This wine is a blend of 50% shiraz, 20% cabernet sauvignon, 19% merlot and 11% cabernet franc, with fruit sourced from the Barossa Valley and the Eden Valley. I bought it from Dan Murphy's in a half bottle, something of which there are too few. The wine has an aroma of pepper, spices, plums and is rich. On the palate, there is vanilla oak and some length. The vanilla flavour is quite pronounced. This wine is drinking well. Less obvious oak would be better though. 85 to 86 points (7-7.1/10)
Abv: 14%
Price: $20 (for half bottle)
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably
Website: http://www.henschke.com.au
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Sam Miranda Symphonia Las Triadas Tempranillo 2005
Abv: 14%
Price: n/a
Would I buy it having tasted it? An emphatic yes.
Website: http://www.sammiranda.com.au
Monday, March 28, 2011
Cullen Cabernet Sauvignon Merlot 2008
Cullen is one of Australia's most highly regarded producers. They are also prominent supporters of the biodynamic cause. The one thing I do believe about biodynamics is that producers who follow its recommendations tend to be conscientious ones. Therefore, I approach Cullen's wine with a certain expectation. Unfortunately, in my view, the 2008 cabernet sauvignon merlot is a disappointing wine. The wine is a blend of 68% cabernet sauvignon, 24% merlot, 5% petit verdot and 3% cabernet franc and is aged for 12 months in French oak. The wine smells good: blackfruits and spices. Very good in fact. It is the palate though which frankly disappointed me. Rather simple and plain fruit is evident, lacking any real length or depth. Somewhat expensive too. That said, there's nothing actually wrong with the wine. It's just not what I like to drink. 82 points (6.7/10)
Abv: 12%
Price: around $30
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.cullenwines.com.au
Abv: 12%
Price: around $30
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.cullenwines.com.au
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Pizzini Sangiovese 2005
Abv: 14.2%
Price: $25 (current vintage)
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.pizzini.com.au/
Friday, March 25, 2011
Miranda Golden Botrytis 2002
For a somewhat humble label, something very right happened with this wine in 2002. It is made from semillon, and packs a solid 225g/litre of residual sugar. But, it is not cloying. Instead, it has an aroma (and taste) of luscious apricots. It would not be embarrassed were it in the company of the more famous De Bortoli Noble One. 89-90 points (7.4-7.5/10)
Abv: 10%
Price: about $15
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.passionpopwines.com.au/product.asp?pid=63&selBrand=2
Abv: 10%
Price: about $15
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.passionpopwines.com.au/product.asp?pid=63&selBrand=2
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Rochford Riesling 2006
Abv: 12.5%
Price: around $25
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.rochfordwines.com
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Yalumba The Menzies Cabernet Sauvignon 2003
I rate Yalumba as a winery. Their 2003 Menzies cabernet was good, though not excellent. It opened to an aroma of spices and blackcurrant, and appeared to be an almost alarmingly accurate carbon copy of a lesser cru classé Bordeaux. With time in the glass though, a dried tea character became pronounced, which I don't usually find in Bordeaux wines. On the palate, given a bit of time, there was soft length and tannins still evident, and a touch of dried tea leaves. It is possible that the fruit may be disappearing faster than the tannins, at least based on this bottle. Nonetheless, an enjoyable wine, and I am pleased I have more. 86? points. (7.1?/10)
Abv: 13.5%
Price: around $40
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.yalumba.com
Abv: 13.5%
Price: around $40
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.yalumba.com
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Domaine Thomas Moillard Clos de Roi Corton Grand Cru 1995
Pinot noir doesn't get too much better than this. An aroma of cherries, herbs and oak. The palate has amazing length and grip. Specifically, I wrote down "length!". 94 points. (7.9/10)
Price: around $70 (auction)
Price: around $70 (auction)
Monday, March 21, 2011
Some thoughts on Schild Estate, wine labels and things that don't look so good
The "Schild Estate affair" reported by Harvey Steiman and Tyson Stelzer in Wine Spectator (and also on Mr Stelzer's website) this week raises some interesting questions about wine labelling in Australia, and probably elsewhere too. Here's an extract from part of the Wine Spectator article:
"... Wine Spectator has learned through an investigation that Schild Estate, a family-owned winery in the Barossa Valley whose 2008 Shiraz placed in Wine Spectator’s Top 10 Wines of the Year in 2010, found itself running low on supply and decided to purchase, blend and bottle additional wine under the same label. While technically legal, the decision raises questions about the winery’s integrity and philosophical issues of what defines a wine’s identity ...
Wine Spectator recently learned that the winery responded by buying and blending an additional 5,000 cases of 2008 Shiraz, bottling it under the same label.
"We found ourselves in the situation where we are running shorter than expected on domestic stocks of ’08 Shiraz," Schild winemaker Scott Hazeldine told Wine Spectator when asked about the new bottling. "In order to get us through to a stage when the 2009 will be ready for bottling, I have been asked to put together an additional blend for sale in Australia." The 2009 is scheduled for bottling later this month, to be released in Australia in June."
... Hazeldine stressed that wine was not intended for export to North America, but confirmed that the blend was "over and above the original."
Mr Stelzer on his own website perhaps went further saying that (extracted in part):
"The damage has been done, and it’s too late now to undo it. The thing that concerns me is that there’s nothing to stop it from happening again.
There is nothing illegal about what Schild Estate has done. There is no breach of the Australian Wine and Brandy Act to bottle two completely different wines under the same label, provided the regions, vintages and varieties are as they are stated on the label ...
There is a secondary issue here, that it is perfectly legal in Australia to bottle non-estate fruit under an estate label, and this deserves consideration in itself on another occasion. The core of the problem at hand lies in the fact that Australian wine law has nothing to say about the consistency or otherwise of wines bottled under identical labels.
I’m not talking about wineries bottling the same blend in successive batches. Logistics naturally dictate that this is unavoidable in large-scale blends, and if the blend is from the same, original source, I see little problem with this ...
Australian winemakers and marketers work overtime to build the good reputation of Australian wine on an increasingly challenging global stage. So much good work is undone by incidents like this. The vast majority of winemakers – who continue to do the right and honourable thing – would do well to raise their voices and close the legal loophole that permits this practice.
Surely this is simply a matter of The Australian Wine and Brandy Act stipulating that different blends under the same brand must be labelled in such a way as to clearly identify successive blends?
Winemakers would do well to campaign for this ..."
