Dead Arm 2002

Deano · Post by **Deano** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:27 pm

Not sure whether this has been addressed, but i personally discovered on d'Arrys website the awaiting Parker Score. Is was amazing how quick we found out about the 98+ score of 2001, but it has taken some delay to discover the Parker 2002 score of 92+ !!! (discovered just 5 minutes ago...Feb 2005). This is unless you have a subscription to Wine Advocate and #155 issue (25th October 2004) highlighting the poorer score for Dead Arm. Why were they pushing the 2002 so early last year (Tastings at a popular bottle shop in Adelaide...i'm sure was pre-25th October)? Why did "Mail Clients" receive such a special offer for a 6 pack prior to #155? I suspect dirt, may be some mud to stick for some years. Not happy Jan!!!

London Correspondent · Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:03 am

But Deano, a score doesn't make the wine taste any better......unless you're surname is Salmon.

Taste the wine, make an evaluation, then decide whether to buy not........simple.

John

Gianna.. · Post by **Gianna..** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:34 am

John

Touche'

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:44 am

As far as I am concerned, the quality of d'Arenberg wines are going down! Now they are so much foused on making money that they put all the possible trophies, medals and whatever that can sell more wines. So called all those Limited Release premium wines such as Dead Arm, Coppermine Road, and Ironstone Pressing are so Limited that you would find any of these wines in most of shops and most of them are discounting to get rid of the stocks!

I happened to taste Derelic Vineyard Grenache two weekends ago and I was shocked to see it retails for ~$35. To my tasting, it was one of the most disgusting wine I tried and ridiculously overpriced. Put it simply, this wine has nothing in it to support its body and cellaring. I would feel so guilty to sell or even recommend to consumers. I don't think I am an wine expert compare to alot of forum readers but I think I have tried enough wines to say about this particular wine at least.

I would like to see other people's opinion on Derelic Vineyard if they have tried it.

707 · Post by **707** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:44 am

Yep, why have we in Australia suddenly got so interested in Parker scores? Wine is a make up your own mind. Whether RPJ gives it 89 or 99 shouldn't change how YOU feel about a wine.

Lots of people want to drop 02 Dead Arm based on RPJ yet criticise the Greenock Creeks annointed with 98, 99 & 100 pts.

IMO, the 02 Dead Arm will look boody good in another 4-6 years and we'll have forgotten how many points RPJ gave it.

Make up your own mind, forget the Maryland lawyer!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:11 am

I didn't realise that RP 92/100 was low... it could be worse... no?

Maximus · Post by **Maximus** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:56 am

Guest,

I tried the Derelict Vineyard about a month ago and my thoughts correspond with yours, albeit not quite so harsh. I tried the '02 Laughing Magpie several months ago and whilst everyone raves about this wine as a great value $20 quaffer, I certainly wasn't turned on. You could tell the wine was well made but it just didn't appeal to me - perhaps too much viognier.

I think d'Arenberg are doing okay and I wouldn't be hasty to criticise, especially with their current '02 range of High Trellis and Footbolt. The real test will come with the following vintages and maintaining the same standard as previous years. I've had the '01 Dead Arm and was impressed, but I want to be impressed and more at around $60 a bottle. I'm surprised that the '02 has been scorned - does TORB, Adair, 707 or RB (or any of the usual suspects) have tasting notes on this wine yet??

Cheers,

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 7:58 am

http://www.auswine.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2073&highlight=dead+arm

smithy · Post by **smithy** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:28 am

Had some 02 Dead Arm earlier this year.

Whoah Baby! This is what I mean about great wine, it has the structure weight finesse and polish, that will carry it well into the future.

All red winemakers in this country should taste this wine, to show them what can be done. Its been the best red wine of tasted in several years.

Cheers
Smithy

Crow · Post by **Crow** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 5:09 pm

Surprised! Being an esteemed winemaker, you are easily satisfied. The '02 is a good to v.good wine but nowhere near their collosal '98 and the freakish once in a decade 2001 vintage.

707 · Post by **707** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 6:15 pm

Ah buger it Max, I don't normally open top shelf stuff by myself but I'll crack an 02 Dead Arm tonight just to settle my curiosity.....and to drown my sorrows after a woeful game of golf today, think the weather have just been too nice for the golf to be good as well!

Maximus · Post by **Maximus** » Sun Feb 20, 2005 9:11 pm

707 wrote:Ah buger it Max, I don't normally open top shelf stuff by myself but I'll crack an 02 Dead Arm tonight just to settle my curiosity.....and to drown my sorrows after a woeful game of golf today, think the weather have just been too nice for the golf to be good as well!

Steve,

As a person that tries to play golf, I can sympathise. I'm satisfied with one good shot a hole (that includes practice swings). As Mr Mark Twain said "golf is a good walk spoiled". Hard to argue sometimes. Let me know how you went with the dead arm, then let me know what you thought of the Dead Arm.

