Michael McNally wrote:Just because something is the best in its class doesn't mean it isn't the best QPR. Quite the opposite - if its the best in its class and relatively cheap then surely it qualifies. It is more likely that a QPR winner will be a wine that delivers very high quality at a lower price, but if the highest price wine is light years ahead of the competition in terms of quality then it fits the bill surely.
Agree completely, and is what I meant though perhaps not so succinctly. When I used the term top tier I was referring to price, not quality, hence the possible confusion. I'm not convinced that the highest priced wine in any category could be said to be a QPR wine in the conventional use of the term.
paulf wrote:Personally, I think Riesling is where the best value is found in Australia (although to be fair I just don't know enough about the semillon). Along with the Pikes which has already been mentioned, I reckon the O'Leary Walker Polish Hill is consistently excellent as is the Jim Barry Lodge Hill (the Watervale is also always a good QPR but I'd pay the extra couple of dollars for the Lodge Hill every time). Hell, I could even make a strong case for the Crawford River Young Vines and the Mt Horricks, even though both of these aren't super cheap.
A good point about Australian riesling, no doubt about that. While most of these rieslings are good value, a QPR riesling would be a subset as defined by Michael above, a wine that delivers quality at a lower price. Therefore in my universe top tier (price not quality or reputation) wines are not QPR wines.
Hpn3 wrote:Tyrrell's HVD semillon, planted 1908, with the 2010 found under $30 fairly hard to argue with.
Bingo, perfect example. Vat 1 is one of the top tier semillons of the Hunter Valley and while some may find value in it, to my way of thinking (flawed though it might be), it is the HVD that is the QPR wine.
Mahmoud.