Halliday 94 pointers!

[JamieBahrain]

Would somebody kindly list the star performers in this years Wine Guide.

A few months away from receiving my own copy.

How did Mt Edelstone/HofG perform?

Thanks in advance.

[Kieran]

Just a few blatant ones - either huge ratings or huge value:

(REDS)

97 Pipers Brook The Lyre Pinot 00
96 Bindi Original Vyd Pinot 01
96 Curlewis Res Pinot 01
96 Merricks Creek Nick Farr Pinot 01
96 Moorilla Res Pinot 01
96 Tarrington Cuvee Emilie Pinot 00
97 Grange 98
97 Seppelt St Peters 98
96 Hill of Grace 98
96 Houghton Frankland Shiraz 00
96 Houghton Gladstones Shiraz 00,99
96 Kilikanoon Oracle 00
96 Wirra Wirra RSW 00
96 Clonakilla Shiraz Viognier 01
96 Torbreck Descendant 01
97 Wolf Blass Platinum Cab 00
96 Leasingham Classic Cab 99
96 The Yarra Yarra 00
97 Houghton Jack Mann 99
96 De Bortoli Melba 98
96 Houghton Jack Mann 00
96 Jamiesons Run Reserve 00

Heaps of rare muscats & Tokays on 97

Whites

96 Annies Lane Coppertrail Ries 02
96 Cascabel Eden Ries 02
96 Ferngrove Cossack Ries 02
96 Grosset Watervale 02
96 Henschke Greens Hill 02
96 Kilikanoon Morts Block Ries 02
96 Petaluma Ries 02
96 Taylors St Andrew Ries 98
97 Tyrrells Res HVD Sem 95
96 Mt Pleasant Lovedale Sem 96
96 Grosset SSB 02
96 Voyager Tom Price SSB 02
97 Yattarna 00
96 00A
96 Chalkers Crossing Tumbarumba Chard 01
96 Howard Park Chard 01
96 Jansz Late Disgorged

Also (value 95s)
St Hallett Eden Ries 02
Oleary Walker Polish Hill Ries 02
Ralph Fowler SB 02
Tucks Ridge Chard 02
Lark Hill Chard 01
Majella Shiraz 00
Gemtree Uncut Shiraz 01
Fairview Shiraz 01
Wirra Wirra Shiraz 00
Houghton Marg River Cab Sav 00
Zema Cab Sav 00
Houghton Crofters Cab Merlot 00

(and special value)

92 Lindemans Bin 75 Ries 02
94 Moondah Brook SSB 02
94 Montrose Stony Creek Chard 01
94 Western Range Shiraz 01

Kieran

[David Lole]

Scoring systems trouble me no end, but restricting the upper limit to 97 points out of a possible 100 just doesn't add up

[Grant Dodd]

David,

Halliday actually goes higher than 97,but that is as far as he usually goes with Oz wines. I think it is a good idea actually,otherwise you have no room to move.I've seen him give 99's and 100's to some of the great Bordeaux's (1945 Latour for instance),to me it seems a lot more sound in principle to say that there is another level to go to in quality for Oz wine,and to give yourself leeway to go there(in points) if quality ever matched up to the 1st growths some where down the track. This is where Parker falls down in my opinion,too many so called "perfect" wines (100 pointers).I don't think that Greenock Creek and Three Rivers can be classified in the same category as Margaux and Latour at this point in time,and yet given his scale of assessment,that is where they sit. I'm with JH on this one.


Cheers

[TORB]

Scoring systems trouble me no end, but restricting the upper limit to 97 points out of a possible 100 just doesn't add up

David,

The 100 point scoring system worries me no end too and you have just pointed out yet another inconsistency in the system (oxymoron.) We have Halliday who rarely gives over 97 and Parker who hands out 97's to blackberry alcoholic vanilla milkshakes that Parker thinks will last for 20 years but many Oz drinkers think should be consumed over the next few years. And then we have Nicks who is different again. The mind boggles!

And then on the US boards you regularly see "Parker rated this 94 points but I think its only 92 or 93. Shaking head....

