn less often.
Few candidates noted that it was ‘simple’ or similar, especially in the ‘Nose’ section, some saving it
for the Quality Assessment. The alcohol level was frequently misjudged but the aroma clusters were
described more accurately. Most ended up in plausible cool climate regions, but too often the
spritz/low alcohol went unnoticed or ignored and Vinho Verde was not identified.

Wine 5 also had a distinct style and the overall standard of answer was quite good. Few candidates
spotted the tertiary characteristics, but the primary and secondary characters were quite well
described and the quality and ageing assessments were often good. More attention to the overall
structure was needed and would have helped avoid the apparent desire of many for the wine to be
a Malbec from Mendoza or, failing that, a Barossa Shiraz.

Wine 6 was arguably the hardest wine to pin down because its characteristics were perhaps more
subtle and less distinct than the other two wines. Again, tertiary characters were rarely noticed but,

5
in fairness, these aromas and flavours were subtle. Quality levels were often misjudged, as was origin
– many candidates tried to identify a dominant grape variety as their marker, when the structure of
the wine was the key.

6
October 2021: Unit D3 - TASTING PAPER 2, Question 3
Wines from one region of origin – Alsace

Wine 7 Country: France

Region: Alsace
Wine: Hugel Estate Riesling 2016

Wine 8 Country: France

Region: Alsace
Wine: Les Princes Abbés Pinot Gris 2017

Wine 9 Country: France

Region: Alsace
Wine: Hugel Estate Gewurztraminer 2016

Generally the answers were quite good with a high percentage of Merit grades. When selecting wines
for the common region paper we often include a ‘banker’ which is a distinctive wine that gives a
strong hint to the theme of the flight, but in this instance at least two of the wines had sufficient
personality to enable straightforward identification, so most candidates were able to identify Alsace
as the region and give at least one valid reason for their choice.

The strongest set of answers was for the Riesling, followed by the Gewurztraminer and a very mixed
set of answers for wine 8. The Riesling showed typically high acidity, so candidates who had the
confidence to move away from ‘medium’ options on the scale did well. The aromas and flavours were
expressive and typical of the variety so it was surprising that some thought this to be Chardonnay,
and this conclusion made correct identification of the region of origin highly unlikely.

Wine 8 was more of a challenge but there was still plenty to describe due to its complexity, including
some developed characters, a touch of sweetness and its richer, rounder, fuller structure so plenty of
marks could be earned even when the variety was misidentified. This was a good example of an Alsace
Pinot Gris from a very highly regarded producer.

Wine 9 is always popular in a blind tasting because the powerful lychee and rose aromas, lower acidity
and rounded texture are almost unmistakable. A few candidates thought it to be Torrontés, but this
subsequently proved problematic in the context of the flight. Some decided it was Muscat but still
earned good marks because it fitted reasonably well within the flight. More surprising were a number
who went for Chenin Blanc; it appeared that they had chosen the Loire as the region of origin and
were working back from there, which is a dangerous approach.

Identification of the region proved to be straightforward with most candidates correctly concluding
Alsace. There were many clues to this including the combination of grape varieties, absence of oak,
range of sweetness levels, presence of Gewurztraminer, viscosity of wines 8 and 9, the austerity of
the Riesling and that all three were of very good quality.

7
October 2021: Unit D3 - TASTING PAPER 2, Question 4
Unspecified wines

Wine 10 Country: South Africa

Region: Stellenbosch
Wine: The Glass Collection Cabernet Sauvignon 2018

Wine 11 Country: USA

Region: Lodi, California
Wine: Lodi Old Vine Zinfandel 2017, Scotto Family Wines

Wine 12 Country: Hungary

Region: Tokaj
Wine: Crown Estates Tokaji Aszu 6 puttonyos 2013

Question 4 is a flight of three wines with no common theme, and this can potentially make this
question more challenging as there is less context. However, the pass rate here was high with a lot
of Merit-level passes.

Of the three, wine 10 was generally answered less well than 11 and 12. By a considerable margin,
wine 12 was answered the best, but this was unsurprising as Tokaji is invariably a popular exam wine
with candidates.

