JO's new 2006 Wine Annual

[Andrew Jordan]

Just picked up JO's latest Wine Annual at lunch. Haven't really had a good chance to completely digest the 100's of pages of scores, tasting notes and information yet, but there were a few surprises, at least 3 for me so far.

The first being that a white wine from Magaret River, the 2002 Leewin Estate Art Series Chardonnay, from a so-so vintage winning the wine of the year over wines like 2002 Seppelt St Peters and the 2 special 2004 releases from Penfolds. Don't get me wrong, I think the Leewin Art Series Chard is probably one of the best produced in Oz, definitely in the top 3, but a white wine winning the wine of the year, c'mon!

The second was the 2003 Majella Cabernet receiving only 86 points and being rated lower than the 2002 release (nice wine but IMO not in the class of the 2003) and rated on a par with the 1995 release. In fact only one release of this wine is rated lower than the 2003 by JO.

The third is that the 2002 Wirra Wirra RSW Shiraz only received 87 points, again the previous release of this wine, the 2001, being rated higher. I thought this was one of the wines of the 2002 vintage for me, and definitely was in the top 3 wines tasted at Wine Australia last year in Sydney.

How about you, what was your biggest surprise regarding JO's latest wine Annual?

[Lincoln]

I have no problems with a white wine winning wine of the year. 2002 is very good for whites in MR. Cullen, Voyager and Ashbrook were excellent Chardonnays too.

I also have no problems with the 02 RSW getting 87 points. In fact I think that's generous. An awful wine.

Don't know about the Majella.

I've been ignoring JO for the past few years - perhaps this is a turning point for me because he seems to be talking sense to me.

[GRB]

Interestingly I was reading some of JO's old articles on his web site over lunch. He freely admits to changing his ratings on wines when he goes back a second time at a later date. Due to all the usual influences that impact a single tasting, often for the pro's done in a very short space of time. He can only report on what is his view of the contents of the glass in front of him.

Hey if only we could get a few of the pro's to write bad reviews of some really good wine then maybe it would leave more for the rest of us . Anyone keen on sending a $5 clean skin to RPJ with a Noon's or Wendouree label on it

[Maximus]

I have no problems with a white wine winning wine of the year. 2002 is very good for whites in MR. Cullen, Voyager and Ashbrook were excellent Chardonnays too.

I also have no problems with the 02 RSW getting 87 points. In fact I think that's generous. An awful wine.

Don't know about the Majella.

I've been ignoring JO for the past few years - perhaps this is a turning point for me because he seems to be talking sense to me.

I'm in agreement here with Lincoln here. No problems with the '02 LEAS Chard winning best wine, and also no problems with the rating on the '02 RSW. I don't think it's an awful wine, but first showing of this wine when I first tasted it was definitely around high 80's. With 48 hours of breathing it transformed somewhat - probably into a low 90's wine - but definitely not worth the praise that JH gave it (IMO).

I haven't had the '03 Majella, but I've certainly enjoyed the '02 when I've had it. In any case, I won't be buying the latest annual from JO. I find a better success rate in wine ratings/notes and therefore buying indications from the forum than anywhere else.

Cheers,

[platinum]

I am not so suprised that the Leeuwin won or a white for that matter but I am suprised St Peters 02 Didnt win. It is Victorian and they rarely win?

I am suprised at Majella's rating too. It is cetainly not an 86 point wine, particually when most wines reviewed by him are 87-97 points. It offers incredible value and 92-94 on his scale would be closer to the mark.

What ratings did the Special Bins receive?

Were the 2004 Jasper Hill wines reviewed?

[Andrew Jordan]

What ratings did the Special Bins receive?

Were the 2004 Jasper Hill wines reviewed?

Platinum,

Both Penfolds Special Bin's received very favourable reviews from JO, both received very high +95 point scores and both were included in the Finalists section.

The only 2004 Jasper Hill wine reviewed was the Georgia's Paddock Riesling. All the other Jasper Hill releases reviewed were the 2003.

[Red Bigot]

I also have no problems with the 02 RSW getting 87 points. In fact I think that's generous. An awful wine.