I understand that the new wine is to have a strip label included to the effect that the new wine is a "second blend". So, in a sense, the problem has been solved. I don't know whether this was planned, or the consequence of Wine Spectator's article. But nonetheless, I do think it's worth shining the light on the more general underlying issues at stake.
While I am not going to make any comment on the legalities of what may or may not have taken place with Schild Estate, I think that there are some interesting issues that are raised here for the wine consumer. I will say though that, assuming Wine Spectator has reported this correctly, Schild Estate emphasizing that the "new" wine will only be sold in Australia (rather than the United States), isn't particularly compelling marketing to me as an Australian. Quite the opposite. And wine scores have a tricky habit of being cross border creatures, as even my own humble approximately 40% non-Australian readership demonstrates. Indeed, wine's grey market will no doubt ensure that the wine itself is not confined to Australia's shores.
That said, irrespective of the legalities, I think that most of the issues identified here could be addressed by something quite simple: put more information on wine labels. I think Mr Stelzer is saying much the same thing. With more information, hopefully there's then no confusion, recriminations or allegations. This Schild Estate issue probably wouldn't have happened. Which then begs the question as to what types of circumstances warrant more information being included on a wine label than currently appears to the case. This got me thinking about some scenarios:
1. A winery owns vineyards "A" and "B" in the same region, produces a blend of the two from the same vintage, and bottles them at the same time. The bottle label refers to the name of the producer, the region and the vintage.
2. A winery owns vineyards A and B, produces a blend of the two, and bottles them in successive batches over time. The bottle label does not refer to the successive batches of the wine having been made.
3. A winery owns vineyards A and B, buys fruit from vineyards "C" and "D" in the same region and from the same vintage, produces a blend of all four, and bottles them at the same time, or in successive batches over time. No mention is made on the label of the use of fruit from vineyards C and D, but nor is it said that the wine only comes from vineyards A and B. In effect, the winery functions like a French négociant in this example.
4. A winery owns vineyards A and B, buys fruit from vineyard "C" and produces and bottles a blend of vineyards A and B separately to vineyard C, though the fruit purchased from vineyard C is selected and vinified in such a manner as to produce a wine similar to the vineyard A and B blend.
5. The blend produced from vineyards A and B is a mixture of 85% pinot noir and 15% shiraz. No mention is made on the label of the use of the shiraz in the blend. The wine is identified as "pinot noir", but not 100% pinot noir.
Scenario 1 is unremarkable, and I identify it solely to illustrate the paradigm of what a consumer might sometimes think is in the wine bottle, at least without being told otherwise.
Scenario 2 is marginally more challenging. In effect, Mr Stelzer deals with this scenario by pointing out that successive bottlings (for example, in Schild Estate's case which appears routine, according to Wine Spectator, bottling of the original blend took place over almost the course of a year) are a function of the logistics required to produce large scale blends. They are a commercial and pragmatic winemaking reality in other words. We must also accept, as a consumer, a certain level of difference between wines made from the same vineyards, if only because not all grapes, unlike other commercial products, are the same. Wineries are of course free to describe their wines within the constraints of Australian law. As I understand it, this may mean that this information does not need to appear on the bottle (though of course consumers cannot be misled by act or omission). As a consumer, I nonetheless generally would be interested to know this type of information, if only that the label identifies something along the lines of "this wine, while produced from a master blend, may be bottled at different times for practical reasons. The resulting wines may therefore differ". But then again, I like to know where fruit and vegetables at the supermarket actually come from (beyond a pat reference to "Australia" that is), so I feel that I may not be representative.
Scenario 3 is a little more challenging again. As I understand it, it seems that more successful wineries can act almost rather like an economic magnet that can draw in the grapes from all around them: presumably the pricing on offer is either higher or more certain or convenient than what could otherwise be achieved by the growers producing the wine themselves. The growers may also lack resources. Again, it appears that wineries have a relatively free hand again here in their labelling so that no mention is required to be made of the use of "non estate" wine, provided that they do not mislead consumers and otherwise comply with the laws referred to above. See also this information from Wine Australia. But again, I would personally always be interested in this information (ie information about the use of non-estate wines), if only because I am attracted to the terroirist ideal of at least being given the opportunity to follow the fortunes of particular vineyards (even if I don't actually always wish to partake in that opportunity, as per my recent note on vintage variation). It also may assist in explaining why one label might vary from one year to the next if actually different vineyards are being used. It probably wouldn't make sense to be prescriptive about this, as I can see that there could be any number of ownership and contractual arrangements that result in fruit ending up at the doorstep of a winery. I am just saying that would be nice, in my opinion, if more wineries mentioned, if possible and practicable, the vineyards they obtained their wine from on their wine labels.
Scenario 4 is the problematic situation perhaps analogous to that highlighted in Wine Spectator and by Mr Stelzer as seemingly having taken place in relation to Schild Estate. While seemingly legal, to me, the possibility that a wine could encompass two completely different blends should be identified on the wine label: there seems a real possibility of confusion in this scenario, even if the sole confused person is me. Further, perhaps the practice should not be permitted to occur at all so that the second wine must be sold under a different label. That said, I do tend to prefer disclosure to prohibition as a general rule, so that people can make up their own minds about what a winery is doing. Either way, the additional disclosure needs to be clear and not confusing or hard to find or a new label is required. Examining bottle numbers as a solution, or subtly nuanced wording on labels is not what I have in mind. Obvious is good.
Scenario 5 is a function of Australia's wine laws which appear permit a wine to be identified as a particular variety if it consists of at least 85% of that variety. While I accept that there will be some cases were it is simply impracticable to precisely identify the varieties that go into a wine and Australia is not alone in having such laws, as a consumer, I am really quite interested to know what the remaining 15% might be. Particularly if it is say a variety that is not generally thought to be sympathetic to the dominant varietal eg. what if our hypothetical pinot noir's colour or flavour was being topped up with shiraz? The result may in fact be a better wine. But it's nice to know. I recognise that I may be alone in this view given the current laws referred to above.
Disclosure has its limits, but applied sensibly, more rather than less of it will be good for wine.
"... Wine Spectator has learned through an investigation that Schild Estate, a family-owned winery in the Barossa Valley whose 2008 Shiraz placed in Wine Spectator’s Top 10 Wines of the Year in 2010, found itself running low on supply and decided to purchase, blend and bottle additional wine under the same label. While technically legal, the decision raises questions about the winery’s integrity and philosophical issues of what defines a wine’s identity ...
Wine Spectator recently learned that the winery responded by buying and blending an additional 5,000 cases of 2008 Shiraz, bottling it under the same label.