[Grant Dodd]

TORB,

Personally, think the 100 point system is seriously flawed,but I think we are going to have to get used to it. It seems the consumer is getting used to it as a simple method of assessing quality, and that puts pressure on everyone to conform to this method of rating. My chief objection to it is the compression of scores- nearly every wine I see rated these days sits somewhere in between 88 and 93 points. Where does the scale begin? Is a terrible wine still worth 80 points on this scale? I would have thought 80 points out of 100 (16/20) would mean that it is a pretty decent wine,but I really have no idea how to arrive at a number or at which point to begin the calibration. Is it also possible to say that a wine is 1/100th better than another ,as the difference between 90 and 91 points suggests?

I'm more predisposed to a system that rates quality and value for money side by side. The 100 point system only promotes the malaise of "label drinkers", rather than thinking about what is in the bottle.


Cheers

[Peter H]

I have given the subject of how to rate wines some thought over the last couple of years, particularly after a couple of debates about the merits of the various systems on this forum.

The 100 point system has some merit, most wines these days are quite passable and therefore it is not unreasonable to expect that most wines score 80+ points. I suspect that the reviewers just do not rate a lot of wines that fall below this threshold.

The TORB system which rates quality and VFM as separate issues is very good, as you can make a judgement on putting your hand in your pocket (or not) based on your own personal circumstances, making it possibly to avoid some disappointments.

I have come around (after being a follower of the 100 point system) to judging a wine on the tasting notes of the reviewer, which reveal much more about the wine than a number or ranking. Tasting notes not only give you an idea of what kind of flavour profile to expect, but also you can also judge wether the reviewer was inspired by the wine or not by the way the notes have been written. Tasting notes go someway to avoiding the technically brilliant wines which score highly, but are just plain boring.

Having said all of that, I have managed to distil all of the various ways of rating wine into a simple two point system, which takes into account the flavour, VFM, and all of the other variables which mar the other systemsÂ… would I buy this wine? Yes or no.

Peter.

[Ian S]

If you want a simple scale (if you want a scale at all...):

Score it as how much you think it's worth in dollars.

Also interested - do wine merchants ever buy based purely on points/medals/trophies?

Ian

[David Lole]

Also interested - do wine merchants ever buy based purely on points/medals/trophies?

Ian,

I'm 100% certain they do. Snapping up wines with high "Parker points" before the market has cottoned on, is akin to having your own note making machine at the Australian Mint Trophies and multiple gold medals may help sell the particular wine faster, but, generally, without the rampant price hike usually attached to a highly favourable score from Bob.

This also raises the question whether the Australian Wine Show circuit is there to improve the breed or just another marketing tool to sell wine Over the years, I've noticed the tendency to affix gold, silver and bronze coloured stickers over the front label of a wine or festoon the back label with a list of show results. An interesting aside to this - how many times did Maker A submit their Brand B to how many wine shows to receive the gold and trophy at Cowra, another silver at Brisbane and a bronze in Perth? The big boys with the big money can take advantage of the plethora of wine shows this country holds every year and manipulate this system accordingly. I'd love to see a register of how many times some of these wines were submitted to wine shows and the strike rate and score variability achieved. This would make very interesting reading, and, hopefully, prove my point on the fallibility of numerical scoring systems.

[Kieran]

Halliday has implied (in the fine print of the Chambers Rosewood entry) that he'd cheerfully give more than 97 points to Chambers rare Muscat and Tokay.

Kieran

[David Lole]

Kieran,

If James implies in the fine print the Chambers' cheerfully deserves more than 97 points why doesn't he just give 'em more in the first place. Sounds like gobblygook to me.

[Murray]

This also raises the question whether the Australian Wine Show circuit is there to improve the breed or just another marketing tool to sell wine

David,

I'd agree that it is manipulated, however there is some meaningful information to be gained if you look beyond the colour to the writing.

The other day I was after a Barossa Shiraz for a tasting. The 1999 Saltram No. 1 has a row of medals, which would normally be a turnoff, particularly as 2 of them were from the IWC.

However a closer look showed a gold from the 2003 Sydney and also the 2002 Canberra National show. Both of which are judged on finished wines.

The wine was (is) fantastic and was rated very highly on the night by all there.

Medal lists can be useful, however you need a bit of knowledge to sort the wine from the marketing.

[Gavin Trott]

If you want a simple scale (if you want a scale at all...):

Score it as how much you think it's worth in dollars.

Also interested - do wine merchants ever buy based purely on points/medals/trophies?

Ian

Hi Ian

Guilty, I buy at times things I know will sell and sell quickly, hey, its a business after all.