I guess that means you personally don't like it, but that doesn't necessarily make it an awful wine.

FWIW I disagree with JO on this one, I like it a lot and so do quite a few other people who enjoy those sort of reds. I also disagree with JO on the Majella 2003, I think it's a better wine than that rating and a lot better than the 2002. And I have no feeelings either way on the choice of a white wine as the wine of the year, I don't take any notice of those sort of nominations anyway.

I have to say I'm getting a little tired of some people on both forums equatiing what they personally like/dislike with good/bad wine in an absolute sense. But I guess TORB covered that in a recent article.

[Adam]

I have to say I'm getting a little tired of some people on both forums equatiing what they personally like/dislike with good/bad wine in an absolute sense. But I guess TORB covered that in a recent article.

But certainly saying that you think it is an awful wine is the same as saying it is a great wine??? everyone is grown up enough to know that this is one mans view, not a global position!

[Red Bigot]

I have to say I'm getting a little tired of some people on both forums equatiing what they personally like/dislike with good/bad wine in an absolute sense. But I guess TORB covered that in a recent article.

But certainly saying that you think it is an awful wine is the same as saying it is a great wine??? everyone is grown up enough to know that this is one mans view, not a global position!

I wondered who would be first to bite...

Maybe, but there is a world of difference between "I don't like it because... (it's just not my style of wine, or it has such and such a fault)" and "It's an awful wine".

I hope that even if I say "it's a great wine" it is usually prefaced by "I think" or "It's my style of wine". I'm very careful about recommending wines, because I know many people don't share my preferences (there are quite a few who do though).

Besides, there a a lot of people visiting here who don't have as much wine experience as you and I do, in fact a lot of people are just starting the journey.

[Adam]

Im going to trawl your tasting notes now and find ones where you dont preface it with "I think"... nah...cant be bothered...

[Red Bigot]

Im going to trawl your tasting notes now and find ones where you dont preface it with "I think"... nah...cant be bothered...

I was betting someone would/will. At least with the Guest option gone they'll have to own up to doing it.

TN are a bit different again, they at least descibe the persons perceptions and reasons for liking/disliking a wine. Two people may have similar perceptions of a wine's characters, one may like it the other hate it.

To get back on topic a bit.

Unfortunately JO hasn't posted a TN for the 02 RSW, so I can't evaluate why he didn't like it, points alone are pretty useless in that regard. He has posted a note on the Majella Cabernet 2003 and he found " capsicum-like flavours, green acids and a metallic finish" that I didn't when I tasted the wine.

Some more exampls:
I find there is a worrying green edge on the 02 Petaluma Coonawarra (tried 3 times) and won't be buying it, JO gives it a 92, no TN online either, Campbell M found a similar character that I did and rated it down a little (87 pts).

JO gave the 2001 Yalumba Signature Cab-Shiraz a score of 86 and gives a TN to indicate why, this is the lowest score of any Signature listed on his site, how many good reviews of this wine have you seen? FWIW I find it a bit leaner and different to many recent Signatures and as I don't like the different character of the wine it hasn't made my Buy list either.

[Andrew Jordan]

Unfortunately JO hasn't posted a TN for the 02 RSW, so I can't evaluate why he didn't like it, points alone are pretty useless in that regard.

Brian,

In his Annual JO states in his tasting note on the 2002 RSW that he detected "Pungent, meaty roast lamb-like aromas of cassis and raspberries .... but finishes with some staleness and flatness".

I must admit I cannot remember the wine to be like this, especially the stale and flat finish. Might have been a bad bottle?

[Red Bigot]

Thanks AJ, I wonder why his TN isn't online?

It certainly describes a different wine to the one I tried and many other published TN indicate. I think maybe even Linc would not describe it as stale and flat. In fact this is how he briefly described it on the other forum: "Wirra Wirra RSW Shiraz 2002: milk chocolate, vanilla - not my style of wine at all", somewhat more understandable than "It's an awful wine".

[Andrew Jordan]

Thanks AJ, I wonder why his TN isn't online?

Brian,

Maybe you should join Smithy and lodge a complain.