"We found ourselves in the situation where we are running shorter than expected on domestic stocks of ’08 Shiraz," Schild winemaker Scott Hazeldine told Wine Spectator when asked about the new bottling. "In order to get us through to a stage when the 2009 will be ready for bottling, I have been asked to put together an additional blend for sale in Australia." The 2009 is scheduled for bottling later this month, to be released in Australia in June."
... Hazeldine stressed that wine was not intended for export to North America, but confirmed that the blend was "over and above the original."
Mr Stelzer on his own website perhaps went further saying that (extracted in part):
"The damage has been done, and it’s too late now to undo it. The thing that concerns me is that there’s nothing to stop it from happening again.
There is nothing illegal about what Schild Estate has done. There is no breach of the Australian Wine and Brandy Act to bottle two completely different wines under the same label, provided the regions, vintages and varieties are as they are stated on the label ...
There is a secondary issue here, that it is perfectly legal in Australia to bottle non-estate fruit under an estate label, and this deserves consideration in itself on another occasion. The core of the problem at hand lies in the fact that Australian wine law has nothing to say about the consistency or otherwise of wines bottled under identical labels.
I’m not talking about wineries bottling the same blend in successive batches. Logistics naturally dictate that this is unavoidable in large-scale blends, and if the blend is from the same, original source, I see little problem with this ...
Australian winemakers and marketers work overtime to build the good reputation of Australian wine on an increasingly challenging global stage. So much good work is undone by incidents like this. The vast majority of winemakers – who continue to do the right and honourable thing – would do well to raise their voices and close the legal loophole that permits this practice.
Surely this is simply a matter of The Australian Wine and Brandy Act stipulating that different blends under the same brand must be labelled in such a way as to clearly identify successive blends?
Winemakers would do well to campaign for this ..."
I understand that the new wine is to have a strip label included to the effect that the new wine is a "second blend". So, in a sense, the problem has been solved. I don't know whether this was planned, or the consequence of Wine Spectator's article. But nonetheless, I do think it's worth shining the light on the more general underlying issues at stake.
While I am not going to make any comment on the legalities of what may or may not have taken place with Schild Estate, I think that there are some interesting issues that are raised here for the wine consumer. I will say though that, assuming Wine Spectator has reported this correctly, Schild Estate emphasizing that the "new" wine will only be sold in Australia (rather than the United States), isn't particularly compelling marketing to me as an Australian. Quite the opposite. And wine scores have a tricky habit of being cross border creatures, as even my own humble approximately 40% non-Australian readership demonstrates. Indeed, wine's grey market will no doubt ensure that the wine itself is not confined to Australia's shores.
That said, irrespective of the legalities, I think that most of the issues identified here could be addressed by something quite simple: put more information on wine labels. I think Mr Stelzer is saying much the same thing. With more information, hopefully there's then no confusion, recriminations or allegations. This Schild Estate issue probably wouldn't have happened. Which then begs the question as to what types of circumstances warrant more information being included on a wine label than currently appears to the case. This got me thinking about some scenarios:
1. A winery owns vineyards "A" and "B" in the same region, produces a blend of the two from the same vintage, and bottles them at the same time. The bottle label refers to the name of the producer, the region and the vintage.
2. A winery owns vineyards A and B, produces a blend of the two, and bottles them in successive batches over time. The bottle label does not refer to the successive batches of the wine having been made.
3. A winery owns vineyards A and B, buys fruit from vineyards "C" and "D" in the same region and from the same vintage, produces a blend of all four, and bottles them at the same time, or in successive batches over time. No mention is made on the label of the use of fruit from vineyards C and D, but nor is it said that the wine only comes from vineyards A and B. In effect, the winery functions like a French négociant in this example.
4. A winery owns vineyards A and B, buys fruit from vineyard "C" and produces and bottles a blend of vineyards A and B separately to vineyard C, though the fruit purchased from vineyard C is selected and vinified in such a manner as to produce a wine similar to the vineyard A and B blend.
5. The blend produced from vineyards A and B is a mixture of 85% pinot noir and 15% shiraz. No mention is made on the label of the use of the shiraz in the blend. The wine is identified as "pinot noir", but not 100% pinot noir.
Scenario 1 is unremarkable, and I identify it solely to illustrate the paradigm of what a consumer might sometimes think is in the wine bottle, at least without being told otherwise.
Scenario 2 is marginally more challenging. In effect, Mr Stelzer deals with this scenario by pointing out that successive bottlings (for example, in Schild Estate's case which appears routine, according to Wine Spectator, bottling of the original blend took place over almost the course of a year) are a function of the logistics required to produce large scale blends. They are a commercial and pragmatic winemaking reality in other words. We must also accept, as a consumer, a certain level of difference between wines made from the same vineyards, if only because not all grapes, unlike other commercial products, are the same. Wineries are of course free to describe their wines within the constraints of Australian law. As I understand it, this may mean that this information does not need to appear on the bottle (though of course consumers cannot be misled by act or omission). As a consumer, I nonetheless generally would be interested to know this type of information, if only that the label identifies something along the lines of "this wine, while produced from a master blend, may be bottled at different times for practical reasons. The resulting wines may therefore differ". But then again, I like to know where fruit and vegetables at the supermarket actually come from (beyond a pat reference to "Australia" that is), so I feel that I may not be representative.
Scenario 3 is a little more challenging again. As I understand it, it seems that more successful wineries can act almost rather like an economic magnet that can draw in the grapes from all around them: presumably the pricing on offer is either higher or more certain or convenient than what could otherwise be achieved by the growers producing the wine themselves. The growers may also lack resources. Again, it appears that wineries have a relatively free hand again here in their labelling so that no mention is required to be made of the use of "non estate" wine, provided that they do not mislead consumers and otherwise comply with the laws referred to above. See also this information from Wine Australia. But again, I would personally always be interested in this information (ie information about the use of non-estate wines), if only because I am attracted to the terroirist ideal of at least being given the opportunity to follow the fortunes of particular vineyards (even if I don't actually always wish to partake in that opportunity, as per my recent note on vintage variation). It also may assist in explaining why one label might vary from one year to the next if actually different vineyards are being used. It probably wouldn't make sense to be prescriptive about this, as I can see that there could be any number of ownership and contractual arrangements that result in fruit ending up at the doorstep of a winery. I am just saying that would be nice, in my opinion, if more wineries mentioned, if possible and practicable, the vineyards they obtained their wine from on their wine labels.
