Do you agree with Parkers ratings on So Australia vintages?

[gbrawley]

Hello since I am new to wine, only been collecting since the 98 vintage and lack any professional training I would be interested in some of your impressions on his vintage ratings. He rates 98 a 95 E (for early), the 99 88E, The 2000 88C (for caution), 01 is 95 T for Tannic, 02 is also 95 T, 03 is 90E and 04 is 91E. With my limited experience not living in Australia but having a 1500 bottle cellar of mostly Aussy wines I do not agree with the 99 or the 01 ratings. I would be interested in some of your takes on how you would rate the vintages I mentioned. I know this is a blanket ratings and their are lots of exceptions, but I would be interested in your take on vintage ratings. Thanks for your input! Jerry

[Ian S]

For me, Parker lacks experience of Australian wines and has a very specific palate. If you like the same wines, then great. Otherwise the ratings could well be misleading.

Then add on that single ratings for regions are bad enough, but a single vintage rating for Australia is just plain stupid.

In general, for barossa, these aren't particularly inaccurate, but would be way off for Coonawarra.

There's probably a previous attempt at this which you might find using the search facility and something like "vintage ratings". Otherwise look for such ratings by local experts Hooke, Oliver or Halliday. Or (as it sounds like you're doing anyway - trust you're own experience, which is probably more useful to you.

regards

Ian

[Red Bigot]

GB, I agree with Ian's response. Giving a single vintage rating to Australia is lazy, sloppy, ignorant and downright inaccurate. Even if you factor in his SA bias, it's still misleading.

If you follow the Aus wine forums you'll see a lot of recent chatter about 99 in SA being better/longer-lived than 98 and certainly Margaret River had a vastly superior 99 to 98 vintage.

For 2001 in SA, the hot vintage produced some pretty ripe and stressed fruit, many of them won't be long lived, and Margaret River had a brilliant vintage for Cabernet.

2002 in SA was a lot cooler but with a nice long, even ripening period, I like a lot of the reds from that vintage, including a few stunning cabernets from Barossa and McLarenVale, Coonawarra and Margaret River though were too cool and many cabernets have unripe/green flavours.

The 2000 vintage certainly needs caution (needed caution, I've long finished buying the few that I did from that vintage) , but there were some lovely wines made, for example in Southern Victoria and even Coonawarra.

There are many more examples from most vintages that prove how stupid it is to publish and overall Australian rating, it's as stupid as doing the same thing for the USA, France or Italy.

[Finney]

Go Brian,
Why don't you say what you really feel ! You won't get any argument from me on your reply.

It is amazing how people from overseas, including the "experts", have no idea of the vastness, geographical change and therefore climatic variation this country has. Not to mention the climatic variation we can have over a small distance.

Just compare the climates between Wollongong, Picton, and Bowral, where the change is very dramatic in just 50 Kms. This example could be applied just about anywhere around the country and then we have the fact that this country is 4000kms East to West and 4000kms North to South.

I guess when Parker makes such generalised statements about a year being a poor one, it helps ensure the end Australian consumer has more of a chance of picking up good wine at cheaper prices.

On closing, you know the first time I travelled to the US, within the first 5 questions, I heard this gem, "You have American Dollars in Australia right?"

Regards

Finney

[camw]

Giving a single vintage rating to Australia is lazy, sloppy, ignorant and downright inaccurate. Even if you factor in his SA bias, it's still misleading.

Except that he doesn't do that, he has seperate ratings for SA and WA.

[Finney]

Hi Camw,

That may be the case but even doing it by state is ridiculous.

Whilst we are on the picking of errors front, I visited your website and noticed that you have "Appelation Australia" on your site. I am just wondering how you determined that Australia is an Appelation? Which region or country is Australia in?


Regards

Finney

[camw]

Hi Camw,

That may be the case but even doing it by state is ridiculous.

Whilst we are on the picking of errors front, I visited your website and noticed that you have "Appelation Australia" on your site. I am just wondering how you determined that Australia is an Appelation? Which region or country is Australia in?


Regards

Finney

I didn't state that it was appropriate, but when you are discussing something, it does help to have the facts straight.

If you want to keep picking up on errors, it is spelt Appellation (we could do this all day I'm sure, but it isn't much fun at all ).

The site name isn't supposed to be taken literally, it is a site about Australian wine and Australian wine regions, and so if you take Appellation to mean something along the lines of the defined place of origin of the wine, then hopefully you can see where I am coming from.