Wine 10 showed some herbaceous, bell pepper notes and this, combined with the ripeness of fruit,
level of tannin and use of oak led many to consider Carmenère. This was a logical conclusion so these
candidates tended to still score well due to their description and quality assessment, which proves
that you do not always have to ‘get the wine right’ to pass.

Wine 11 was generally well answered. Its combination of over- and under-ripeness, distinct oak, high
alcohol and touch of sweetness steered many to correctly conclude that it was a Zinfandel of very
good quality. A common pitfall was that it was an Italian passito wine, based on the slightly off-dry
nature and cooked fruit character, but this was not disastrous because it was a logical conclusion.

Wine 12 proved straightforward for most because it not only showed very clear botrytis characters
but also occupied the extremes of the SAT with its high levels of sweetness and acidity, low alcohol,
full body, pronounced intensity and long finish. It was clearly of outstanding quality and undeniably
capable of significant further ageing.

8
Theory Paper

Question 1

Describe the production and selling points of the following AOC Bordeaux white wines.

a) Entre-deux-Mers
b) Pessac-Léognan
c) Barsac

(Each section carries equal weighting)

This question asked specifically about the white wines from Bordeaux, so any candidate who wrote
about red wines did not gain any credit for this part of their answer. This was either a result of not
reading the question properly, or more likely that these candidates felt they did not have enough to
say about the white wines so included reds. This is never advised: candidates should answer the
question as set and irrelevant content will not gain any marks. If, during the planning process, it
becomes clear that there is insufficient knowledge to formulate an adequate answer, then it is better
to consider another question.

This was a straightforward question for those who had a good understanding of the typical styles
found in the three regions.

Production was normally dealt with better than selling points although frequently answers lacked
detail and were very generic. Better answers demonstrated thought about the three very different
styles coming from these regions and applied their answer specifically to the production of these
wines. Points of difference in the production of the three wines include permitted yields, varieties
(including typical blends) and differences in winemaking/maturation.

‘Selling points’ was intended to be interpreted as the positive purchase cues – i.e. what are the points
for each wine that could be used to sell it? Some candidates confused this with ‘point of sale’ i.e.
where these wines would be sold. Acknowledging the ambiguity with the term, either interpretation
was credited by examiners so candidates were not disadvantaged in either scenario. For the former
interpretation, reputation, price and style should have formed part of the discussion, and for the
latter, the suitability of each wine to different retailers within the off and on trade.

Candidates who had a sound understanding of the typical styles of wine coming from the three regions
did well in this question, and even those who did not have detailed knowledge of the exact
winemaking and production techniques showed that good logic could pick up many of the available
marks.

9
Question 2

Assess the strengths and weaknesses of Greece as a wine producing country.

This was a broad and open question where candidates had the opportunity to explore a wide range of
different strengths and weaknesses associated with Greece. Overall, it was handled well with the
question receiving one of the highest pass rates across both theory papers, including a proportionally
high number of Merits and Distinctions.

Most candidates covered central themes such as climate, grape varieties, variety of styles,
history/reputation and tourism, but where answers fell short of higher marks was through providing
insufficient analysis of these topics. The command verb “assess” indicated that candidates were
expected to go beyond simply listing a variety of strengths and weaknesses, and to provide an
evaluation of each of them. Nearly all answers highlighted the favourable Mediterranean climate as a
suitable place to grow grapes, but only the better candidates noted how the variation of climates and
moderating factors ensures that Greece can grow a wide range of varieties and produce different
styles of wine at all quality levels and price points. The very best answers were able to take this a stage
further - taking a factor such as climate and discussing how it can be both a strength and a weakness.
As above for a strength, but also a weakness insofar as the harsh and dry conditions in places such as
Santorini make grape growing challenging and require specialist viticultural methods resulting in very
low yields. Papers that were able to do this across a range of different factors stood out clearly from
the pack.

The wording of the question provided a simple structure for candidates to base their answers on –
discussion on strengths followed by weaknesses, or vice versa. This was fine and resulted in most
papers providing a focussed response. Although the weighting for strengths against weaknesses was
not specified, it was expected that candidates should write similar amounts for both (with some
leeway each way). It was noticeable in some weaker papers that one section was much longer than
the other (usually strengths, followed by a much shorter discussion on weaknesses). This typically felt
unbalanced and made it difficult to secure a Pass even if the longer section showed signs of promise.
The marker also noted a few answers that were very condescending about Greece and Greek wine.
While we encourage candidates to voice their opinions in their answers, on occasion this came across
as rude, but more often, wrong. Moreover, this question asked for an assessment of both sides of the
question – strengths and weaknesses.