Cheers,

Adair · Post by **Adair** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:18 pm

Maximus,

I have yet to try the 2002 Dead Arm, although I have enjoyed the discussion, but should note that I believe the 1998 Dead Arm to be an absolute stunner - so powerful yet tight and restrained. Marvellous! I don't really know how the Dead Arm could get better and am happy with my little stash of this.

Adair

Deano · Post by **Deano** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:24 pm

My post on this was not to rely on Parker's Points or any other "guru" (and i agree, get out there and try yourself), but more to the style in that D'Arrys orchestrated the sale of 02. I felt there was a little bit of "trickery", but other people call it a bloody good way to sell your wine and make a sale.

707 · Post by **707** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:43 pm

Deano, you're right with your point, an early attempt to move a wine expected to get big Parker points is usually an indication that the points won't be as high as expected.

Max, it's only 5-30pm and I'm now finishing off the half bottle of 2002 Dead Arm I had left over from last night. An airing of 24 hours has ceratainly helped the wine show it's true self.

Last night there were a few earthy, dusty characters on the nose that have tonight blown off. Whilst palate calibration is always a factor, the wine tonight is drinking much better, one of the problems in making judgements on a freshly opened bottle.

Nose is complex and powerful, black fruits and dark chocolate style, the palate follows through with ripe (not too ripe) plums, blackberry, dark chocolate and even a hint of white pepper wafting through, the finish is long although the tannins are a bit grippy.

My retaste over two nights confirms for me that this is a great wine in the making, it just needs time to really gel and show oit's best. If you are going to drink it young, give it a good decant some hours before.

Gary W · Post by **Gary W** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:51 pm

Don't like the overt charry/salami/smallgoods characters on the nose of this wine. Very hard work at this stage anyway
GW

Adam (guest) · Post by **Adam (guest)** » Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:11 pm

As mentioned previously I also got the salami characters Gary mentions. Ive got one bottle left in the cellar up here I will open tonight...if anything just to get rid of it...

I found the 2001 much better...albeit very agressive.

Wine Dawg · Post by **Wine Dawg** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:07 am

I am a long time lurker who rarely posts, but I had to chime in on this wine. I agree with Adair; the 1998 sets the standard for this wine. It is perfect with layers of discernable black and red fruits. In my opinion, the 2001 was not even a good wine. Parker seems to love big black sweet wines and the 2001 is all of that. However, the fruit has no recognizable characteristics and is awash in residual sugar. The 2002 has a more appealing tartness to its black fuit and I truly believe that when the very noticable tanins soften, this will be a supperior wine to the 2001. The 1998 is better than both in my opinion. I also dislike the Shirvington wines that Parker loves so much for the same reasons. Non-discernable mystery black fruit with lots of residual sugar. Also, try the 2002 Galvo Garage; it is a lovely wine.

707 · Post by **707** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:13 am

Ageeing with you w.dawg, be interesting to do a DA vertical in 6 or 7 years time and see which ones are standing up then. IMO the 98 & 02 will make the 01 look ordinary.

RPJ does like a certain style of wine which leads to some interesting scores and interesting reactions from a whole swathe of people here in Australia. You just have to make up your own mind if you want satisfaction.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 9:52 am

Why do people do carried away from concerned issue that was posted by Deano???

Brucer · Post by **Brucer** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 5:27 pm

I have to comment.
I have Dead Arm in the cellar going back to 95.
Its always a big wine, that needs lots and lots of time.
I think the best wine so far is the 96. Its a beauty.
I havent even tried the 02, nor the 97,99,00 or 01, and dont intend to try an 02 for at least 5 years.
I will open a 97 shortly, and report, as it probably needs a look see.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:27 pm

Every discussion of this wine is always so polarising, and it seems to me that the reason is attributable as much or more to Parker than to the wine itself. Maybe some people are upset that he gives such high points (the 01 DA in particular, but also the 99 and 00, and even 92 pts for the 02 is certainly not low), to a wine they don't like? Why should anyone care if their tastes are different from Parker's? NZ sauv blanc is my wine of choice to go with some Japanese foods, and it does not bother me in the least when TORB calls it cats piss. Reviews make nice reference when buying wine unseen/untasted, but after tasting it, the only thing that matters is whether you yourself like it or not, regardless of whether some reviewer gave it 98 pts or called it undrinkable.

punter · Post by **punter** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:54 pm

PARKER IS GOD!
The secondary market doesnt lie :oops:

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:36 pm

Who cares what Parker says.....if you like it you buy or you don't like it then don't buy. Simple!

Mike Hawkins · Post by **Mike Hawkins** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 5:43 am

I'd rather have a glass of cask wine than a bottle of the 02 Dead Arm. Horrible stuff, totally out of balance IMO. And I normally like this label.

Mike

markg · Post by **markg** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:19 pm

Brucer wrote:I have to comment.
I have Dead Arm in the cellar going back to 95.
Its always a big wine, that needs lots and lots of time.
I think the best wine so far is the 96. Its a beauty.
I havent even tried the 02, nor the 97,99,00 or 01, and dont intend to try an 02 for at least 5 years.
I will open a 97 shortly, and report, as it probably needs a look see.

Have you tried the 95 lately ? I have one of these recently and it was very tasty.