[Red Bigot]

Thanks AJ, I wonder why his TN isn't online?

Brian,

Maybe you should join Smithy and lodge a complain.

Not me, I like JO and his site. I've had a couple of email exchanges with him on a couple of topics and he took the time to communicate in a detailed and friendly fashion.

I could make a polite enquiry, but I suspect it's just a matter of time in catching up with a back log.

[Lincoln]

Thanks AJ, I wonder why his TN isn't online?

It certainly describes a different wine to the one I tried and many other published TN indicate. I think maybe even Linc would not describe it as stale and flat. In fact this is how he briefly described it on the other forum: "Wirra Wirra RSW Shiraz 2002: milk chocolate, vanilla - not my style of wine at all", somewhat more understandable than "It's an awful wine".

Yes, "awful" was a one word summary, perhaps a bit trollish. I had a bottle 10 months ago, and though I didn't keep any notes at the time, I think I found it over-oaked (overt vanilla), over-fruited (syrupy sweet, almost dead), 1-dimensional and disjoint: one glass was more than enough for me. Perhaps "stale and flat" could refer to a dead fruit character, though I am guessing.

"Not my style of wine at all" was really an acknowledgement that I look for different things in a wine to others. All wine judgements are subjective, despite our best intentions at being objective. I actually wish more critics should lay their cards on the table and tell us really want they do like and want they don't like. But this won't happen, because you cannot bite the hand that feeds. At least in this regard all the non-professionals on the forums are able to tell us exactly what they think...

[platinum]

What ratings did the Special Bins receive?

Were the 2004 Jasper Hill wines reviewed?

Platinum,

Both Penfolds Special Bin's received very favourable reviews from JO, both received very high +95 point scores and both were included in the Finalists section.

The only 2004 Jasper Hill wine reviewed was the Georgia's Paddock Riesling. All the other Jasper Hill releases reviewed were the 2003.

Does this come as a bit of a shock given he rated the Bin 90A 97 points when it was released?

[Grant]

Im going to trawl your tasting notes now and find ones where you dont preface it with "I think"... nah...cant be bothered...

I was betting someone would/will. At least with the Guest option gone they'll have to own up to doing it.

TN are a bit different again, they at least descibe the persons perceptions and reasons for liking/disliking a wine. Two people may have similar perceptions of a wine's characters, one may like it the other hate it.

To get back on topic a bit.

Unfortunately JO hasn't posted a TN for the 02 RSW, so I can't evaluate why he didn't like it, points alone are pretty useless in that regard. He has posted a note on the Majella Cabernet 2003 and he found " capsicum-like flavours, green acids and a metallic finish" that I didn't when I tasted the wine.

Some more exampls:
I find there is a worrying green edge on the 02 Petaluma Coonawarra (tried 3 times) and won't be buying it, JO gives it a 92, no TN online either, Campbell M found a similar character that I did and rated it down a little (87 pts).

JO gave the 2001 Yalumba Signature Cab-Shiraz a score of 86 and gives a TN to indicate why, this is the lowest score of any Signature listed on his site, how many good reviews of this wine have you seen? FWIW I find it a bit leaner and different to many recent Signatures and as I don't like the different character of the wine it hasn't made my Buy list either.

All I can say is that it is a good thing we don't all like the same wines. That would be very boring. On the Signature 01 front, I thought it was a lovely, elegant wine, quite un-Barossa like and a great effort for what was considered an average vintage. Just continued to evolve over the evening, I took about 4 hours to drink my way thorugh most of it and ended up a big fan.

In Jeremy's defence, when he is tasting through what I can only imagine to be 50-100 wines a day, you don't have the time to sit,wonder and wait to see how a wine might evolve with time. It's just not possible, he just has to make a call and stick by it, and what's in the glass in front of him is what he has to describe. Never underestimate too the subtle variations from bottle to bottle because of tree bark, it's just an insidious variable that can have a huge effect on the perception of a wine.

Cheers

[Red Bigot]

All I can say is that it is a good thing we don't all like the same wines. That would be very boring.

