RP, big aussie shiraz and ageing

[Shiraz_Freak]

Hi guys,

What are your thoughts on Parkers ratings of young aussie reds? Does he get it wrong with regards to the ageing ability of them?

I've found i like his style of shiraz, but haven't had any aged that he has liked.

Lets take for instance the Clarendon Hills Astralis Syrah, RP gave it 99 points, in the opinion of the members of this forum i would like to know what you guys think. I've read notes on the 06 here recently which would have me believe it drinks very well right now, from recent tasting at the Langtons classification.

If you had a bottle of the 06 would you risk ageing it, on the back of recent reports RP does not know enough about aussie reds to rate them for the future. Or would you drink it now and enjoy it for what it is now?

Thanx.

P.S

I have a bottle of this and not the 95 as first posted.

[Shiraz_Freak]

I have re read my post, and it may come across that i am trying to flog this bottle, which is absolutely not the case.

Just thinking of cooking a nice dinner and drimking it tonight

[Shiraz_Freak]

Maybe i should go a 06 Armagh? Thoughts?

[tpang]

I think it's very silly to base the decision on whether to drink now or keep for later on RP's ratings.

At the end of the day, what do you feel like drinking? Do you want to drink a wine you just bought? Do you want to drink a wine, with a history of aging well, young? If you keep the bottle and drink it 10 years from now, would you have had the experience of drinking it young to compare the difference? If I felt crazy, I could stash away a case of yellowtail just to see how it's drink 10 years from now.

Ratings are more than likely based mainly on the impression of how the wine is drinking at the time of tasting, with some element of guess work on it's agability (but also taking into account the historical performance of the winery).

However, for the 2 wines you mentioned, both are drinking alright now but I'd suggest sitting on them for a few more years. I think the Astralis has the greater potential for extended cellaring.

[Mike Hawkins]

I think the ratings are too high, especially for some Mclaren Vale wines. Despite the plethora of negative comments elsewhere, his ageability estimates are pretty good in the main.

[tpang]

There is an interesting thread on the eRP forum stemming from Steve Pannell's suggestion to make Jan 2011 a month purely dedicated to drinking Australian wines.

David Schildknecht started the thread, refering to Steven's suggestion to "Let's push the boundaries and most importantly let's make more wines better suited to the food we eat, the climate we live in, the way we live and the people we are.". but subsequent replies have evolved the thread into an argument of the style of Australian wines (mainly shiraz, but of course because we produce not much else..). Robert Parker surprisingly posted a reply and I think there are 2 points worth noting.

1) that the stereotypical Australian wine/shiraz led to "the confusion over styles [of wine Australia is capable of producing]..the 12 million or so cases of cheap and sweet Yellow Tail sold in the USA may explain some of the reaction...the lack of TWA doing regional tastings and defining regional styles,now corrected with Lisa doing just that, just exacerbated the confusion.." His admission to the failure to highlight regional differences in the past is positive for the Australian industry.

2) (and related to this thread), "as for the lack of aging potential,those critics seem to be ignoring the article I did in Issue 183(June,2009) where I assembled 8 tasters(6 anti-Aussie types/Francophiles for the most part) and tasted 62 Barossa and Mc Laren Vale big boys-I don't need to repeat the article as all of you can easily read it-yes there were some disappointments-but very few-many wines from 1996,1997,1998 and from some great producers, Noon, Greenock Creek, Torbreck, Penfold's Grange,J.J. Hahn, Magpie Estate,Fox Creek(a Sparky Marquis wine),Clarendon Hills were developing very nicely..and by no means falling apart...much to the chagrin of the Aussie bashers I invited... I intend to repeat that sort of tasting next year with another 60-72 south Australian shirazas as I think these huge wines need time to lose all that baby fat and show what they have...they DON'T taste like cherry cough syrup"

I look forward to reading about his follow-up tasting notes of the "big aussie shirazes" and whether they continue to age well.

[KMP]

Over the last few years I have heard the argument that big wines (usually means high alcohol, which I assume means anything north of 14.5-15%) don't age (and don't go with food) ("There is much experience and scientific understanding to verify that these wines age poorly." -I have asked for the "scientific evidence" but my comment was never posted and I never received a reply).

Its not just directed at Aussie wines either, Zinfandel is a big target here in the US. But I've yet to actually see any of the folks saying this provide any real evidence beyond a wine or two. One of the best wines I've had in the last few years was a 1998 15% Zinfandel, almost 10 years old, that went extremely well with a beef pie. The only other wine that comes to mind in terms of an older wine that was beautiful was a 1974 Petite Sirah (Durif) (13.2%ABV) that was youngster at 32 years old. Would the Zin have made it to 32 with its 15%? I have no idea, and to be honest I don't really care.

Mike

[Luke W]

Interesting article Mike

As a lover and procurer of big Aussie reds (around 14.5-15.5% alcohol), I can't say that I've noticed any turning into prunes after a few years. Most of my wines (particularly McLarenVale reds) seem to be drinking wonderfully well after 10 years and many of these were made specifically for the Robert Parker palate.
My rule of thumb is if a wine tastes better the next day or the day after its probably got some life left in it (even if its 10 years old). I haven't found many that are starting to fade but I'm sure looking hard.

cheers

Luke

[Mahmoud Ali]

First off, Tpang, you're right, a person would have to be crazy to cellar a Yellow Tail Shiraz for 10 years. A Cabernet might have some chance, if only little, to go the distance. I can confirm that the Wolf Blass Yellow Label of old certainly could last 10 years.