This goes especially for some Parker wines I know will sell but which are not my style.

[JamieBahrain]

Thanks for the effort Kieran. Appreciated.

Have always liked Halliday's notes. Sometimes he gets a little excited about commercial quaffers though.

Regret not getting some HofG. How's it fairing at auction?

[ACG]

I'm with Gavin with on this-as merchants we will let trophies, awards and medals dictate buying decisions, as wines that receive serious accolades sell well,even at full retail markup. It may be a sad fact, but even a paltry single gold (at somewhere as obscure as the Cairns Wine Show) will sell some bottles of $15 wine at double the rate it would normally achieve.

Certain shows have more weighting, but when a wine picks up multiple trophies it sells itself. An example that is pertinent would be the 2001 Penley Phoenix Cabernet-A very good wine by any standards, that became a much sought after item after it picked up a trophy hat trick at the 03 Sydney Show. After that we bought up as much as we could lay our hands on and it sold at fulll retail price at great speed. In the normal course of events we would buy 10 cases and thats it, but after the trophy win a 10 case order turned into 35 cases easy.

Any wine that receives a top gong in the SMH uncorked magazine similarly sells very well in Sydney, such as the 01 tatatchilla Partners last yr or teh 01 Voyager shiraz this yr. But perhaps the most depressing aspect of the wine show circuit is that some wineries almost guarantee some (often mediocre) wines success by entering them into every single f*&kin wine show they can find. Orlando and Rosemount are kings at this, where they simple bomabard a show with so many entrants, under so many ridiculous winery names, that they can ensure that at least one of their wines gains a shiny medal of some description. (ahem...2002 Jimmy Watson).

Aside from the terrible ideas of a specially prepared 'show bottling run', or the aforementioned winery wine show 'drift netting' tactics, you have to admit that any wine that gets a few trophies/gold medals, and a decent score by more than one critic should be half decent, simply because you can't fool all of the people even most of the time. Majella Cabernet is a perfect example here of a wine that is a consistent performer on the show circuit, that gets high marks from the critics and sells very well retail (And its great wine).

The show circuit may be rickety, full of pitfalls and loopholes, but you cant ignore consistent results, in whatever form they take.

[David Lole]

Jamie,

I like Halliday's notes too, just can't fathom his point scoring.

Thought I might send you Langton's HOG results, hot off the press from tonight's interactive auction.

year - $AUS
1981 - 195-206
1982 - 206
1983 - 226
1983 mag - 650
1989 - 207
1990 - 318-350-361- n/s
1991 - n/s
1992 - 211-230
1997 - 204
1998 - 341-321-316-311

n/s = not sold
remember to add the 13.75% donation to the S. Langton Retirement Fund ( ) plus freight to Bahrain, insurance and special allowances - @#$%&* it - just double the price and you should get some change! :wink

[JamieBahrain]

Thanks david


Have been buying HofG since 88. Recently stopped due world wide demand outstripping it's worth.

Should have taken some 98 at $270!

Usual debate-will I get more pleasure from the 6 bottle purchase of Rockford 98 Winemaker's Stock or a single HofG, 4 bottles of MtEdelstone or 1 HofG.

The King's Ransom(125%Duty) and an unreliable postal sevice a deterent to importing wine into this little Kingdom. Small victories-3x 2001 Cullen's and a WolfBlass Export didn't show up on the x-ray machine today.

[David Lole]

Jamie,

125% import duty My tongue-in-cheek add ons look ultra conservative now

Agree on your point about relative values of particular wines. Cullen's 2001 at $70 (I bought 4 retail) vs. Louis Jadot 1996 Nuits-St.-Georges Aux Boudots 1er cru at $70 (auction buy) vs. Ch. Lagrange 1983 at $45 (auction buy) reveals how much the goal posts can shift if you're in the right place at the right time.

Looking at what Petrus and DRC fetched last night, you'd need to be a multi-millionaire or insane or both to buy at this end of the market. (Really) old Grange has gone stratospheric as well. Horses for courses, I suppose.

[JamieBahrain]

With the recent media hype re Grange 98, a fair bit of money around and the general public domestic wine interest, a bit of knowledge on French wines may go a long way! There seems to be a lot of value in the French area.

Haven't seen it here myself. They seem to dump, in the finest French tradition, their lessor vintages on lessor markets.