With so many indigenous grape varieties and regions with unusual names, it was hardly surprising the
marker commented on the high number of spelling mistakes. While candidates were not marked down
for this, it is good practice to try and learn the correct spelling for places and varieties across all wine
regions (globally), for this will always make an answer more authoritative and convincing.

10
Question 3

Outline the characteristics of the grape varieties Carmenere and Torrontés and describe the wines
they produce.
What are the opportunities and challenges for these wines in the marketplace?
(Each section carries equal weighting)

This was a popular question, but one that relatively few candidates performed extremely strongly on,
with a number of Merits but only a handful of Distinction grades. Overall performance was limited by
two major trends - not addressing directly what was asked in the question, and/or a lack of detailed
knowledge of the subject.

One of the more surprising misapprehensions of many candidates was that the two grape varieties
are only grown in the same country (roughly an even split between Chile and Argentina). Not only
was this a significant factual error, but it also made it extremely difficult to pass because it led to
incorrect discussions of related factors such as notable regions of production or climatic conditions:
Torrontés performing well in Leyda, and Carmenere showing high-altitude hardiness in Mendoza, for
example, were quite commonplace errors. Only discussing one country also meant candidates were
limited when addressing opportunities and challenges in the marketplace. Varietal association with
distinct countries is a key factor in these wines’ commercial position. Overall, the high number of
scripts which showed confusion between Argentina and Chile suggests that South America needs to
be an area of focus for many candidates.

There was also a general lack of accuracy shown about the nature and characteristics of Carmenere
and Torrontés. Most candidates attempted to write a basic tasting note to explain the characteristics
of the grapes and wines, and this was a practical, if simplistic, way to answer the question. However,
too many candidates gave overly broad ranges of the grape’s structural components to be convincing.
Candidates should describe what is most typical and be as specific as possible. Regional stylistic
variance, for example, can then be explicitly stated and explained. Better performing candidates were
able to identify key regions where the varieties are planted and state why they are optimal. Answers
for Torrontés, in particular, often lacked such commentary (other than the association with high-
altitude) and many contained factual errors in respect of grape ripening and physiology.

The second question proved problematic for many candidates. Several made no attempt on this or
wrote only a few lines on either Carmenere or Torrontés, despite the guidance of equal weighting.
Many candidates, despite discussing the varieties’ characteristics separately, went on to group them
together when exploring opportunities and challenges. Whilst there are some overlapping themes
(lack of global awareness, relatively niche production, geographic limitations, etc.) there are likely
more differences than similarities. This approach typically provided answers that were brief, lacking
in detailed reasoning and missing key points. Some candidates interpreted the question as a discussion
of the strengths and weaknesses of Chile and Argentina to the exclusion of those of Carmenere and
Torrontés. The close relationship between variety and country meant there was overlap, but these
are not equivalent questions and such an approach necessarily limited the scope of answers. The best
candidates lifted ideas they had presented in their commentary on grape characteristics and also
included learning from their D2 studies.

Very few candidates noted Carmenere plantings outside Chile and also that Torrontés can make sweet
wines. This did not hold back Merit and Distinction candidates, but it was a common theme among
the best-performing candidates that they made some reference to this, and demonstrated
consideration of the question as asked.

11
Question 4
Compare Adelaide Hills, Hunter Valley and Margaret River with reference to their growing
environment and the wines produced.

Overall, this question received a fairly low pass rate; surprising, given the high number of candidates
who attempted it and the relative familiarity of the topic. While the majority of papers contained a
basic level of accurate information pertaining to the three regions, the reasons for papers not
garnering more marks was in general an insufficient amount of supplementary and supporting
discussion. Many candidates were able to accurately identify the climate, but failed to explore other
areas of the growing environment such as topography, soils, rainfall etc. Furthermore, when
candidates did talk about rainfall it was too often generic. For example, lots of papers mentioned the
dry conditions and need for irrigation, yet this tells only part of the story. Candidates were expected
to go further than this providing details of how much rain and when it falls. Very few answers noted
how rainfall caused humidity in vineyards, particularly in the Adelaide Hills and Hunter Valley leading
to the threat of fungal diseases. Simple commentary on low levels of rain and threat of drought made
answers too superficial, showing little progression from what is expected at Level 3.

