Akd Offline: Fri Dec 3rd - Notes now posted

[Craig(NZ)]

Judy followed up re the alcohol reading on the 2008 Pope. I don't want to even really raise this as an issue with the wine as to me it isn't. I think I even remember saying at the tasting that "I bet it is not 14.8%". It just seemed too fragrant and defined on the nose and it didn't hit me in the back of the throat like some of the supercharged Aussie wines do (I think about the 2005 Rusden Crookshed Zinfandel I had a week prior for example). I received this in an email today from her which I copy and paste for you. I would like to publish this mainly because I would hate to see her kindness in letting me buy a pre release bottle (which was basically ring fenced for export) taint in any way the reputation of this amazing wine

"I was a bit taken aback with the 14.8%, as none of the components of the wine had been that high. I reviewed our log and test results and found that the 14.8% came from NZ Labs in the export certification chemistry. All other lab tests both here and at Wineworks had the level at 14.2% or below. This gets very complicated – the EU now requires a “total potential alcohol” test, which measures both the actual alcohol and the potential alcohol of any residual sugar (fermentable and unfermentable) and lumps them together in a total alcohol reading. I had this test done for export of this wine to the EU and used their result on the EU label. I am going to check whether I should use the total figure on the EU label – this might have been an error. I will be using 14.2% on the NZ and USA labels. So the wine is higher than we usually get but not really out of the ballpark for big luscious reds. I am getting these higher alcohols now that the wines are older and our yields are lower – the price of the concentration and ripeness achieved."

Remember the bottle I had was a German bottle as such it hadn't been labelled for the NZ market, so adhering to EU total potential alcohol definition not the NZ converted alcohol definition

[Craig(NZ)]

More follow up

I just talked to the head of NZ labs again. Their original transcription of the alcohol reading for PH Pope 08 was from an actual of 14.27. They rounded to 14.8, instead of 14.3! So they made a mistake in reporting the alcohol and have now rereported it at 14.3.

Doesn't surprise. It did not feel 14.8% to me!

[Bick]

More follow up

I just talked to the head of NZ labs again. Their original transcription of the alcohol reading for PH Pope 08 was from an actual of 14.27. They rounded to 14.8, instead of 14.3! So they made a mistake in reporting the alcohol and have now rereported it at 14.3.

Doesn't surprise. It did not feel 14.8% to me!

Agreed. I also agree that its a moot point, given it was almost certainly the finest new zealand wine I've ever tasted. Judy should be justly proud of what she's achieved in unfashionable Clevedon - its truly world class wine. Saving my pennies now for release...

[Craig(NZ)]

Agreed. I also agree that its a moot point, given it was almost certainly the finest new zealand wine I've ever tasted. Judy should be justly proud of what she's achieved in unfashionable Clevedon - its truly world class wine. Saving my pennies now for release...

Agree, totally a moot point for those who have tasted it, totally a moot point for those picking up and looking at the label of the NZ release, but *potential* concern to those who have not tasted it and noting the alcohol as we reported it. That is the only reason I even bothered to highlight it. As I said I didnt want her generousity in letting us have a pre release non nz labelled bottle, with the incorrect alc reading on it, in any way result in any negative internet "press" no matter how unlikely or minor it would be.

[Paradox]

I also agree that its a moot point, given it was almost certainly the finest new zealand wine I've ever tasted. Judy should be justly proud of what she's achieved in unfashionable Clevedon - its truly world class wine. Saving my pennies now for release...

His Bob-ness agrees with y'all too - he's given the 08 Pope a 98 which is about as high as he ever scores and is probably the highest score he's ever given to a NZ bordeaux blend.

Rob

[Craig(NZ)]

On the face of it 08 Pope 98/100 a great accolade and yes best score he has ever given a nz bordeaux blend. Next is the 05 Blake Family Redd which we also had at the tasting 97/100

However, scanning down his list there are some pretty amazing wines that he has scored quite low (aka blatently incorrectly). I have to question some of his judgement here. I also think his wine notes are just really lazy jottings and quite immature. I think he could do better

How far off the mark are these notes/scores??

"1998 Esk Valley Terraces
88/100 Ripe, hot and slightly tarry. Big wine with masses of fruit. Robust, gutsy red. I doubt it will age. Big tannins. Tasted: Sep 2005 Average price: n/a"

"1994 Stonyridge Larose
85/100 CEdary, pencils, holding well. REasonably light but still offers pleasure. Quite fresh, but lacks a`bit of weight and stuffing."

Although Geoff Kelly *imo* occasionally has some clanger judgements, and unbalanced rants (he also has some good rants too!), at least you can't deny him the detail, thoroughness, work and effort he puts in. I think BC could learn a bit from him.

[Bick]

How far off the mark are these notes/scores??