Indeed, agree 100%.

On the Signature 01 front, I thought it was a lovely, elegant wine, quite un-Barossa like and a great effort for what was considered an average vintage. Just continued to evolve over the evening, I took about 4 hours to drink my way thorugh most of it and ended up a big fan.

I had this over two evenings this week, with and without food, it did open up a little the second night and show a bit of spiciness, but still didn't make the grade with me. I've been buying this line from about the 1964 vintage, it's been through a few stylistic changes over that period, got a bit oaky in the 90's but generally had the fruit to carry it, they made a brilliant wine in the less than stellar 92 vintage. I have varying quantities of 91 through 2000 in my cellar. For me it's meant to be an iconic and fairly rich Barossa blend, the move to a leaner, cooler-climate style doesn't do it for me.

Maybe they had to use different fruit in that hot valley-floor vintage, maybe 2002 will be back to the previous style, I hope so anyway.

[Grant]

Brian,

I actually havn't tried many previous Signatures, so I havn't got much to compare it with. I thought though that this stayed true to what a Cabernet dominant blend should be like,ie; the cabernet was allowed to be cabernet, not ripened to death and turned into baby shiraz. My note,








" Label gazing.... 2001 vintage, from the Barossa. Unbelievably hot year. Expectation; ripe, bombastic, big and powerful.

Reality? Nothing like that. In fact, this wine makes you sit back and reconsider all your preconceptions about the vintage. It is an exceptional effort, further highlighting just how compatible these two varieties are within the Australian context. Soft and leathery, softly spicy, with an earthiness that seems intertwined with the dried herb and savoury fruited undertones of the cabernet content, this is wonderfully medium bodied in nature, balanced and persistent. In many ways, it's an old fashioned wine ( with all the positives that such a term denotes), eschewing alcohol and ripeness for structure, grip and drinkability. This is a very smart wine."

Doesn't mean i'm right though! Gotta love wine. Cheers

[Mike Hawkins]

Brian,

I haven't tried the 01 Signature, so can't comment. I just hope you're right that the 02 will be back to "normal" as its a label I buy most years (from 86 onwards). I just drank the 93 and it was a super wine given the vintage. As I've stated previously, I'm enjoying the apparent resurrection of the cab / shiraz blends. There seems to be quite a few springing up.

Cheers

Mike

[Red Bigot]

I'm enjoying the apparent resurrection of the cab / shiraz blends. There seems to be quite a few springing up.

Mike, I'm just waiting for TORB to try taking some of the credit for this, he's been haranguing wineries and winemakers to make more of these "classic" Aussie blend for years now.

Must be time I tried a 93 Signature, thanks for the prompt.

[GraemeG]

Biggest surprise for me was seeing St Peters elevated to No 1 status. Only seemed to take a few vintages.

On the basis of the point scores, Giaconda's shiraz will be next. Mathematically, Steingarten riesling should be a '1' already - at least by his scores. He flagged in the text that Lakes Folly Chardy (of all things) was pushing a '1' as well, but I think Tyrrell's are unlucky not to have Vat 1 there already - 7 of the last 8 vintages have been 95, and the exception was a 96.

And, heretical as it is to say so, he must be allowing Hill of Grace a bit of latitude - at least on his scoring basis.

Good to see some major changes over scores and drinking windows of Wynns Black label too. I like to know the dates of his scores - I suspect many of them are over 10 years old (yes, seiously).

cheers,
Graeme

[Andrew Jordan]

After reading a bit more of JO's Annual and thinking about some of his reviews and scores on the wines already mentioned in this thread, something occurred to me. Now before you continue reading I am not attacking JO or any other wine critic. I think JO's annual is a great resource (just like Halliday's, Penguin Wine Guide, etc) otherwise I would not buy them. However, here is my query ... with wines like the 2002 RSW and the 1998 Centenary Hill that are 2 wines that:

(1) have had very positive reviews from other wine critics/press; or
(2) are from good/great vintages; or
(3) previous releases of these wines have performed well - have a good history of being quality wines,

is it presumptuous of me to presume that if a critic (not just JO but all critics) tastes a wine and thinks it is average, then on these wines the critic should retaste it before publishing tasting notes/scores? Not all wines, but those ones that have 1 or all of the 3 points listed above. I know from reading TORB's tasting notes, Ric will simply state that he would like to taste it again before he gives an "official" opinion on a wine that he expected more from. Maybe JO and others already do this? I do not know.