The handling of the ‘wines produced’ was better and in the main accurate. As above though, weaker
answers typically only discussed the ‘headline’ wine (showing limited knowledge of the region in a
wider context). For example, nearly all papers mentioned the unique style of Semillon produced in the
Hunter Valley, but only a few were able to comment on the fact that white and black varieties are
grown almost equally throughout the region.

Most candidates approached the answer by describing each region, growing environments and wine,
in order. This gave a logical structure and provided enough accurate facts were given, would secure a
basic Pass mark. A number of other candidates structured their answer by discussing the growing
environments of each region and then the wines of each region. Both approaches worked but the
candidates who truly compared the regions used the second approach and achieved higher scores.
The question stipulated that candidates ‘compare’ the regions and a failure to do this capped their
success. Many candidates successfully described the growing environments and wines of each region
but did not compare them. Had they done so there could have been a greater number of Merits given.
This technique may be a challenging one for answer structure, but it’s worth learning and practising
for any essay-style questions at this level.

12
Question 5

Describe the characteristics of the Chenin Blanc grape variety (40% weighting). How do producers
use Chenin Blanc to make a wide variety of wine styles (60% weighting)?

This style of question that focuses on a variety has been used many times in the past and it was
pleasing to see many candidates well prepared. It was the most popular question in the exam and
received the highest pass rate.

The characteristics of the grape were in the main described well, and those who did less well tended
to focus on the characteristics of the wine made from Chenin Blanc, rather than the variety itself. Key
points that needed to be addressed were that it has high acidity (crucial for the wide range of styles);
is early-budding but late-ripening (hence suited to cool climates); is high-yielding (therefore capable
of inexpensive wine production, but when yields are controlled premium wine production is possible);
has susceptibility to botrytis in favourable conditions (suitable for sweet-wine production). Many
candidates attempted to write tasting notes for Chenin Blanc, but because of the aforementioned
characteristics the success of them depended on accompanying context – it impossible to write a
generic note for this variety.

The second part of the question was handled well in many cases, but there were also a number of
poor scripts. Some candidates chose to answer using theoretical styles (this is how you make dry
Chenin Blanc, this is how you make sweet Chenin Blanc, etc.) but without illustrating their answer with
examples. This is not D1. For D3 (Wines of the World) it is expected that candidates will use examples
that show off their knowledge and understanding. In this case, the two regions it was essential to
cover were South Africa and Loire. Within each, candidates were expected to look at how different
producers can create different styles (e.g. bulk inexpensive wines from the Western Cape vs premium
barrel fermented wines from Stellenbosch or Paarl / inexpensive dry Loire styles vs premium
Savennières). Vouvray was an obvious choice to illustrate different sweetness levels (dry/ demi-sec
and moelleux), and for high-quality sweet wines Bonnezeaux/ Quarts de Chaume etc. were
appropriate. The best candidates included wines from other countries and regions that grow Chenin
Blanc.

Some candidates mentioned sparkling wines. These are outside the D3 syllabus so their inclusion was
not required, but some credit was given as they are a good example of a different style and therefore
the examiners felt it was relevant. Candidates who did not mention them were not penalised in any
way - there was plenty to write about in the 40 minutes without mentioning sparkling wines.

The very best answers went into detailed discussion about the different types of oak that can be used,
how Chenin can be used as a blending partner and how the high acidity also makes it suitable to grow
in warm climates outside South Africa (California/Australia, etc).

13
Question 6

Explain how the following factors determine the style of the RED wines produced in Burgenland and
Baden:

a) climate
b) grape variety/ies
c) winemaking techniques

(Each section carries equal weighting)

This was not a widely answered question, and it was evident that numerous candidates had left this
to the end of the examination to attempt. Many responses were rushed, overly brief, or lacking the
structured response of a well-planned and argued essay. That said, there were a good number of
strong answers as well as several outstanding ones.