Scenario 4 is the problematic situation perhaps analogous to that highlighted in Wine Spectator and by Mr Stelzer as seemingly having taken place in relation to Schild Estate. While seemingly legal, to me, the possibility that a wine could encompass two completely different blends should be identified on the wine label: there seems a real possibility of confusion in this scenario, even if the sole confused person is me. Further, perhaps the practice should not be permitted to occur at all so that the second wine must be sold under a different label. That said, I do tend to prefer disclosure to prohibition as a general rule, so that people can make up their own minds about what a winery is doing. Either way, the additional disclosure needs to be clear and not confusing or hard to find or a new label is required. Examining bottle numbers as a solution, or subtly nuanced wording on labels is not what I have in mind. Obvious is good.
Scenario 5 is a function of Australia's wine laws which appear permit a wine to be identified as a particular variety if it consists of at least 85% of that variety. While I accept that there will be some cases were it is simply impracticable to precisely identify the varieties that go into a wine and Australia is not alone in having such laws, as a consumer, I am really quite interested to know what the remaining 15% might be. Particularly if it is say a variety that is not generally thought to be sympathetic to the dominant varietal eg. what if our hypothetical pinot noir's colour or flavour was being topped up with shiraz? The result may in fact be a better wine. But it's nice to know. I recognise that I may be alone in this view given the current laws referred to above.
Disclosure has its limits, but applied sensibly, more rather than less of it will be good for wine.
Dopff au Moulin Riesling Grand Cru Schoenenbourg 2007
This wine was pretty good. An aroma of citrus. On the palate, citrus, lemon and some length. It is off dry. 85 points. (7/10)
Abv: 12.5%
Price: $30
Website: http://www.dopff-au-moulin.fr
Abv: 12.5%
Price: $30
Website: http://www.dopff-au-moulin.fr
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Yabby Lake Red Claw Chardonnay 2008
I am a fan of the styles of chardonnay coming out of the Mornington Peninsula and the Yarra Valley at the moment. Yabby Lake's Red Claw chardonnay from 2008 from the Mornington Peninsula is no exception and is very good. A fresh aroma of citrus, spice and a restrained touch of oak. The palate is similar. A lovely wine that is well priced too. 86 points (7.1/10)
Abv: 14%
Price: $22.50
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.yabbylake.com/
Abv: 14%
Price: $22.50
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.yabbylake.com/
Bernard Baudry Les Granges 2009
There's not too much Chinon to be found in Australia, but the 2009 vintage from Bernard Baudry is a good one.
An aroma of herbs, twigs and red fruits. A similar palate, with a savoury fruit flavour. This wine is simply very gluggable. 85 points. (7/10)
Abv: 12.5%
Price: $27
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.chinon.com/vignoble/bernard-baudry/
An aroma of herbs, twigs and red fruits. A similar palate, with a savoury fruit flavour. This wine is simply very gluggable. 85 points. (7/10)
Abv: 12.5%
Price: $27
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.chinon.com/vignoble/bernard-baudry/
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Bonneau du Martray Grand Cru 1998
There were a few problems with these 1998s, with a few bottles badly corked. This wine unfortunately didn't present particularly well. An aroma of herbs, and I thought still a touch of dank. On the palate, length and minerals. I think this was probably another bottle that wasn't so good. 82 points. (6.7/10)
Abv: 13.5%
Price: around $80
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.bonneaudumartray.com/
Abv: 13.5%
Price: around $80
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.bonneaudumartray.com/
Friday, March 18, 2011
Domaine Anne et Hervé Sigaut Les Sentiers Premier Cru 2006
I found this wine pleasant, if a little simple. An aroma of cherries with a slight sweetness to them. A similar palate. 84 points. (6.9/10)
Price: around $80
Price: around $80
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Bass Phillip Premium Pinot Noir: three vintages tasted blind
Bass Phillip produces some of Australia's best pinot noir, with Phillip Jones famed for his approach of no irrigation, no filtration, dense vine plantings and use of indigenous yeasts, all in the unorthodox place of Leongatha - a prime dairy district. His results can be outstanding. I loved Bass Phillip's Reserve Pinot Noir from 2008. Last week, I had the fortune to taste three vintages of Bass Phillip's Premium Pinot Noir, all "blind". The wines were the 1999, the 2000 and the 2001. Tasted blind, with the exception possibly of the 1999 with its dried tea character on the palate, these were all easily mistakable for Burgundies.
Unfortunately, though, despite reputation and good storage, all of these wines were past their best, probably well past in fact. It is interesting to note that the latest auction prices for these vintages are $101, $96 and $153, respectively. That is, they remain far from cheap. The wines may nonetheless suit those who enjoy the journey of vintage variation with Phillip Jones' wines at Bass Phillip cf. my recent post on vintage variation. In my view, these particular wines probably shouldn't rationally command these prices if this tasting reflects where the bottles are now at. Caveat emptor.
Unfortunately, though, despite reputation and good storage, all of these wines were past their best, probably well past in fact. It is interesting to note that the latest auction prices for these vintages are $101, $96 and $153, respectively. That is, they remain far from cheap. The wines may nonetheless suit those who enjoy the journey of vintage variation with Phillip Jones' wines at Bass Phillip cf. my recent post on vintage variation. In my view, these particular wines probably shouldn't rationally command these prices if this tasting reflects where the bottles are now at. Caveat emptor.
Bass Phillip Premium Pinot Noir 2000
Bass Phillip's Premium Pinot Noir from the 2000 vintage is past its best. It has a pungent aroma of herbs and cut grass. On the palate, there are herbs and light cherry flavour. 83 points (6.8/10).
Abv: 13%
Abv: 13%
Price: Current auction price is around $100
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.bassphillip.com.au/
Bass Phillip Premium Pinot Noir 2001
Though past its best, the 2001 vintage of Bass Phillip's Premium Pinot Noir was probably, just, the better of the 1999 and the 2000, which it was tasted alongside. A somewhat opulent and promising aroma of cherries wafted from the glass. On the palate though, there was some trouble. The length was actually quite good, very good in fact, but there was also a slight vinegary quality, verging on nutty and oxidative. 84? points (6.9/10).
Abv: 12.8%
Abv: 12.8%
Price: Current auction price is around $150
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.bassphillip.com.au/
Bass Phillip Premium Pinot Noir 1999
Bass Phillip's Premium Pinot Noir from 1999 is unfortunately past its best. It has an aroma of cherries, plums and leaves. On the palate, it is all about herbs and dried tea; it tastes a little "dried out" in fact. 84 points (6.9/10).
