A person can easily link through a server site and obtain a different IP address - I don't know what these sites are called, but they act as a temporary server through a weblink. Apparently there are dozens to be found nowadays, so you could be blocking IP adresses for a long time just to get rid of this vermen.
Torb or I could actually re-register on Ebob under an assumed name through one of these sites......... but going back there would just take all the fun out of wine again
I can see everyones' points to do with this topic.
When it was first released the rich blackberry fruit really did envelop the oak, but at the last Blacktongues (blind) the oak stood out with a fair whack of VA too. I still thought it was still mighty good and voted it most preferred, while Steve thought the oak was too much that time.
I suspect a possible reason for this could be just dreaded bottle variation.
Last year I bought up with a (former) Grant Burge sales rep that I struck a hell of a lot of variation with the 2002 Balthazaar (in regard to how badly the Viognier stuck out in particular bottles). He put it down to the variable quality of corks they were getting, which while not causing TCA or oxidation faults caused a hell of a lot of inconsistency.
Given that the Filsell is a lower placed product, it could be subject to just as much (or worse) variation. That's my guess anyway.
The phrase "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" comes to mind here.
Well, given the hubbub about this wine, I bravely dug into my cellar and drank a bottle over the last two days. I respect both TORB's and Mishy's opinions very much, but of course we all must constantly remind ourselves that 1) all opinions are subjective and 2) there are only good bottles of wine, not good wines.
On the first night, the wine exhibited deep purple tones (ditto for night #2). On the nose, rich blackfruits, strong oak notes and alcohol, enough of the latter to burn the nostrils a bit. The palate had blackberries, blueberries, red licorice and that extreme chocolate milkshake flavor and texture that is so offputting in OTT wines. Definitely sweet, almost syrupy mid and backpalate that also detracts significantly. On night one, Mishy's note comes closest to my impressions: this really is a nasty, unbalanced wine with far too much oak and alcohol (C, or barely drinkable).
On night #2, I really dreaded tasting the wine again, it really was that bad the night before. A cautious sniff, and - hey - there's no alcohol burn! OK, that's a positive sign! The oak had dissipated too, and the blackfruits really had come out to play. Even better, the palate had totally changed. Gone was the disjointedness, overt oak and alcohol, and the syrupy/milkshake flavors and texture. Now, it's still a fruit bomb, but not OTT sweet, and it's much more balanced as well. In fact, it's a very nice example of a Barrossa shiraz, just veering on this side of too extreme. Big, bold, yes, but lovely fruit and a seamless texture: quite decadent! I'd give it (just) an A- now.
This really was the greatest quality shift of any wine I've drank over two days (and that's my normal modus operendi). A real Jekyl and Hyde wine if ever there was one!
So, in case anybody cares, I think Mishy and TORB were both right! I'm keeping my other bottle, and waiting another 3-5 years until disturbing again. And recommending decanting for 4-6 hours before drinking!!!
I agree, Craig. I couldn't/wouldn't drink this every night - but to be fair, there aren't many wines or wine styles I WOULD want to drink every night! - but for its style it's a nice wine at a nice price.
Well, it's a nice price in OZ, anyway: here I got it for $35, which is really pushing it for QPR. For example, for 2002 shiraz, the Lehmann (Barrossa), Serafino (McL), Langmeil Valley Floor (Bar), Leasingham Bin 61 (Clare) are better QPRs for Oz shiraz here in BC, all around the $23-30 mark. And they are a bit better balanced, not quite so rich and ripe to my palate.
But the turnaround of this wine on night #2 really was remarkable!
I love this wine, and while I think you might have a less than great bottle (syrupy, no...a fair whack of oak, yes, obtrusive, no, etc), the tasting note is great; a reflection of personal taste but also a very fair and subjective note...which is exactly what these notes should be, a bit of both! What's the point in analysing something to death without letting somebody know how a wine makes you feel, too? Wine is not only assessible on technical merit, but on some emotional, evocative level too. Thanks for posting