Passing candidates were able to effectively convey the differences between the two regions and cover
all three of the instructed factors, explaining how each influenced the final wines. Though many
candidates gave overly broad answers (there is a tendency for the words ‘climate’ and ‘winemaking’
to prompt candidates to write everything they know on these subjects, irrespective of relevance),
passing answers were able to ground their answers contextually. Real-world examples and practical
application of the theory in regional context was needed to do this.

The best-performing candidates were able to name the principal climatic factors in play (the Vosges,
Pannonian Plain, River Rhine, Lake Neusiedlersee) and accurately describe the key varietals
(Blaufrankish, Zweigelt, Spatburgunder), using the descriptions of their attributes (tannin, acidity, etc),
to then outline the diverse winemaking techniques used. The best answers linked back to the regions
of Burgenland and Baden throughout.

Unfortunately, many candidates either failed to plan adequately and/or lacked sufficient factual
knowledge. Reading the question carefully before writing is paramount - several answers offered
lengthy discussions on white wines and white winemaking. Some candidates omitted to reference one
or more of the three factors that should have been discussed.

Evidently two less-familiar regions for many, some answers contained no regional factual evidence to
support their answers. Overall, weaker candidates offered lengthy generalised descriptions of red
winemaking techniques and provided unfocused climatic descriptions of diurnal variation/ altitude/
the influence of water, etc., without localising these observations and making them relevant.

A common error was placing both regions in Germany, effectively compromising half the response.
As two distinct regions in different countries, this was disappointing. Many candidates either
presented one homogenous answer covering both regions, or fundamentally geographically mis-
located each region and therefore erroneously described conditions and/or grape varieties not
associated with either.

As always, thoroughly reading all available questions and taking time to sketch-plan all considered
answers before commencing is advised. The strongest answers all focused on the key command verb
‘explain’, providing an informed and balanced response by exploring both regions and the three
factors in turn.

14
Question 7

How do factors in the vineyard and the winery influence the style of the WHITE wines of the Marche
and the RED wines of Abruzzo?

This question was one of the least popular and poorly answered by many. It highlights the need for
students to revise thoroughly and broadly, not just focusing on the more famous regions. This is
especially relevant for Italy, as many regions have featured in the Diploma examination other than
Tuscany, Piedmont, or Veneto. When attempting to answer a question such as this but with little
knowledge, the danger is that answers revert to a generic discussion of viticulture and winemaking
that is not specific to the region. This proved to be the case. Also, answers were mainly descriptive,
rather than explanatory - candidates needed to explain how factors affect wine style.

For the Marche, candidates could pass by only discussing wines made from Verdicchio, however, the
best candidates discussed others too. For Abruzzo, a thorough discussion of Montepulciano was
needed and the wines from the associated DOC.

Those who passed were usually able to draw a contrast between different types of wine of each
colour. The difference between flatter coastal and inland, more hilly topography was well understood.
Better answers provided more detail about appellations, yields, etc. Discussion of winery factors was
generally stronger than that of vineyard ones, and appellation knowledge was better for whites than
for reds. Quite a few candidates included examples of producers in their answers, which was
encouraging. The very best candidates displayed understanding of the nuanced differences between
wine styles.

A common pitfall was including irrelevant material. Meaningless statements such as ‘high or low
temperatures may be used for fermentation’ or ‘canopy management is carried out’ should be
avoided. No credit can be given for this without further explanation – the effects of different
temperatures on wine style, for example, or of what sort of canopy management is done and what
the effect on the resulting wine style is. Some candidates talked about MLF for reds, which is carried
out for all wines; temperature control is similarly widespread. Discussion of the use of cultured yeasts,
fining, filtration and clarification was also unnecessary; these things are not key influences on wine
style in this case. Discussion of export markets (or routes to market in general) was irrelevant.

Some candidates cited the wrong varieties – in these cases it was difficult to award many marks at all.
DOC/DOCGs were often confused or used interchangeably. Coastal areas were sometimes assumed
to be cool; in these regions, the coastal areas are the warmer parts. Some candidates thought that
entry level reds are made with minimal extraction when the reverse might be the case. Some
candidates overstated the quality of premium wines from these regions; although they can be good,
they are not generally ‘outstanding’ in the global context. Many candidates talked about planting
Montepulciano on hillsides to retain acidity; since it is naturally very high in acidity anyway, the value
of cooler sites is in extending the growing season, which is particularly important for a late ripening
variety.