But when a tasting note for a 2002 release has the words "staleness and flatness" in it, I would of thought a retasting should be considered. Or if this is not possible, pulling the tasting note from their publication, until they have the chance to re-taste. Maybe I am expecting too much from wine critics/etc?

[GraemeG]

is it presumptuous of me to presume that if a critic (not just JO but all critics) tastes a wine and thinks it is average, then on these wines the critic should retaste it before publishing tasting notes/scores? Not all wines, but those ones that have 1 or all of the 3 points listed above. I know from reading TORB's tasting notes, Ric will simply state that he would like to taste it again before he gives an "official" opinion on a wine that he expected more from. Maybe JO and others already do this? I do not know.

But when a tasting note for a 2002 release has the words "staleness and flatness" in it, I would of thought a retasting should be considered. Or if this is not possible, pulling the tasting note from their publication, until they have the chance to re-taste. Maybe I am expecting too much from wine critics/etc?

I think most reputable writers would back themselves to pick an oxidised bottle (due to cork failure, for example) and would publish (or not) accordingly. JO's certainly got a history of considering carefully - he wrote extensively about the 98 Mt Edelstone, and I think at this stage he could fairly claim to be more right than wrong on that particular wine. Heck, it's quite possible that a critic tried the wine from 3 different bottles before pronouncing it stale. I imagine writers would search very carefully for reasons why a wine might perform well below expectation once its identity is revealed before rushing into print to damn the latest Moss Wood or whatever. No-one wants to look a fool, right? If anything, the fact they've published a note suggests they'll back themselves. If you didn't what was going on except your bottle of Cullen tasted like Somerton, then you might just shut up about it and no-one would be the wiser. Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt...

cheers,
Graeme

[Muscat Mike]

Biggest surprise for me was seeing St Peters elevated to No 1 status. Only seemed to take a few vintages.
Graeme

GG,
not quite correct. St.Peters was around under a different name for years before it became S/P.
MM.

[GraemeG]

Biggest surprise for me was seeing St Peters elevated to No 1 status. Only seemed to take a few vintages.
Graeme

GG,
not quite correct. St.Peters was around under a different name for years before it became S/P.
MM.

Oh I realise that - and in fact the 1991 GW Shiraz is a truly stunning wine - but I meant that it only took a few uprated vintages to kick it from a 2 to a 1. Whereas Steingarten, for instance, hasn't made the leap...

cheers,
Graeme

[platinum]

Hello all

I havent had a chance to get to a book shop yet to get my copy thanks to work Just wondering if he rated the new Mount Mary wines {Quintet 03 etc} as I know the mailer must be out any day now? I am a fan of their wines and have bought every year since being on the list and usually find his ratings are close to the mark but have bought so many wines this year I want to confirm they are on the mark again before damaging an already damaged card

[Red Bigot]

Hello all

I havent had a chance to get to a book shop yet to get my copy thanks to work Just wondering if he rated the new Mount Mary wines {Quintet 03 etc} as I know the mailer must be out any day now? I am a fan of their wines and have bought every year since being on the list and usually find his ratings are close to the mark but have bought so many wines this year I want to confirm they are on the mark again before damaging an already damaged card

The 03 Quintet isn' on his site, don't know if it's in the book or not.

[danclarke]

I have to say I'm getting a little tired of some people on both forums equatiing what they personally like/dislike with good/bad wine in an absolute sense.

Totally agree.
I was actually talking to someone last week about it, and their point of view was very enlightening.

"The internet can be a very dangerous place, any comment you make could be viewed by many, and can do damage. If....if, you feel you must comdemn a wine, never ever do it unless you have looked over at least two bottles. Smashing a wines credibility after one tasting is ridiculous"

And I have to say, I like that thinking.