[Red Bigot]

Giving a single vintage rating to Australia is lazy, sloppy, ignorant and downright inaccurate. Even if you factor in his SA bias, it's still misleading.

Except that he doesn't do that, he has seperate ratings for SA and WA.

Yeah, that helps a lot, a bit like lumping Bordeaux and Rhone together and Burgundy with Languedoc...

[camw]

Giving a single vintage rating to Australia is lazy, sloppy, ignorant and downright inaccurate. Even if you factor in his SA bias, it's still misleading.

Except that he doesn't do that, he has seperate ratings for SA and WA.

Yeah, that helps a lot, a bit like lumping Bordeaux and Rhone together and Burgundy with Languedoc...

Did I say that it helped? It does lend more credence to your argument if you are basing it on the facts though. Especially if you are arguing against inaccuracy.

[Red Bigot]

Giving a single vintage rating to Australia is lazy, sloppy, ignorant and downright inaccurate. Even if you factor in his SA bias, it's still misleading.

Except that he doesn't do that, he has seperate ratings for SA and WA.

Yeah, that helps a lot, a bit like lumping Bordeaux and Rhone together and Burgundy with Languedoc...

Did I say that it helped? It does lend more credence to your argument if you are basing it on the facts though. Especially if you are arguing against inaccuracy.

Did I say you said it helps? I don't subscribe to WA or follow Parker other than a bit of a browse through parts of his Australian Annual issue, so I was taking Jerry at face value in his original post, although on re-reading the title I guess So could be South? In which case the rhetoric is a bit strong, but many of the comments re different regions even within one state and the analogy of grouping French regions still apply.

[Finney]

Hi Camw,

Damn, missed an "l" but yep, you are right in one thing "having the facts straight" - "Appellations (Notice the spelling - strangely enuf u new watt I ment befour) of Australia" may give more credence and be more factual? But as always, your site, your choice. I suspect with me suggesting it, there isn't a chance you will be changing it any time soon.

With questions like, "You have American Dollars in Australia?" then I guess that some people might think Australia is an Appellation of the US or maybe some other country!

Regards

Finney

[camw]

I suspect with me suggesting it, there isn't a chance you will be changing it any time soon.

No, feedback is always good, I'll take it into consideration, thanks.

[camw]

Giving a single vintage rating to Australia is lazy, sloppy, ignorant and downright inaccurate. Even if you factor in his SA bias, it's still misleading.

Except that he doesn't do that, he has seperate ratings for SA and WA.

Yeah, that helps a lot, a bit like lumping Bordeaux and Rhone together and Burgundy with Languedoc...

Did I say that it helped? It does lend more credence to your argument if you are basing it on the facts though. Especially if you are arguing against inaccuracy.

Did I say you said it helps?

Brian,

To me it looked like you were saying that yes. Anyway, it doesn't really matter - probably too many sleepless nights with the football making me overly sensitive

[Craig(NZ)]

Guys Guys...

If you have had more experience than Parker on Aussie wines (which is probably the case with a good number of you) and your opinions are a little more refined than his then hey what's the issue?? Surely you will abide by your experience as something a bit more precious to your palate than his??

Then if you are genuinely concerned about the 'misleading' of the wine review lemming public by the evil pied piper then write a book of your own??

[Ian S]

Just noticed the "So" in front of Australia in the title and what I thought was a typo & ignored, was probably meant to be short for South. It's all my fault so you can stop arguing now

I much prefer the honesty of picking a specific region/wine (e.g. Barossa Shiraz), rather than a broader and misleading South Australian Red. If the reader then wants to generalise that out to Sout Aus, then that's fine, but at least the author isn't misleading them.

Vintage ratings are all pretty much varying degrees of averaging. I recall buying some wine over the internet and the merchant phoned me up to say that he'd got two vintages of the Taylors Clare Riesling (2001 and 2002). Hmm Clare Riesling I thought, obviously a no-brainer - I'll get the 2002. Of the two bottles of it, one was an overblown tart and the other one was a declining overblown tart. Both gave little pleasure.

regards

Ian

[Dave Dewhurst]

I recall buying some wine over the internet and the merchant phoned me up to say that he'd got two vintages of the Taylors Clare Riesling (2001 and 2002). Hmm Clare Riesling I thought, obviously a no-brainer - I'll get the 2002. Of the two bottles of it, one was an overblown tart and the other one was a declining overblown tart. Both gave little pleasure.

regards

Ian

Hi Ian,

Interesting note this one as Taylors riesling used to be one of my staple quaffers. However, summat went horribly wrong with it for me from the 02 vintage onwards (style change? Dunno?) and I haven't touched it since! Sorry for veering off topic although one could always be bitchy and question the emporer's knowledge of Aussie riesling!