Abv: 13%
Price: Current auction price is around $100
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.bassphillip.com.au/
Abv: 13%
Price: Current auction price is around $100
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.bassphillip.com.au/
Penfolds Bin 138 Grenache Shiraz Mourvedre 2005
This wine is not one of Penfolds' new releases, but it is still available. That said, I wouldn't go searching for it. It has a pruny, fruit jube and dried leaves style aroma. I found the palate a bit flat. 80 points. (6.5/10)
Abv: 14.5%
Price: around $30
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.penfolds.com.au
Abv: 14.5%
Price: around $30
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.penfolds.com.au
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Anti-wine laws
Usually editorials in wine magazines are devoted to fairly safe topics. Somewhat cynically, I started thinking that marketing driven pieces like "what to drink this Autumn!" might be typical. Facts though are usually more fun than unfair generalisations, so I thought I'd check. In Gourmet Traveller Wine's February/March 2011 edition, the first line was "My new year's resolution is to find a way of keeping track of wayward wine writers who by nature and necessity don't remain in one spot for long". Sir, will you fetch me your smallest violin? Yes, it needs to be very small indeed. Decanter was a little better with their April 2011 editorial headed "Let the wine do the talking" and discusses Decanter man of the year in 2011, Giacomo Tachis.
France's La Revue du Vin de France has editorialised some of the more challenging issues facing France's wine industry. Some of these are of interest to the wider wine community. The latest from their March 2011 edition is their continuing commentary on the struggle with France's declining wine consumption, and "anti-wine laws". On the former, rather controversially I imagine, declining wine consumption is contrasted with perceived rising demand for anti-depressants, and alleged conflicts of interest between key actors. Here's the article (and in English). A translated exerpt is as follows:
"A quick recap of recent history: we saw in France during the past decade an explosion of unprecedented violence against wine, those who produce it, those who sell it and those who drink it. It is a denigration that we have seen neither in Spain nor in Italy, our two neighboring producers, or in any other country in the world. There has been a public campaign of statements equating wine with death (2004). Then there were statements of a Director General of Health, which called for total abstinence to better fight against alcoholism (2006). The Chairman of the INCA [a health body], Professor Maraninchi, then stated that "wine is carcinogenic from the first glass" (2009). All this is against a backdrop of the "Evin law" [see below], the logo "dangerous for pregnant women", pursuit of bistros, lobbying against the advertising of wine on the internet, etc.. Since 1960, wine consumption has fallen by more than half in our country ..."
The "Evin law" is intended to regulate alcohol advertising in France. A summary of this French law (from Jane Anson's New Bordeaux) is:
* no advertising should be targeted at young people;
* all drinks over 1.2 per cent alcohol by volume are considered as alcoholic beverages. Places and media where advertising is authorised are defined;
* no advertising is allowed on television or in cinemas;
* no sponsorship of cultural or sport events is permitted;
* advertising is permitted only in the press for adults, on billboards, on radio channels (under precise conditions), at special events or places such as wine fairs, wine museums. When advertising is permitted, its content is controlled messages and images should refer only to the qualities of the products such as degree, origin, composition, means of production, patterns of consumption; and
* a health message must be included on each advertisement to the effect that l’abus d’alcool est dangereux pour la santé : alcohol abuse is dangerous for health.
I am not a doctor or even a scientist, so I cannot really sensibly comment on the merits of the health debate. I am also, perhaps like our French editor, hopelessly biased because I like wine. Some of the points appear valid to my common sense: eg the proven pregnancy related medical ones, and drinking too much, which I inexplicably painfully choose to verify from time to time, is not particularly smart. However, I have sympathy for the editor's approach in thinking that some of the more extreme measures, at least by Australian standards, are surprising given France's perhaps pre-eminent position as a wine producer, and its contribution to the culture of wine. In Australia, we have our own set of "wine laws" around the advertisement, the manufacture, labelling and sale of wine and medical warnings, particularly around alcohol and pregnancy. We also have high local wine taxes and duties, particularly in the form of the wine equalisation tax, seeking to financially punish those silly enough to enjoy wine as a cultural product. Or at least that's what I tell myself. High wine taxes are something that France does not yet seem to enjoy, at least based on my own anecdotal observations of per bottle retail shelf prices. These always contrast favourably with the sometimes staggering prices (of imports) we see in Australia. For example, check out Nicholas or Lavinia, neither of which are cheap in France, where most wine is sold in the hypermarchés. That said, I am told that France is taking up Australia's (or should I say Victoria's) fondness for speed cameras, so who knows: on the logic above, wine taxes might be next.
It doesn't seem that we have faced in Australia an anti-wine agenda of this kind, at least in recent memory (and putting to one side the prohibition debates of the twentieth century). And I hope we don't. But unfortunately regulatory developments coming out of Europe have a habit of generally finding their way here, eventually, and sometimes with unexpected distortions picked up along the way. Everything in moderation, including moderation, I would suggest.
France's La Revue du Vin de France has editorialised some of the more challenging issues facing France's wine industry. Some of these are of interest to the wider wine community. The latest from their March 2011 edition is their continuing commentary on the struggle with France's declining wine consumption, and "anti-wine laws". On the former, rather controversially I imagine, declining wine consumption is contrasted with perceived rising demand for anti-depressants, and alleged conflicts of interest between key actors. Here's the article (and in English). A translated exerpt is as follows:
"A quick recap of recent history: we saw in France during the past decade an explosion of unprecedented violence against wine, those who produce it, those who sell it and those who drink it. It is a denigration that we have seen neither in Spain nor in Italy, our two neighboring producers, or in any other country in the world. There has been a public campaign of statements equating wine with death (2004). Then there were statements of a Director General of Health, which called for total abstinence to better fight against alcoholism (2006). The Chairman of the INCA [a health body], Professor Maraninchi, then stated that "wine is carcinogenic from the first glass" (2009). All this is against a backdrop of the "Evin law" [see below], the logo "dangerous for pregnant women", pursuit of bistros, lobbying against the advertising of wine on the internet, etc.. Since 1960, wine consumption has fallen by more than half in our country ..."