Frequent spelling errors included Verdicchio, Castelli di Jesi, Matelica, diurnal, phenolic, maceration,
extraction. Abruzzo and Marche were also spelled incorrectly even though these words were in the
question. Candidates are reminded that whilst minor errors will be overlooked, it is important to spell
names and technical terms correctly and frequent errors can diminish marker confidence in a script.

15
D4 - Sparkling Wine
D4 October 2021
TOTAL NUMBER OF CANDIDATES 478
PASS RATE 66%

Grade boundary percentage breakdown:

PASS WITH DISTINCTION 2%

PASS WITH MERIT 23%
PASS 41%
FAIL 23%
FAIL UNCLASSIFIED 11%

Examiners’ comments:

Tasting paper

Wine 1 Country: Italy

Region: Asti, Piemonte
Wine: La Morandina Moscato d'Asti 2020
Producer: Azienda Agricola La Morandina
a.b.v.: 5.5%

Wine 2 Country: France

Region: Champagne
Wine: Louis Roederer Carte Blanche (Demi Sec) NV
Producer: Champagne Louis Roederer
a.b.v.: 12%

Wine 3 Country: Italy

Region: Veneto
Wine: Zucchetto Prosecco Superiore Extra Dry 2020
Producer: Azienda Agricola Paolo Zucchetto
a.b.v.: 11.5%

This flight was unusual insofar as none of the wines were dry, with each containing a different amount
of residual sugar. While answers were slightly patchy on sweetness levels, identification of the wines
was strong and led to a very high pass rate overall.

Wine 1 (Asti) was handled most successfully with the majority of candidates noting the low alcohol,
the floral and fruit flavours and sweet palate. However, one reoccurring downfall was in
underestimating the quality level of the wine. Although the flavour profile was relatively simple, it had
lots of concentration, well-balanced acidity and sugar, and a fairly long finish, all the hallmarks of a
very good quality wine. Candidates should remember to taste each wine on its merits rather than on
its price point or consumer perception. By contrast, Wine 2 (demi-sec Champagne) received the
weakest response, perhaps the residual sugar deceiving many candidates of what in theory should
have been a relatively straightforward wine to identify. The broad range of aromas and flavours
covering primary, secondary (autolysis) and tertiary characteristics, together with the fresh acidity and

16
outstanding quality meant that the most logical origin of the wine was Champagne. Many answers
correctly identified Wine 3 as Prosecco, although only about half of these accurately picked the
sweetness level as off-dry.

Encouragingly, the vast majority of candidates used the SAT correctly with only four missing out on
vital marks because they did not follow it as set. However, there were some other common pitfalls
including a lack of detail provided in the concluding assessments and a failure to read the questions
properly. A number of candidates misread the question that asked for the REGION of origin and only
wrote the country which resulted in them missing out on that mark. More significantly, a failure to
address the supplementary question on the back of the exam paper by 43 candidates out of 478 (9%)
suggested they missed it altogether. We stress that candidates must thoroughly read ALL of the
examination paper, which twice referred to an extra question on the final page. Another issue was
that many candidates failed to read the final question properly and just wrote about the production
method rather than linking it to how the sweetness level had been achieved.

Theory paper

The high pass rate in the tasting paper was offset by a mediocre one for the theory section, which was
a mixed bag of candidate performance. There were some high distinctions as well as some extremely
low scores in the 10s and 20s. Some candidates seemed to struggle with question format and
command verbs. One question was heavily weighted (50%) that required ‘explanation’; one at 30%
that required ‘comparison’ skills to answer it well, but also was heavily reliant on relevant factual
content; and one question that was entirely fact-based, asking simply for descriptions and worth 20%
of the marks. Each question and instruction (explain, compare, describe, etc.) requires a different
skillset and candidates should be prepared to answer each one. A list of the command verbs and how
to interpret them can be found in the guidance documents.