"1998 Esk Valley Terraces
88/100 Ripe, hot and slightly tarry. Big wine with masses of fruit. Robust, gutsy red. I doubt it will age. Big tannins. Tasted: Sep 2005 Average price: n/a"

"1994 Stonyridge Larose
85/100 Cedary, pencils, holding well. Reasonably light but still offers pleasure. Quite fresh, but lacks a`bit of weight and stuffing."

Although Geoff Kelly *imo* occasionally has some clanger judgements, and unbalanced rants (he also has some good rants too!), at least you can't deny him the detail, thoroughness, work and effort he puts in. I think BC could learn a bit from him.

Yes, having had both those wines in the past couple of years, I have to agree BC has cocked those notes up - no way they are 85-88 pt wines, no way the 98 terraces is either hot or tarry, and the 94 larose is a delight and not "light" in any way. It makes you wonder if even tasted them, tbh. I suspect he gets bored and frustrated with writing so many notes and can't really be bothered to do them justice any more. MW... pfft

[Craig(NZ)]

Yes, having had both those wines in the past couple of years, I have to agree BC has cocked those notes up - no way they are 85-88 pt wines, no way the 98 terraces is either hot or tarry

Although we all get this sort of prediction wrong occassionally and wines do do surprise but....

"I doubt it will age"??? On the basis of recent tastings 98 Terraces must be right up there with the most long lived HB wines of the vintage with 98 Coleraine. I can't think of any that I feel will last longer and I have tried quite a truckload of 98 HB reds over the last 2-3 years. It has easily another 5 years in it perhaps even 10??

It may not have quite the legs of the 95 Terraces, but I think it is well in the ballpark cf the agability of the 00,02,04,06.

IMO NZ wine needs a "Campbell Mattison"...a true wine jounalist prepared to do the work. We have a pile of newspaper columists and wine review writers but no one that really goes into depth with the combo wineries, history, verticals, latest releases and good writing. Closest we have is probably Sam Kim or to a lesser extent Raymond Chan

Cooper writes well but 97% of his wines are scored 4 or 5 stars and the reviews are a bit bland of critical comment

I think it is a disgrace how retailers (maybe they have to), even in NZ use Parker scores, Decanter scores, Halliday, Mattison, Tysons scores to sell NZ wine! (nothing against those writers). Why is no local writer good enough? Listened to enough? Surely a NZ writer has way more coverage and understanding/ history etc notwithstanding the argument of international perspective

Somehow people think that someone that flies in for 2 weeks visiting wineries, or someone sitting overseas that sees a small subset of our wine a few days a year is somehow better qualified to telling us where we sit than someone that is immersed in it every day of the year. Crazy!

[burgster]

I think Craig that the overseas writers are often more impartial than the locals who rely heavily on the largesse of the wealthy companies to fly them around the country and even outside the country. I exclude Geoff Kelly from this. And I don't think Sam Kim is too bad either, despite some of the flak he gets.

There are too many instances where Campbell's scores differ so dramatically from Kelly's or the Wine Advocate's for instance, always in favour of the Cloudy Bays, Felton Roads, Ata Rangis etc. This is only natural to some extent. I recall one Campbell review along the lines of "the Craggy Range didn't show up in the blind lineup, but I took it out to dinner and it really shown with food". All well and good, but did the other wines get that opportunity. And presumably the Craggy score was the one it got with the food and not the blind one.

I'm sure you must have found similar instances yourself when you were doing your tastings.

I have heard similar stories from Australians expressing doubts over the impartiality of some of their own better know writers.

So personally, I do enjoy seeing reviews from decent international writers who aren't so blinkered in their approach. You only had to look at last years Wine Advocate Cloudy Bay scores. You would never have seem that from a NZ writer.

[Craig(NZ)]

I think Craig that the overseas writers are often more impartial than the locals who rely heavily on the largesse of the wealthy companies to fly them around the country and even outside the country. I exclude Geoff Kelly from this. And I don't think Sam Kim is too bad either, despite some of the flak he gets.

There are too many instances where Campbell's scores differ so dramatically from Kelly's or the Wine Advocate's for instance, always in favour of the Cloudy Bays, Felton Roads, Ata Rangis etc. This is only natural to some extent. I recall one Campbell review along the lines of "the Craggy Range didn't show up in the blind lineup, but I took it out to dinner and it really shown with food". All well and good, but did the other wines get that opportunity. And presumably the Craggy score was the one it got with the food and not the blind one.

I'm sure you must have found similar instances yourself when you were doing your tastings.

I have heard similar stories from Australians expressing doubts over the impartiality of some of their own better know writers.

So personally, I do enjoy seeing reviews from decent international writers who aren't so blinkered in their approach. You only had to look at last years Wine Advocate Cloudy Bay scores. You would never have seem that from a NZ writer.