The "Evin law" is intended to regulate alcohol advertising in France. A summary of this French law (from Jane Anson's New Bordeaux) is:
* no advertising should be targeted at young people;
* all drinks over 1.2 per cent alcohol by volume are considered as alcoholic beverages. Places and media where advertising is authorised are defined;
* no advertising is allowed on television or in cinemas;
* no sponsorship of cultural or sport events is permitted;
* advertising is permitted only in the press for adults, on billboards, on radio channels (under precise conditions), at special events or places such as wine fairs, wine museums. When advertising is permitted, its content is controlled messages and images should refer only to the qualities of the products such as degree, origin, composition, means of production, patterns of consumption; and
* a health message must be included on each advertisement to the effect that l’abus d’alcool est dangereux pour la santé : alcohol abuse is dangerous for health.
I am not a doctor or even a scientist, so I cannot really sensibly comment on the merits of the health debate. I am also, perhaps like our French editor, hopelessly biased because I like wine. Some of the points appear valid to my common sense: eg the proven pregnancy related medical ones, and drinking too much, which I inexplicably painfully choose to verify from time to time, is not particularly smart. However, I have sympathy for the editor's approach in thinking that some of the more extreme measures, at least by Australian standards, are surprising given France's perhaps pre-eminent position as a wine producer, and its contribution to the culture of wine. In Australia, we have our own set of "wine laws" around the advertisement, the manufacture, labelling and sale of wine and medical warnings, particularly around alcohol and pregnancy. We also have high local wine taxes and duties, particularly in the form of the wine equalisation tax, seeking to financially punish those silly enough to enjoy wine as a cultural product. Or at least that's what I tell myself. High wine taxes are something that France does not yet seem to enjoy, at least based on my own anecdotal observations of per bottle retail shelf prices. These always contrast favourably with the sometimes staggering prices (of imports) we see in Australia. For example, check out Nicholas or Lavinia, neither of which are cheap in France, where most wine is sold in the hypermarchés. That said, I am told that France is taking up Australia's (or should I say Victoria's) fondness for speed cameras, so who knows: on the logic above, wine taxes might be next.
It doesn't seem that we have faced in Australia an anti-wine agenda of this kind, at least in recent memory (and putting to one side the prohibition debates of the twentieth century). And I hope we don't. But unfortunately regulatory developments coming out of Europe have a habit of generally finding their way here, eventually, and sometimes with unexpected distortions picked up along the way. Everything in moderation, including moderation, I would suggest.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Domaine Gerard Chavy Les Folatieres Premier Cru 2000
A good quality wine with an aroma of nuts, toast and spices. A similar palate, with some length. 85 points. (7/10)
Abv: 13.5%
Price: around $80
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably
Abv: 13.5%
Price: around $80
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Woodstock Cabernet Sauvignon 2009
The Woodstock table wines are made by Scott Collett and Ben Glaetzer. I don't know Scott's wines, but I am a strong supporter of Ben Glaetzer's wines.
As someone with a palate predisposed to cabernet, I nonetheless sometimes struggle with the hot climate versions of this grape: there is a loss of definition and the cabernet starts tasting like, well, not like cabernet. And McLaren Vale is hot, at least from the perspective of someone living in Melbourne. Woodstock's 2009 vintage of their cabernet sauvignon has an aroma of sweet fruit and vanilla oak. On the palate, there are black fruits, oak, tannins evident and quite some length. A nice wine, that should be cellar worthy. 86 points. (7.1/10)
Abv: 13.5%
Price: around $25
Would I buy it having tasted it? No, but only because my personal preference is not generally for warmer climate cabernets. This is a good wine.
Website: http://www.woodstockwine.com.au
As someone with a palate predisposed to cabernet, I nonetheless sometimes struggle with the hot climate versions of this grape: there is a loss of definition and the cabernet starts tasting like, well, not like cabernet. And McLaren Vale is hot, at least from the perspective of someone living in Melbourne. Woodstock's 2009 vintage of their cabernet sauvignon has an aroma of sweet fruit and vanilla oak. On the palate, there are black fruits, oak, tannins evident and quite some length. A nice wine, that should be cellar worthy. 86 points. (7.1/10)
Abv: 13.5%
Price: around $25
Would I buy it having tasted it? No, but only because my personal preference is not generally for warmer climate cabernets. This is a good wine.
Website: http://www.woodstockwine.com.au
Durand Empreintes Cornas 2005
This wine is pretty well priced for a Cornas. An aroma of plums and spices. On the palate, tannins and plums. It's pretty good, but I wasn't entirely convinced it was anything more than that. 85 to 86 points. (7-7.1/10)
Abv: 13.5%
Price: around $60
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably not: I'd probably still prefer a more interesting Australian shiraz for the price.
Abv: 13.5%
Price: around $60
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably not: I'd probably still prefer a more interesting Australian shiraz for the price.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Surveyor Thomson Pinot Noir 2006
I was torn with this wine. On the one hand, it had great length on the palate: usually a good, indeed, frequently the only really trustworthy sign. On the other hand, it just seemed too deeply coloured, with too much oak; almost non-varietal. I detected aromas of olives, pepper and anise: words I usually write down for a South Australian wine. That said, it still tasted good and that length was very evident. 85 points. (7/10)
Abv: 14%
Price: $45
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.surveyorthomson.co.nz/
Abv: 14%
Price: $45
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.surveyorthomson.co.nz/
Friday, March 11, 2011
Les Vins de Vienne L'Arzelle 2007
This wine was pretty good, but there are better available for the price. An aroma of pepper, earth and spices. On the palate, savoury with a touch of length. 84 points. (6.9/10)
Abv: 13%
Price: $47
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.vinsdevienne.com/
Abv: 13%
Price: $47
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.vinsdevienne.com/
Chateau Beauregard 2006
I tasted Chateau Beauregard's 2006 Pomerol along side Blue Poles' 2008 reserve merlot. It had a very attractive, classy aroma, of spices, pepper and red fruit. On the palate, though the fruit wasn't there so much: there was some length and it was perfectly enjoyable - in fact, I enjoyed it quite a bit, but it is not a brilliant Pomerol by any means. 85 points (7/10).
Abv: 13%
Price: $85
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.chateau-beauregard.com
Blue Poles Reserve Merlot 2008
I'd heard a few good things about this small producer's merlot from the Margaret River, so I decided to give it a go. It was tasted along side the Chateau Beauregard 2006 from Pomerol. It has an aroma of vanilla oak, bright plummy red fruit, tobacco and spices. On the palate, there is good length, bright plums, some powdery tannins and oak evident. I thought this wine had very nice fruit with good length, my only reservation being that I felt the oak a little obvious at this point. It is a young wine, so it may intergrate with time. Oh, and I thought it performed, on the palate, more strongly than the Beauregard - the fruit was simpler better (I marginally preferred the aroma of the Beauregard). What was interesting was that, oak aside, on the nose, there was nonetheless some similarity: a feat suggesting some promise with this producer's merlot. 87 to 88 points (7.2-7.3/10).