Candidates who had learned the course materials (often by rote) tended to score well in Q2 and 3 –
sometimes gaining full marks in Q3. These same candidates often did significantly less well in Q1
because, although they stated the facts correctly, they did not convincingly explain the link between
the facts and the resulting style of the wine, which was fundamental to success in this question. Some
papers were close to a pass having written relatively little overall (often just 2 sides of text for all 3
questions) because of high marks achieved in Q3. Candidates should remember that at this level it is
the application of their knowledge and facts that make them stand out, and those that do this will
invariably receive the highest marks.

Q1 based on Crémant de Loire was worth 50% of the marks and therefore candidates were expected
to offer a thorough and lengthy response. Unsuccessful answers were typically the result of over-
brevity. Far too many were just one side of text or less – not enough for a convincing pass, irrespective
of the number of “correct facts” provided. The other common pitfall in unsuccessful answers was the
tendency to simply state facts without the requisite ‘explanation’ to link them to wine style. By
contrast, this question provided the best platform for the strongest candidates to shine, and there
were some very good answers containing up to three sides of accurate and analytical information.

In Q2 candidates generally had no issues comparing the production of inexpensive and premium
sparkling wines, accurately highlighting the different techniques used – tank method/ carbonation
versus traditional method etc . However, many answers were too generic, and some did not even refer
to the specific context in which this question was placed, Argentina. This meant they lacked the precise
details needed to secure a positive result. Those who made some attempt to link production to a non-
specific growing environment (i.e. warmer vs cooler locations, flat areas vs elevated sites) fared better
depending on the level of “comparison” in their answer. However, it was only the candidates who

17
included specific facts relevant to Argentina (regions, grapes, etc) whilst linking production methods
to quality levels, who achieved the higher pass marks.

Q3 relied on factual recall, and it was obvious if candidates had learned the different labelling terms
associated with Franciacorta or not. As such, there was a wide range of marks allocated from 0 to 20.
Examiners appreciate that it is difficult to remember precise facts and labelling terms for all the regions
and wines, but this question (and paper as a whole) provided a clear indicator whether candidates had
studied the specification in its entirety rather than just the more mainstream wines such as
Champagne, Cava and Prosecco.

18
D5 – Fortified Wine
D5 October 2021
TOTAL NUMBER OF CANDIDATES 373
PASS RATE 56%

Grade boundary percentage breakdown:

PASS WITH DISTINCTION 0%

PASS WITH MERIT 10%
PASS 46%
FAIL 29%
FAIL UNCLASSIFIED 15%

Examiners’ comments:

Tasting paper

Wine 1 Country: Australia

Region: Rutherglen
Wine: Campbells Classic Rutherglen Muscat NV
Producer: Campbells Wines
a.b.v.: 17.5%

Wine 2 Country: Portugal

Region: Douro
Wine: Quinta do Bom Retiro 20 Year Old Tawny Port
Producer: Casa Ramos Pinto
a.b.v.: 20.5%

Wine 3 Country: Spain

Region: Jerez
Wine: Barbadillo Cuco 12yo Oloroso
Producer: Bodegas Barbadillo SL
a.b.v.: 19.5%

The D5 unit remains an area of tasting that candidates find challenging and this was true of this specific
examination. Candidates tend to struggle as they are simply less familiar with fortified wines, and their
respective categories, than they are with sparkling and still table wines. The best preparation any
candidate may take for this exam is to taste more fortified wines. Student-led tasting groups and peer
discussion are of excellent practical use and candidates should try to taste different wines of similar
categories and/or quality levels to build experience and develop their palates. For example, tasting a
basic, reserve, single Quinta and Vintage port together will help candidates ascertain the differences
between these styles. Equally, tasting wines that are commonly confused side by side, such as Sherry
and Madeira, can help identify key structural differences such as acid levels. For this examination the
SAT was largely correctly observed and there were no widespread issues of forgotten terminology.
Minor omissions (although costing valuable marks) were sporadic, with finish being the point most
commonly neglected. There was also a general misunderstanding of the colour differences between
the wines, which led to illogical tasting notes. Candidates did not appear sufficiently comfortable with

19
the distinctions between three different wines that were all highly influenced by oxygen in their
character and profile.