Also, Parker's ratings are not based solely on how the wine tastes at the time, it also factors in 10 points for quality and longevity. In his wine buying guides Parker states that those who like their wines on the younger side should drink the wines in the early part of his suggested drinking window. In my experience with Parker's drinking windows for Bordeaux (and others) I have found that for my taste I shouldn't even think about approaching the wine till after his drinking window has PASSED!

I cannot really comment on Parker's drinking windows for the big, "blockbuster" wines from Australia as I don't have the experience. I can't see why he would be less accurate with them unless the wine style itself is not conducive to aging, given the high alcohol (in itself not a handicap to aging) and over-ripe "dead fruit" qualities to use the critic's parlance. For my own part I don't care for the over-extracted, sweet tasting, porty-styled wines and don't buy them unless they fall into my lap. However I would encourage those who do like them to hold on to some to see if they age well. I reckon they will have a severely disappointing hump to get over before they show some elegance.

I've noted that a number of wine-collector friends went off Australian wines in a big way when they noticed that after a few years in the cellar they didn't like the wines. They thought the wine was dead, the vibrant, explosive fruit turned flabby and dull, the wines without backbone and structure. These sentiments seem to reflect what the critics said would happen to these wines. But I know that even the great wines of the world go through a dumb phase where they "lose" their fruit but have yet to develop complexity. They just need more time.

After an absence from home when I came back from traveling in 2008 I was told by some friends that the 1998 Fox Creek Reserve Shiraz (a Parker-inspired craze) was dead, past it's used-by date, and that people who bought the wine should "drink-up". In fact they told me that many of the 1998 wines from Australia were past their prime. I was incredulous, how could that be I thought, they're only 10 years old. In any event I had no Fox Creek Reserves but I did have a couple of '98 Fox Creek JSMs as well as some '98 and '99 Cabs and Shiraz. On reflection I decided to hang on to them. If the others were right and the wines appeared dead then I saw no point in opening them. On the other hand the wines could just be in a grey area, like a chrysalis waiting for the butterfly to emerge.

I've also had an experience with the 1990 Eileen Hardy Shiraz that made me consider the possibility that so-called "block buster" wines may age differently. Originally I liked the '90 Eileen Hardy and put away a few bottles. I next opened a bottle in about 2002/3, when the wine was 12 years old, and found, much to my disappointment, that I didn't like the wine: stewed fruit, disjointed, a dull palate, and what appeared to be very little structure. I didn't know what had happened but wondered if the style of wine was responsible for the poor cellaring result. I wasn't going to open another bottle as there seemed no point, as according to my wine philosophy, I had nothing to gain (as I didn't like the wine) and by waiting longer I had nothing to lose and everything to gain. In 2008 another bottle was opened. It still had a porty, sweet quality but not to the extent of the previous time, and it had developed a hint of complexity and some structure. At 18 years of age I still wasn't thrilled with it but it appeared to be back on track and I am looking forward to the next bottle in a few more years.

From these experiences I cannot venture to say that the so-called Parker wines will not age well. Cellaring is the only way to find out, and that involves cellaring the wine past the point where, for the first time, you think the wine has lost something. Only then will you know if there is something more to come. I have friends who serve me things like Amon-Ra and Carnival of Love. They appear to be caricatures of sorts, super lush, thick, sweet fruited and heavy. They make a bold statement. I certainly wouldn't spend money on them but I am looking forward to the day when another bottle comes out of their cellar and we can get the true measure of their longevity, and potential. My deal is this, you cellar the big Australian Shiraz and I'll cellar things like Cornas (French Syrah) and Beck's The Ridge Syrah (South African), it's a win-win situation.

Good wines evolve, they have a life of their own, some good, some bad. Every bottle in time is a new experience. There are very few hard facts about longevity and the rule extends to the critics as well. I clearly recall Parker giving the 1988 Don Melchor Cabernet, a premium Chilean Cabernet, an 8-10 year drinking window. In 2001, at 12 years of age I opened a bottle and it was dull, dry, and hard as nails, not enjoyable at all. The next bottle was opened in 2008 and was the WOTN. Was Parker wrong, or was it my tastes?

Sometimes there are no answers, we just have make up our own minds.

Cheers.......................Mahmoud.

PS: Luke, your rule of thumb about tasting wine the next day is an excellent one. I often evaluate the cellaring potential of young wines that way. The older wines never seem to get past the first evening.

Another PS: I do have some big Aussie Shiraz, things like Dead Arm, Meshach and Aberfeldy.

[bob parsons]

Terence, I like your opening statement....>
think it's very silly to base the decision on whether to drink now or keep for later on RP's ratings.

I myself have no time whatsoever for Mr Parker and some of his misguided band of followers, all this scoring stuff (including the Wine Spectator) can be a pain in the butt. You are better off tuning into some of the wine forums out there (worldwide) where the knowledgable drinkers are posting and hence commentating.