Agree with a lot of what you say. Differing views is one thing. I don't get too concerned with that. However the 2 wines I highlighted above sorta step outside that tolerance level and more into the random "wtf" territory. Certainly aware that even the same wine can show differently for many reasons between occasions.

Certainly when I "wrote" I had my favourite wineries and biases but I was quite open about that and really didn't 'care' what people thought. I honestly never had any plans for it to be more than a hobby and that is how I approached it - an amateur blog style wine tabloid of ill repute. Biggest issue is when i got sent wine, you do sorta feel compelled to say "something nice". You certainly feel that pressure. But I never received enough free samples to have it affect me too much and I never actively persued them. So 99% of the wine reviewed was paid for. I had wineries that did give me great treatment but they were the ones that I purchased myself and have done since they opened, or for the last 13 or 14 years etc etc, still purchase...loved then and loved now. That treatment wont stop now i am not writing either as I am a good customer.

However let me highlight that overseas reviewers are not immune from politics either. To a grand degree it is like bidding for the soccer world cup just to get your winery in front of such a taster as Parkers man (whatever his name is im having a senior moment - EDIT Neil Martin). To that degree established well known wineries have a big advantage being summoned where small up and coming wineries can be lumped together into a mass tasting exercise by some central wine body (again forget the name). Not a even playing field.

As for Cloudy Bay scores im not sure you would see thaose from an aussie writer either. Whatever review forum you choose, there will always be some strange results.

However my point is this, even though we know no reviewer or review forum is perfect doesn't mean we have to give up the sport of criticising them

i have developed this into a bit of a rant which wasn't the aim. I guess the entire point of the original sentance was to say "hey a established writer rated this the best bdx blend in nz", i certainly agree it is up there in that sort of realm but doesnt mean everyone needs to take it as gospel. To underline this I picked a couple of examples where I disagree to illustrate that point.

[SueNZ]

I think Craig that the overseas writers are often more impartial than the locals who rely heavily on the largesse of the wealthy companies to fly them around the country and even outside the country. . . .

So personally, I do enjoy seeing reviews from decent international writers who aren't so blinkered in their approach. You only had to look at last years Wine Advocate Cloudy Bay scores. You would never have seem that from a NZ writer.

Who do you think pays for the overseas writers?

[orpheus]

Yes, having had both those wines in the past couple of years, I have to agree BC has cocked those notes up - no way they are 85-88 pt wines, no way the 98 terraces is either hot or tarry

Although we all get this sort of prediction wrong occassionally and wines do do surprise but....

"I doubt it will age"??? On the basis of recent tastings 98 Terraces must be right up there with the most long lived HB wines of the vintage with 98 Coleraine. I can't think of any that I feel will last longer and I have tried quite a truckload of 98 HB reds over the last 2-3 years. It has easily another 5 years in it perhaps even 10??

It may not have quite the legs of the 95 Terraces, but I think it is well in the ballpark cf the agability of the 00,02,04,06.

IMO NZ wine needs a "Campbell Mattison"...a true wine jounalist prepared to do the work. We have a pile of newspaper columists and wine review writers but no one that really goes into depth with the combo wineries, history, verticals, latest releases and good writing. Closest we have is probably Sam Kim or to a lesser extent Raymond Chan

Cooper writes well but 97% of his wines are scored 4 or 5 stars and the reviews are a bit bland of critical comment

I think it is a disgrace how retailers (maybe they have to), even in NZ use Parker scores, Decanter scores, Halliday, Mattison, Tysons scores to sell NZ wine! (nothing against those writers). Why is no local writer good enough? Listened to enough? Surely a NZ writer has way more coverage and understanding/ history etc notwithstanding the argument of international perspective

Somehow people think that someone that flies in for 2 weeks visiting wineries, or someone sitting overseas that sees a small subset of our wine a few days a year is somehow better qualified to telling us where we sit than someone that is immersed in it every day of the year. Crazy!

Craig, you say that it is a disgrace, but at the same time, lament the lack of "a true wine journalist". As you say, Cooper thinks far too many ordinary wines are great when they are not. (HE is the NZ wine writer I have the most experience of, as I have purchased his book from time to time.)

As for the international perspective, this is valuable. Australia has suffered from a lack of it over the years as much as NZ. It is useful to look at these wines in an international context.

Arguably, NZ (and France) would have continued to put up with red wines full of under-ripe grapes, and Australia would continue to put up with the opposite problems!

WRiters from overseas can more readily see these wines for what they are; faulty.

[Craig(NZ)]

Yes, having had both those wines in the past couple of years, I have to agree BC has cocked those notes up - no way they are 85-88 pt wines, no way the 98 terraces is either hot or tarry

Although we all get this sort of prediction wrong occassionally and wines do do surprise but....