The three aspects of the tasting exam that had the most notable patterns of problems were style
within the category, suitability for bottling ageing, and reasons for quality assessment. Far too many
candidates failed to name a style within the category. This was especially notable on wine 1 - Classic
Rutherglen Muscat. A high number of candidates mistook this for a PX, Madeira or Port, but even
those who correctly identified the wine as a Rutherglen Muscat frequently failed to qualify this wine
as ‘Classic’ (indicated by clear rancio notes, but still retaining some Muscat character and not as
savoury as a ‘Grand’ or ‘Rare’). Scripts indicated that candidates are not as familiar with these terms
as they should be, but there was also a tendency for candidates to simply state the location of origin
rather than the style and/or category for all three wines.

A recurrent theme in tasting examinations is candidates neglecting to appropriately describe or

explain their choices for ability/suitability to age. This question was often left entirely blank, or
answers included rambling and contradictory statements that made it difficult to award marks.
Candidates should remember they need to justify their response. There are three marks available and
candidates must state why they have selected whether the wine has aging potential or not to obtain
full marks, as well as clearly remarking on that. Answers should be consistent with the tasting note.

The final common problem (also a recurrent one) was a failure to provide valid reasons to account for
the defined quality statement. Simply regurgitating a tasting note is typically not enough to be
awarded marks but equally candidates should not be writing contradictory conclusions to what they
have previously stated. It was also common for candidates to make only one or two points, when
considerably more marks were available. One distinct and valid comment per mark is usually a good
guide to how to structure each sentence. There is intended to be sufficient time in the exam to check
responses to ensure what is written has enough information to be awarded all the possible marks and
what is stated is both logical and consistent. If candidates spent more time thoroughly and
systematically checking their answers this would likely be advantageous to their final grade.

Theory paper

This exam appeared to expose candidates to elements of the materials with which they lacked the
required depth of knowledge. The three topics examined should have been familiar to all candidates
- flor and the wines of Jerez, the growing environment in Port, and various styles of Madeira. However,
it was apparent from the spread of marks, relatively high number of Fail and Fail Unclassified
responses, and inability of most to perform strongly and evenly across all three questions, that many
had knowledge gaps and that perhaps certain topics were neglected from candidates’ revision plans.

Question 1 on flor had the highest weighting and responses of mixed quality. Many performed well,
but numerous scripts were too brief, failed to address all aspects of the question or irrelevantly
deviated from what was asked. A high number of candidates fell into the trap of attempting to write
everything they knew on the topic rather than answering specifically. Exam technique, as always, was
paramount and candidates should remember to always address directly and solely the scenario laid
out in each question. Rambling, generic responses, no matter the factual accuracy of what is included,
cannot be awarded marks if they do not answer the question. Those candidates who directly related
their factual commentary to the wines produced were able to form the strongest answers.

Question 2 was on the growing environment of the vineyards in Port. In many ways this was the most
disappointing set of responses as many candidates were not able to clearly describe vineyard layouts

20
or explain their differences. It was surprising how many could not name ‘Socalcos’, ‘Patamares’, and
‘Vinha ao Alto’. A high number of candidates struggled to write more than a couple of sentences on
each of these, and this was far below what is expected at this level. Equally, many students either
forgot to include, or could not provide, an explanation on the respective merits and challenges of each
vineyard layout. This was a key part of the question and whilst for some it was likely due to gaps in
knowledge, it was also clear that some candidates had simply not read the question carefully or
planned adequately for this part.

The last question was on the various styles of Madeira and candidates typically found this the most
challenging. Many struggled to write anything except one or two brief facts on each of the named
styles. Both theory and tasting exams demonstrate that Madeira needs more learning focus. A high
number of scripts were structured as a simple bullet-point list, and whilst it was possible to
successfully answer this way, examiners do not recommend this method as it is hard to build in a
convincing and reasoned argument that includes appropriate evidence and analysis – normally the
hallmark of better grades. That said, some candidates who knew a high volume of different facts and
were comfortable with each style did well.

D5 is a comparatively concise Unit and examiners expect candidates to be able to focus on any topic
covered in the materials in depth. There were some outstanding answers in this exam, but it also
highlighted a knowledge shortfall in general.

21