I don't know how I got hold of a bottle of Wynns 02 Shiraz but it was in a pile of stuff to be drunk eventually. I opend it tonight because I just got home from work and didnÂ’t want anything special as I am having a light snack.
Well, I didnÂ’t get anything special either.
Nose is all spice, plums and black fruit and earthy nuances. Palate is slightly sweet on the uptake with the palate following the nose but the finish.... its something else. Talk about sickly sweet! How much residual sugar is in this stuff? Rated as one glass was too much and an almost alcoholic free night.
Anyone else had it?
And the Lawrence Victor Cab Brian gave me was corked, so I give up.
We've seen too much good wine in this price bracket over the last decade to be able to tolerate a mediocre wine here. I shared my last bottle of '90 with a wine appreciating (but not collecting) friend last year and he marvelled at how well we could do in this country. I agreed.
Sadly, it's no more than an agreeable quaffer. Like Jamieson's Run, Koonunga Hill et al. I don't hold any hopes of a corporate label reaching the heights again.
Perhaps they should start trying to make wine, not money.
If you need a palate recalibrator - try a cask, but promise beforehand you'll drink at least half. A good reality check.
I agree I have been spoilt and drink some bloody good wine but by the same token this wine, to my way of thinking is in the same class/category as the SC (Lindemand?) "special bin" stuff they serve at functions. Yes, it is drinkable, does not have any faults but is entirely uninteresting and the residual sugar, to me if no one else, is a problem.
To much like manufactured Coke for my taste. The last time I had this label was some years ago, probably about 98 and it was very drinkable then.
TORB, I agree. This tastes like rasberry cordial. For me, there is much better wine out there for the price.
I still have one bottle but can't seem to bring myself to drink it.
BTW I had a 1982 and 2002 Koonunga Hill C/S the other night. The 1982 was drinking well but my sister in-law thought it was crap (too dry). The 2002 is not very good at all - has a bit of that bubblegum flavour but my sister-in-law thought it was good.
We've seen too much good wine in this price bracket over the last decade to be able to tolerate a mediocre wine here. I shared my last bottle of '90 with a wine appreciating (but not collecting) friend last year and he marvelled at how well we could do in this country. I agreed.
Sadly, it's no more than an agreeable quaffer. Like Jamieson's Run, Koonunga Hill et al. I don't hold any hopes of a corporate label reaching the heights again.
Perhaps they should start trying to make wine, not money.
If you need a palate recalibrator - try a cask, but promise beforehand you'll drink at least half. A good reality check.
cheers BA
Couldn't agree more, given that I've regularly seen Wynns 02 Shiraz @ under $12 a bottle, it's good enough value at that price point. It's also ripe, which is a lot more than can be said for the "reality check" cask wines mentioned above (all that is on offer at my father-in-law's place) in which you'd swear they had forgotten to take the leaves out when doing their annual crush. Maybe TORB's expectations were too high ?
For the record, Wynns '02 Shiraz has very strong musk flavours - a little surprised it didn't make it into TORB's notes ...