Price: $35
Abv: 14%
Website: http://www.bluepolesvineyard.com.au
Price: $35
Abv: 14%
Website: http://www.bluepolesvineyard.com.au
Pewsey Vale Riesling 2010
Pewsey Vale's 2010 riesling is perfectly pleasant, with an aroma of slate, stones and spice, and a similar palate. 84 to 85 points (6.9-7/10).
Abv: 12.5%
Price: around $16
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably not
Website: http://www.pewseyvale.com
Abv: 12.5%
Price: around $16
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably not
Website: http://www.pewseyvale.com
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Domaine Chapuis Corton Charlemagne Grand Cru 1998
This wine shows some potential. An aroma of spices, lemon citrus, peaches, but I also thought, though not ruinous, a touch of taint too. On the palate, nuts and honey. 87 points.
Price: around $90
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably
Website: http://www.domainechapuis.com/
Price: around $90
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably
Website: http://www.domainechapuis.com/
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Change to scoring method
Regular readers may have noticed that I have decided to migrate my scoring system out of 10 to a 100 point scale. I have done this because the 100 point system is perhaps more familiar to many. It has been brought to my attention that many of Australia's leading wine reviewers adopt a differing interpretation of the 100 point scale than that which was pioneered by in the United States by Robert Parker, particularly in the 80 to 90 point range. My method, while my own and formed solely by my own judgements, probably more closely resembles the Parker model. No model is perfect. I am proposing to trial it for 6 months and see how it goes. My view is that scoring systems are inherently subjective, but, for a particular writer, are at least an indication of really how enjoyable they found a wine, and consistently applied serves a purpose.*
To convert between the scales, essentially multiply by 10 and add 15. The addition of 15 is because it seemed unfair to be giving perfectly good wines that I have given a 6.7 only 67 points, incorrectly suggesting a poor wine. It makes sense to include both scores for a while.
A conversion table from the old to new systems is as follows:
Just passable to Fine: 5 to 6.4 = 50 to 79
Good: 6.5 to 6.9 = 80 to 84
Very good: 7 to 7.4 = 85 to 89
Extremely good: 7.5 to 7.9 = 90 to 94
Outstanding: 8+ = 95+
* My original post has been edited in view of reader feedback.
To convert between the scales, essentially multiply by 10 and add 15. The addition of 15 is because it seemed unfair to be giving perfectly good wines that I have given a 6.7 only 67 points, incorrectly suggesting a poor wine. It makes sense to include both scores for a while.
A conversion table from the old to new systems is as follows:
Just passable to Fine: 5 to 6.4 = 50 to 79
Good: 6.5 to 6.9 = 80 to 84
Very good: 7 to 7.4 = 85 to 89
Extremely good: 7.5 to 7.9 = 90 to 94
Outstanding: 8+ = 95+
* My original post has been edited in view of reader feedback.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
To respect or disrespect the vintage?
Andrew Jefford's article entitled "The Truth Game" regarding vintage variation in wine in Decanter yesterday was interesting, but to be honest troubled me a little. Perhaps particularly so since I had just posted a review of a 1993 Mouton Rothschild that was pleasant, but not particularly amazing and still very expensive.
Here are the parts of the article that piqued my interest:
"A crafted object, perhaps first and foremost. Fine wines are usually a snapshot of place, too, as well as being an interpretation of a varietal (or blended) ideal. They’re also a drinkable weather report: the summary of a season. But to what extent? ...
My first concern is that I don't generally like bad wine, even if the bad wine has a story behind it, such as being raised in a bad vintage. Even more so if that bad wine happens to be "fine wine". I am also somewhat concerned that a more cynical approach could prevail so that a "truthful account of a vintage" becomes "spin" to cover for what is actually just wine that is not particularly good.
My second concern is slightly harder to articulate. I think it boils down to whether a wine in fact can be a truthful account of a vintage at all, or if so, to what extent. Evidently, a particular vintage will have characteristics, and I can also see that grapes would be a direct product of that. But grapes are not wine. Wine itself, is not a natural product, and by definition involves a significant intervention to avert the grapes becoming, I understand, a type of brettanomyces vinegar, with numerous well known steps being undertaken to avoid that outcome and create wine. Nature must in fact be corrected it seems for wine to exist at all. Dan Buckle explains this point well here in his recent article on biodynamics.
It is here that, in my opinion, the grey area commences, and any descent into the specifics of what a truthful vintage might mean seems fraught. Consider this: what practices and winemaking steps actually deny vintage truth? Mr Jefford mentions selecting from nature as a permissible action. But does that deny vintage truth too? What does a truthful account of a vintage mean for the selection of grapes? Is it all grapes, some grapes, only non-diseased grapes and/or only grapes that meet particular ripeness criteria? Why is that particular choice truthful? Is the truth "that vintage" or the "best of that vintage"? And what does it mean for winemaking? Winemaking involves numerous interventions, including additions of sulphur dioxide, exclusion of oxygen, additions of yeasts, acids (in warmer climates), sugar (in cooler ones), temperature control and oak treatments, and can involve fancier interventions such as reverse osmosis. Which ones deny the truth of the vintage? Could it be all of them? Accepted wisdom is perhaps that some interventions are more egregious than others (eg reverse osmosis) in denying vintage truth and I, like many others, at least instinctively prefer a "minimalist intervention" approach. It just sounds so appealing, natural and honest. But whether that really results in a truthful reflection of a vintage, or just a faithful rendition of that particular kind of truth's subjective parameters, I don't know. My guiding criteria I am afraid is going to remain for now a rather simpler and safer one, namely "do I like the wine?".
Here are the parts of the article that piqued my interest:
"A crafted object, perhaps first and foremost. Fine wines are usually a snapshot of place, too, as well as being an interpretation of a varietal (or blended) ideal. They’re also a drinkable weather report: the summary of a season. But to what extent? ...
The fine-wine market is, I suspect, ready to embrace vintage differentiation in a way that it hasn’t been in the past. (This is, after all, one of the things which distinguishes it from inexpensive wine brands – where consistency is paramount.) ... The underlying assumption, though, must be that the wine will be a truthful account of the vintage. Don’t strive to correct nature; select from it instead, so as to deliver the most limpid and resonant account of the year that you can. Otherwise … what’s the point?"