Cheers

Dave

[Ian S]

Dave
I'd guessed over-ripeness (the reference to over-blown tart comes from Paul Mertons reference to various female members of the royal family on Have I got news for you). Certainly there were tropical fruit/(tinned)pineapple flavours in there. The 2nd bottle opened was definitely fading.
regards
Ian

[KMP]

The vintage guides published by Parker and Wine Spectator (or probably just about any wine publication) are just that, guides. If you think they are written in stone or have some greater meaning then you are looking for something that is simply not there. But then, of course, absolutely no one else ever talks about vintage comparisons on any forum, do they?

Speaking of Parker’s experience with Australian wine. Its actually wider ranging that he is given credit for. Its not the equivalent of Halliday’s, but if we assume that most of his tasting has been done since 1995 then he has been averaging about 1,000 wines a year since then. Anyone knocking off at least 3 wines a day – just in Aussie wines?

This is from Sept of ’05. The numbers are now different (e.g. the number of recommended Aussie wines is now 4,112); I just don’t have the time to redo all the details.

It is true that, compared to French wines, Parker has reviewed relatively few Australian wines. His on-line site, which covers numerous vintages, notes that he has recommended more than 34,000 French wines, almost 16,000 US wines but only 3,331 Australian wines. Recommend wines are those that score 84 or greater on Parker’s 100 point scale. But how many wines does he actually taste? When I asked this question on ERPSupport the answer was that “no totally accurate record exists’ but “what is published represents approximately 25-35% of the total number of wines tasted.”

If we assume that 35% of tasted wines are recommended that means at least 9,500 Australian wines have been tasted. Incidentally the 3,331 recommended wines includes South Australia (2,468 wines) Victoria (396 wines) Western Australia (218 wines) Southeast Australia (99 wines) New South Wales (87 wines) Unclassified (49 wines) and Tasmania (14 wines). That big number from South Australia does suggest that he might like Shiraz! Of the recommended wines from South Australia 993 are Shiraz, 493 Proprietary Blends, 316 Cabernet Sauvignon, 143 Grenache, 125 Chardonnay, 93 Riesling, Merlot 71, Semillon 46, Sauvignon Blanc 39, Viognier 24, Pinot Noir 20, Zinfandel 17, Mourvedre 11, Port 10 , and another 17 varieties have less that 10 with 8 having one wine. Thirteen wines are unclassified. So while the focus is on Shiraz, Parker is clearly able to bestow his recommendation on a broad range of Australian varietals.

His tasting notes for Australia go back to the 1952 vintage however these older wines are almost exclusively notes on Penfold’s Grange. A tally of the number of recommendations per vintage show that he favorably reviewed more than 10 wines from 1989 onward, and got over the 100 mark in 1995 (coincidently the same year that The Wine Spectator named the 1990 Penfold’s Grange as Wine of The Year.). The largest number of wines that Parker has recommended has been 541 from the 2002 vintage. This suggests that Parker has a fairly limited knowledge of Australian wine over the long term, as some 90% of his recommendations are for wines produced in the last 10 years. Still during that period he is likely to have sampled more than 9,000 wines. A feat very, very few Australian wine drinkers will have achieved.

The 2002 vintage is classed by some as one of the best in recent memory. How did Parker divide his laurels? By varietal 2002 breaks down into Shiraz 209, Propriety Blend 107, Cabernet Sauvignon 61, Chardonnay 38, Grenache 26, Riesling 23, Merlot 14, Pinot Noir 13, and Semillon 12. And the remaining 14 varietals have less than 10 with 6 being for 1 wine only. So there is that predilection for Shiraz again, but also there is appreciation of a great variety of wine styles.

By location 2002 breaks down into Barossa Valley 176, McLaren Vale 111, Clare Valley 34, Langhorne Creek 21, Adelaide Hills 20, Heathcote 17, Eden Valley 15, Margaret River 14, Yarra Valley 13, and Coonawarra 11. The remaining 18 regions have less than 10 (Hunter Valley has eight) with 11 having just 1. Seventy wines are unclassified as to region. Well we already knew that he favored wines from South Australia. Still wines from many of the top regions get a recommendation.