"I doubt it will age"??? On the basis of recent tastings 98 Terraces must be right up there with the most long lived HB wines of the vintage with 98 Coleraine. I can't think of any that I feel will last longer and I have tried quite a truckload of 98 HB reds over the last 2-3 years. It has easily another 5 years in it perhaps even 10??

It may not have quite the legs of the 95 Terraces, but I think it is well in the ballpark cf the agability of the 00,02,04,06.

IMO NZ wine needs a "Campbell Mattison"...a true wine jounalist prepared to do the work. We have a pile of newspaper columists and wine review writers but no one that really goes into depth with the combo wineries, history, verticals, latest releases and good writing. Closest we have is probably Sam Kim or to a lesser extent Raymond Chan

Cooper writes well but 97% of his wines are scored 4 or 5 stars and the reviews are a bit bland of critical comment

I think it is a disgrace how retailers (maybe they have to), even in NZ use Parker scores, Decanter scores, Halliday, Mattison, Tysons scores to sell NZ wine! (nothing against those writers). Why is no local writer good enough? Listened to enough? Surely a NZ writer has way more coverage and understanding/ history etc notwithstanding the argument of international perspective

Somehow people think that someone that flies in for 2 weeks visiting wineries, or someone sitting overseas that sees a small subset of our wine a few days a year is somehow better qualified to telling us where we sit than someone that is immersed in it every day of the year. Crazy!

Craig, you say that it is a disgrace, but at the same time, lament the lack of "a true wine journalist". As you say, Cooper thinks far too many ordinary wines are great when they are not. (HE is the NZ wine writer I have the most experience of, as I have purchased his book from time to time.)

As for the international perspective, this is valuable. Australia has suffered from a lack of it over the years as much as NZ. It is useful to look at these wines in an international context.

Arguably, NZ (and France) would have continued to put up with red wines full of under-ripe grapes, and Australia would continue to put up with the opposite problems!

WRiters from overseas can more readily see these wines for what they are; faulty.

Agree. I was more having a mind dump of a whinge without putting forward any solutions. However remember, an american food writer could see vegemite as disgusting. Does that opinion really matter to an aussie or a kiwi that has grown up loving it?

If New Zealand wine drinkers have grown up enjoying a wine that an american would call leafy, or if an australian grows up loving the big jammy barossa shiraz...who then is better equipped to let them know what a good one is? I would argue a well experienced local who has the same type of palate?

[burgster]

Sorry Sue. Wasn't accusing you of being influenced by too much largesse. I've always found your work very impartial.

I'm actually surprised people think Michael Cooper is overly generous in his ratings. I had never thought that.

Perhaps we should ask which NZ and Australia wine writers we all think are the most impartial and give the most reasoned reviews?

Even which international writers are considered best and fairest when it comes to their reviews of NZ and Australian wine.

[Craig(NZ)]

Perhaps we should ask which NZ and Australia wine writers we all think are the most impartial and give the most reasoned reviews?

Even which international writers are considered best and fairest when it comes to their reviews of NZ and Australian wine.

Tempted but after 2500+ posts you can be assured that along with scoring/100, corks, and other such boomarang subjects life is too short to go there again

The last wine review book I bought was Coopers 2000 release. At some stage you just begin not too care so much and settle in to what you personally enjoy

[orpheus]

Agree. I was more having a mind dump of a whinge without putting forward any solutions. However remember, an american food writer could see vegemite as disgusting. Does that opinion really matter to an aussie or a kiwi that has grown up loving it?

If New Zealand wine drinkers have grown up enjoying a wine that an american would call leafy, or if an australian grows up loving the big jammy barossa shiraz...who then is better equipped to let them know what a good one is? I would argue a well experienced local who has the same type of palate?

Perhaps. But I am not such a subjectivist that I reject the idea of an objective standard, which comes from making balanced wines. The NZ red that is "leafy" is usually that way because of poor canopy management or inappropriate site selection for the variety of grapes planted (or a poor vintage). The grapes have not ripened properly. The Barossa shiraz, as well as being "big and jammy" also is likely to have poor structure and an inadequate bouquet, because the grapes have been picked too late, or have burnt.

So while I think both a local and international perspective is useful, intelligent writers both local and international will listen carefully to the views of each other, and taste widely both locally and internationally.

Everyone here, I suspect, would agree that NZ red wine has dramatically improved over the last 20 years, and an international perspective has played a big part in that improvement.

Australia is a more complicated story. It is a very diverse industry. But I think it is the cool climate areas which have grown the most in the last 10 years, and I think that is because the AUstralian palate is maturing.

[Craig(NZ)]

I certainly agree Orpheus and you make some valid points. I guess a lot of what we are both arguing depends on context