2005 Glaetzer Bishop Shiraz

[The Cork Dork]

Tried this wine on the weekend. The wine was shared with friends over a game of football.

Two of my mates made very good comments about the wine, that it was sweet and caramel seem to be a dominant feature of the wine. After these comments were made I knuckled down with the brain and started analyzing the wine.

Early last year I tried the 2004 vintage of this wine, upon trying my first mouthful I fell in love with this wine. It represented nearly everything about Barossan shiraz, it was a mid to deeply coloured wine, it had that Barossan shiraz thing, it had a great nose on it, a wine that had lingering colour and had an intense nose. Then it was bottoms up! a near explosion of flavours on the palate - a fresh vibrant wine with excellent mouthfeel, tannins, weight all in it's right proportions.

Fast forward to last weekend and I am trying the 2005 vintage, fruit now (in addition to previous vintages) from the much older vines, but the sweet thing started to get to me a near, it started to remind me of a blackberry/raspberry cordial, dare I say. Stewed fruits and jammy, but it was almost as if the grapes were just left on the vine a bit too long, never-the-less a good Bishop, but not a great one! The 2004 vintage was a much better expression of this wine.

[Ian S]

Hmmm Caramel is a note that sends alarm bells ringing for me. I've tried the Bishop in earlier vintages and didn't take to it. Will taste again following the label rationalisation (2004/2005?), but I'm beginning to suspect this wine is not for me. Oddly I'm quite happy with the Mitolo GAM (which is made by the same winemaker right?)

regards

Ian

[Omotesando]

With the 2004 Glaetzer Bishop I also had a slightly different experience - found the 2004 version to be intense on the nose, but the palate could not follow it up. It was spicy, peppery, licorice and almost savoury-meaty. I thought it had inherent balance but lacked the punch or should I say the fruit layers I'd expected for the price.

2001 wasn't that interesting to me either, although I do suspect if its just me, even when disregarding the price? Since both 2001 and 2004 received good reviews in general. The 2005 - will really have to try and see. But from what people had said, it is vastly different to the previous vintages.