How about that love of Barossa Shiraz? The recommended wines from the Barossa Valley include 77 Shiraz, 54 Proprietary Blends, 14 Cabernet Sauvignon and 12 Grenache. But it’s McLaren Vale that he seems to favor for Shiraz; McLaren Vale 52 Shiraz, 16 Cabernet Sauvignon, 14 blends, and 12 Grenache.

What does all this tell us about Parker’s Australian wine knowledge? Well he clearly has tasted many more Australian wines than most. Other (Australian based) critics like James Halliday taste significantly more wines, but their sphere is limited to Australia. Does Parker have a handle on the broad spectrum of Australian wine? He clearly favors Shiraz but is this unusual? Shiraz is unmistakably Australian and Parker’s support of the style clearly indicates that he has recognized this. Does he understand other wines styles/varietals? Well he obviously appreciates the quintessential Australian dessert wines. In addition as his recommendations indicate he does see merit in wines from many different varietals and from very different regions. One can argue whether this displays a thorough knowledge of Australian wine but it is clear that he has tasted across the spectrum and found good things. Others with greater amounts of time on their hands may be able to tease more from Parkers’ recommendations. How do they match with Langton’s classification, with Hallidays scores or with their individual palate?

My opinion is that I was pleasantly surprised by the number of varietals that he has found to recommend. True most are small in number and they do appear to not garner the high scores that many Shiraz wines do. But it does suggest that Parker has not limited his experience with Australian wine to just the obvious.
Mike

[Baby Chickpea]

Is there any reviewer/critic who's ratings on Australia anyone agrees on, let alone Parker's? Academic argument. Move on fellas... I only rely on my palate, not Parker (well, not for Australia), Oliver, Halliday etc. I suspect most of you do given you are on a wine board and more knowl;edgeable than the average joe out there who likes simple guides.

[Roscoe]

Is there any reviewer/critic who's ratings on Australia anyone agrees on, let alone Parker's? Academic argument. Move on fellas... I only rely on my palate, not Parker (well, not for Australia), Oliver, Halliday etc. I suspect most of you do given you are on a wine board and more knowl;edgeable than the average joe out there who likes simple guides.

Seconded.
Summarising the points:
The bigger the area rated, the bigger the generalisation and the less use it is.
If rated by one person, depends on that person's palate and experience. If rated by a group, the same applies.
Caveat emptor.

[GraemeG]

He rates 98 a 95 E (for early), the 99 88E, The 2000 88C (for caution), 01 is 95 T for Tannic, 02 is also 95 T, 03 is 90E and 04 is 91E.

Tannic? Early? Caution? A six-year-old vintage marked Caution? What's that supposed to mean? Some of these guys just need to fill the requisite number of pages in their newsletter, I reckon. This is not a recommendation for a single wine, but for a whole state? Laughable.

It's strictly for reds I hope, or are there some especially tannic 2000 Clare rieslings just waiting to trip up a particularly uncautious buyer?

Graeme

[Craig(NZ)]

Is there any reviewer/critic who's ratings on Australia anyone agrees on, let alone Parker's? Academic argument. Move on fellas... I only rely on my palate, not Parker (well, not for Australia), Oliver, Halliday etc. I suspect most of you do given you are on a wine board and more knowl;edgeable than the average joe out there who likes simple guides.

Cant agree more.

All this "do you agree with x writer or y critic" is wine nursery talk. Once we are out of wine 'nappies' who cares if the 'baby food' isnt to our taste?? How long do you need to suck on parkers nipple??

[Ian S]

Is there any reviewer/critic who's ratings on Australia anyone agrees on, let alone Parker's? Academic argument. Move on fellas... I only rely on my palate, not Parker (well, not for Australia), Oliver, Halliday etc. I suspect most of you do given you are on a wine board and more knowl;edgeable than the average joe out there who likes simple guides.

Cant agree more.

All this "do you agree with x writer or y critic" is wine nursery talk. Once we are out of wine 'nappies' who cares if the 'baby food' isnt to our taste?? How long do you need to suck on parkers nipple??

Actually I still quite like rusks once every 3-4 years. With hot milk but only roughly broken so there's some texture differences. Is a bit sweet though, but does remind me of childhood.

[Josie]

How long do you need to suck on parkers nipple??

what an unattractive image. bring back baby chickpea's pomegranate covered monica bellucci say i!