TN 2005 Tucks Ridge Hurley Vineyard Pinot Noir

[John #11]

James Halliday gave this a lofty score of 97/100.

All I can say, is that he must have been drinking a different wine from what was in this bottle.

Typical pinot colour, subtle aromas of a couple of dark cherries, cranberries, raspberries, and lots of stems.
On the palate, overwhelming sour and bitter cherries, lemony (sic) jubey raspberries and cranberries, some gravel, kitty litter, a little spicey oak, and almost overwhelming acidity.
The finish is long, and sour and undesirable.

We couldn't finish the bottle.

screwcap
13.3% alc
$60

not rated.
not faulty either


Has anyone else had this wine? COmments please...

[n4sir]

If it's not faulty how come you haven't rated it/awarded points?

It's not that I'm a points Nazi as such (I choose not to post any of mine), but I do believe in consistency and a bad wine deserves points as much as a good one. If you're posting points for good wines this deserves a score too, otherwise don't post a score at all for any.

Cheers,
Ian

[John #11]

Ian, in this situation, a score would be meaningless.

I said we couldn't finish the bottle, and it was poured down the sink.

It possibly does have a fault, that I just don't have the expertise to recognise.

That is why I asked for other people to comment if they have tasted this wine.

[Adair]

Interesting. FWIW, I love gravel in my Pinot. This reminds me of an Adelaide Hills Pinot JH rated 96/97 a few years back, whose name I have forgotten at the moment. When I too tasted that wine, I thought it strange but looking at the wine from a complexity, length and structure viewpoint, it was remarkable. It just took a little quite for my mind to convince my tongue to drink more of it.

Adair

[Ian S]

Ian, in this situation, a score would be meaningless.

I said we couldn't finish the bottle, and it was poured down the sink.

It possibly does have a fault, that I just don't have the expertise to recognise.

That is why I asked for other people to comment if they have tasted this wine.

I reckon a few winemakers would appreciate critics doing this when they just plain don't 'get' the style of wine

e.g. Jeremy Oliver with Smithy's wines or Parker with Mount Mary.

FWIW I think your note describes your impressions of the wine perfectly well, without the need to apply a score.

regards

Ian

[ChrisV]

I have also had this wine and like you I couldn't reconcile the contents of the bottle with Halliday's score. I too found the wine hugely acidic. Sometimes this is a sign that some decanting is required, but the acid didn't soften much, if at all, after three hours in the decanter. I didn't dislike it as much as you - it was passable, but that's all.

[Matthew]

In relation to the Tuck's Ridge hurley Pinot, I ask why are you even drinking this wine now. I imagine if anyone of you was lucky enough to have obtained a bottle of the current 97/100 Grange hermitage or the 97/100 Hill of Grace you would certainly not have drunk this wine yet. The 2005 Hurley Pinot Noir is a wine geared to spend a relatively long time in the bottle and whilst Mr Halliday certainly received the same wine as everybody else he was tasting it and not drinking it. I hope those of you who have tasted the wine and left comments of a negative nature have another bottle to taste in a couple of years after which you can retract previous opinions.

[John #11]

Matthew, I'm not prepared to blindly follow a wine judge, I prefer to taste the wine for myself, before I commit a sizeable chunk of money towards cellaring a wine for 5 or more years. I'm not able to go to the cellar door to taste this wine, so I bought a bottle to taste, to find out for myself.

My experience tells me that if I taste a wine now, and rate it highly, that there is a high likelihood that it will taste better in a few years (there have been exceptions to this rule), but also, if I taste the wine now and rate it as poor, then it is unlikely to dramatically improve in the future (again, there are exceptions to this rule).

My tasting note reflects my own experience with the Hurley Pinot, and I believe it is accurately recorded. I have chosen not to purchase more, and thus not to cellar it.

That is all.

[Bick]

In relation to the Tuck's Ridge hurley Pinot, I ask why are you even drinking this wine now. I imagine if anyone of you was lucky enough to have obtained a bottle of the current 97/100 Grange hermitage or the 97/100 Hill of Grace you would certainly not have drunk this wine yet. The 2005 Hurley Pinot Noir is a wine geared to spend a relatively long time in the bottle and whilst Mr Halliday certainly received the same wine as everybody else he was tasting it and not drinking it. I hope those of you who have tasted the wine and left comments of a negative nature have another bottle to taste in a couple of years after which you can retract previous opinions.

What's more, wine scores are of the moment, not projections of the future (at least that's what I keep reading). I'd have thought the fact that JH gave it 97 means he thought it was great now, so there is a disparity between his tasting and the opinion of John #11. If I saw Halliday had rated a wine 97 and I bought it and thought it was more like 77, I'd be a bit miffed too, youthful bottle notwithstanding.

[Bick]

Two more thoughts on this.

If its meant to be cellared before it becomes drinkable, maybe it should be held back a year or two before commercial release (like the icons you mention, Mathew).

Secondly, what's with a Pinot you have to cellar for ages? It aint Romanee Conti. Get some Ata Rangi instead - the 06 is already drinking fine!

[Gary W]

I always assumed scores took into account potential.
GW

[Bick]

I always assumed scores took into account potential.
GW

I expect it depends on the scorer, but there shouldn't really be a bonus if a wine is too young to drink! I believe there's a few points available for some woolly thinking in the 20 pt and 100 pt scoring systems under "general quality". Under this criterion, though, a wine should lose points if its too young, at least according to WSET. Applied this way, scoring rates the current wine, and green-edged Pinot in need of a few years should get a lower score as a result. This is supported by whites like sauv blanc that could in theory get 100 without having any potential to improve - yet reds and whites use pretty much the the same criteria for scoring. Maybe other folk see it differently though (and no, I don't expect RB's to concede "c-thru" could get 100 even hypothetically!)