My first concern is that I don't generally like bad wine, even if the bad wine has a story behind it, such as being raised in a bad vintage. Even more so if that bad wine happens to be "fine wine". I am also somewhat concerned that a more cynical approach could prevail so that a "truthful account of a vintage" becomes "spin" to cover for what is actually just wine that is not particularly good.
My second concern is slightly harder to articulate. I think it boils down to whether a wine in fact can be a truthful account of a vintage at all, or if so, to what extent. Evidently, a particular vintage will have characteristics, and I can also see that grapes would be a direct product of that. But grapes are not wine. Wine itself, is not a natural product, and by definition involves a significant intervention to avert the grapes becoming, I understand, a type of brettanomyces vinegar, with numerous well known steps being undertaken to avoid that outcome and create wine. Nature must in fact be corrected it seems for wine to exist at all. Dan Buckle explains this point well here in his recent article on biodynamics.
It is here that, in my opinion, the grey area commences, and any descent into the specifics of what a truthful vintage might mean seems fraught. Consider this: what practices and winemaking steps actually deny vintage truth? Mr Jefford mentions selecting from nature as a permissible action. But does that deny vintage truth too? What does a truthful account of a vintage mean for the selection of grapes? Is it all grapes, some grapes, only non-diseased grapes and/or only grapes that meet particular ripeness criteria? Why is that particular choice truthful? Is the truth "that vintage" or the "best of that vintage"? And what does it mean for winemaking? Winemaking involves numerous interventions, including additions of sulphur dioxide, exclusion of oxygen, additions of yeasts, acids (in warmer climates), sugar (in cooler ones), temperature control and oak treatments, and can involve fancier interventions such as reverse osmosis. Which ones deny the truth of the vintage? Could it be all of them? Accepted wisdom is perhaps that some interventions are more egregious than others (eg reverse osmosis) in denying vintage truth and I, like many others, at least instinctively prefer a "minimalist intervention" approach. It just sounds so appealing, natural and honest. But whether that really results in a truthful reflection of a vintage, or just a faithful rendition of that particular kind of truth's subjective parameters, I don't know. My guiding criteria I am afraid is going to remain for now a rather simpler and safer one, namely "do I like the wine?".
Chateau Mouton Rothschild 1993
This is the first time I've been lucky enough to try a "Mouton". Unfortunately, 1993 was a terrible year in Bordeaux, and it showed even for a wine of this calibre. An aroma of black fruits and cigar box. On the palate, there was length and black fruit flavours, but while evidently of some class, the wine was just a bit dilute for my taste. 87 points.
Abv: 12.5%
Price: $260
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.bpdr.com/
Abv: 12.5%
Price: $260
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.bpdr.com/
Monday, March 07, 2011
Penfolds Bin 407 Cabernet Sauvignon 2008
The grapes for the 2008 vintage of Penfolds' Bin 407 were sourced from Coonawarra, Robe, Wrattonbully and
Padthaway. So a multi-regional blend. The wine has an aroma of French oak and spices. The palate is quite pleasant, with oak and some good length. One of the better picks from Penfolds' new releases that I've tried. 86 points.
Abv: 14.5%
Price: around $35
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably not: it's a good wine, but there are better for the price
Website: http://www.penfolds.com.au
Padthaway. So a multi-regional blend. The wine has an aroma of French oak and spices. The palate is quite pleasant, with oak and some good length. One of the better picks from Penfolds' new releases that I've tried. 86 points.
Abv: 14.5%
Price: around $35
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably not: it's a good wine, but there are better for the price
Website: http://www.penfolds.com.au
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Penfolds Bin 128 Coonawarra Shiraz 2009
Here is another of Penfold's new release wines. This wine is sourced 100% from Coonawarra, from the 2009 vintage, which appears to be a good one. Again, you can see that Penfolds are trying with this wine. The wine has an aroma of bright fresh red fruits (almost jube like) and spices. It reminded me of a young Cotes du Rhone. On the palate, there are spices, oak and some length, but overall somewhat hollow. 83 points.
Abv: 14%
Price: about $20
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.penfolds.com.au
Abv: 14%
Price: about $20
Would I buy it having tasted it? No
Website: http://www.penfolds.com.au
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Penfolds Bin 28 Kalimna Shiraz 2008
The pages of advertisements in the newspapers this week can suggest only one thing: some new wine releases from Penfolds. Penfolds' Bin 28 Kalimna Shiraz from 2008 is a multi-regional blend sourced from vineyards in South Australia - with major parcels from the Barossa Valley, Langhorne Creek and McLaren Vale
Tasting this wine, you can see that Penfolds are trying. The wine has a very evident aroma of plums, with oak in the background. On the palate, some length and vanilla oak. It's quite pleasant in all. 84 to 85 points.
Abv: 14.5%
Price: around $20
Would I buy it having tasted it? There's nothing wrong with this wine, it's just not what I'd buy.
Website: http://www.penfolds.com.au
Friday, March 04, 2011
Pierre Andre au Chateau de Corton Pommard 2007
I liked this wine. An aroma of cherries, spices and charred oak. The palate was similar with some good acidity. 88 points.
Abv: 13%
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.pierre-andre.com
Abv: 13%
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.pierre-andre.com
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Pierre Andre au Chateau de Corton Aloxe Corton 2007
Another wine from the Cotes de Beaune. An aroma of cherry and spices, and a cherry dominant palate. 85 points.
Abv: 13%
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably not.
Website: http://www.pierre-andre.com
Abv: 13%
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably not.
Website: http://www.pierre-andre.com
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Pierre Andre au Chateau de Corton Chambolle 2007
Chambolle is one of my favourite Burgundy appellations. This wine has an aroma of cherries and herbs, with some evident structure. The palate is in a lighter style, with some length. 84 to 85 points.
Abv: 13%
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably not.
Website: http://www.pierre-andre.com
Abv: 13%
Would I buy it having tasted it? Probably not.
Website: http://www.pierre-andre.com
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Louis Michel Grenouilles Grand Cru 2003
2003 was of course a heatwave year in France, and perhaps not a good portent for wines from the cold Chablis region. Nonetheless, this wine was very good. An aroma of apples, and nice length on the palate with a spiced apple flavour. 87 points.
Abv: 13%
Price: $40
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.louismicheletfils.com
Abv: 13%
Price: $40
Would I buy it having tasted it? Yes
Website: http://www.louismicheletfils.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)