[Gary W]

So based on current drinking pleasure you would expect a young (say) Ch. Latour to be about 85 points? That, at least to me, is a nonsense. You have to factor in potential and how the wine is meant to be consumed. Same would be true of very young cellaring style Hunter semillon.

A green edged pinot is usually always going to be a green edged pinot too.

Oliver rates on potential as does (to the best of my knowledge) Halliday. Some wines are cellaring styles and you have to assume some knowledge and take into account a suggested drinking window. Young sauvignon blanc is rated as is because the assumption is of a drink now wine.

GW

[Scanlon]

So what are people's opinions on the cellaring potential of a wine such as described above (or by JH's descriptors)?

Has anyone had an experience where they have had a wine like this, and pulled another bottle out a few years later, and have noticed significant improvement?

How would you describe the character has changed?

I'm asking for my own information as much as anyone elses

[ChrisV]

The wine being designed for the long haul isn't an explanation that leaps to mind for Yarra Valley pinot. Typically (and I have to say I don't have any experience with DRC or First Growth Bordeaux here) if a wine is designed for cellaring, then it will improve markedly with a few hours in the decanter. My experience with the Hurley Vineyard was that it virtually didn't move. Also, Halliday's note included the description "opulently luscious and rich", words I'm sure John will agree are puzzling given the experience we had, and absolutely no indication that he was recommending the wine only after cellaring. So I could be made to eat my words in 5 or 10 years time, but I don't think it's odds on.

[Bick]

So based on current drinking pleasure you would expect a young (say) Ch. Latour to be about 85 points?

No, that's too simplistic. Scroring a wine based on what's in the bottle doesn't equal scoring it for "current drinking pleasure" - that's putting words in my mouth. Scores indicate how good the critic thinks the wine is, not simply how 'nice' or quaffable. The young bordeaux would only lose a few points for being too young to drink... if it were scored the way I described. I concede not everyone does score that way, but I wish they would. For what its worth, I don't score (I have neither the experience nor inclination). My original point was simply that you shouldn't factor in a large number of points on the basis that the wine may improve with time even if that's its style, and therefore I'm sure JH wouldn't give a pinot 97 if it was poor, on the basis it may improve (especially as this is unlikely as you suggested). Sounds like a shocking case of bottle variation to me.

[Andrew H]

I must agree with Gary in as much as score wise it must reflect potential; however I would expect a taster to make a note that a given wine would not be ready for drinking for x years if it is not drinkable now.
Andrew

[beef]

So what are people's opinions on the cellaring potential of a wine such as described above (or by JH's descriptors)?

Has anyone had an experience where they have had a wine like this, and pulled another bottle out a few years later, and have noticed significant improvement?

How would you describe the character has changed?

I'm asking for my own information as much as anyone elses

** Schild Estate Sparkling Shiraz (can't remember the vintage; 2004 maybe). I bought a six-pack on spec. based on reviews on this forum. And it was crap. Simple, sugary grape juice with no depth of flavour or structure whatsoever. I only kept drinking them as a means of cleansing such bad wine from my cellar.

That was, until the last bottle. Drunk more than a year after purchase, it was wonderful. Forest floor, mushrooms, wonderful complexity, all wrapped up in a wine that was still rich as hell, but had a fine length also.

Wine is a strange thing.

Stuart

[Grey Ghost]

I am afraid that all these posts only go to prove the nonsense of "pointing" wines - without making the effort to either project into the future (for vins du garde of course), or to comment on potential in the notes.

TORB does a several level rating - an improvement on the standard system for people looking to cellar wines. However, the salient point remains, a reviewer can only rate the wine ... on the day ... and it matters not one whit who that reviewer is - Halliday or John 11. Both give an honest review of the wine, as they saw it, on the day.

The differences - well, that's what wine is about folks! I like c-throughs (though I think they are a pale imitation of the real thing), RB and TORB don't. C' est la vie!

Well done John 11 - keep the work up, always be honest and tell it like it was - and as you get more experience perhaps your palate might change. What matters is taking an intelligent interest in wines - and - most importantly of all - enjoying drinking them.

GG

[griff]

Its an interesting topic this thread threw up. Thanks John

Whenever I write notes I have to admit to writing about the wine on the day. Afterall, thats when I drank it! If I think that it will improve then I will say so but with my limited experience I just can't tell how much or little improvement there will be (if at all) and even when the peak will be. Of course I can guess and it may be half right even but it would still be speculative.

Of course, I just write the notes for myself really and prominent reviewers are writing for the general public. Most often they are trying on release wine and the are often not drinking as well as they will. The method of incorporating potential into a rating (points rank whatever) and then suggesting a drinking window that starts a few years down the track is useful but they do miss the small section of the public that will then go out and try the wine early as they prefer them young. You just can't tell how much allowance has been given for potential. Just goes to show you really must read the tasting notes

cheers

Carl

[Adair]

Good thread...

I sometimes comment that there are two pleasures a wine gives:

1) Hedonistic Pleasure, and
2) Intellectual Pleasure

A young Latour would give much Intellectual Pleasure... and also like the Pinot I referred to above which I remember being the 2002 Barratt "Reserve" Pinot Noir.

On the other hand, I find that many 15% SA Shiraz are full of Hedonistic Pleasure (pleasure of the moment) but without much Intellectual Pleasure.

Then there is great Hunter Shiraz which of course has both!

Adair