Well its out, or at least online. The annual review of Australian wines by Robert Parker Jr. Some 852 wines are recommended which is less that 30% of the total tasted. That means that some 3000 wines were sampled for this report. Three received top marks of 100 - all fortified, and another three received 99. Fifty-seven (57) or 6.7% of the recommended wines received 96 points or better. That percentage is very similar to what Parker has found when his scoring is tabulated by vintage, as is shown below.
Parker Scoring of Australian wines by vintage.
1996 (recommended 200 wines) 12 (6%) 96-100, 85 (42%) 90-95.
1998 (recommended 365 wines) 26 (7%) 96-100, 168 (46%) 90-95
2000 (recommended 380 wines) 2 (0.5%) 96-100, 146 (38%) 90-95
2002 (recommended 541 wines) 34 (6%) 96-100, 263 (49%) 90-95
As usual Parker makes some introductory remarks in a piece entitled Current Realities and Myths Surrounding Australian Wines. I'm sure there will be both agreement and outrage at some of the comments. I found most of it fairly reasonable and its pleasing to note that while he still laments ...there is plenty of industrial crap that I wasted days tasting through..., he also wrote Australia has been at the forefront of industrial viticulture, which does actually work and can provide consumers with tasty, fruit-driven wines.....
Another interesting comment is Perhaps the biggest surprise of Australia is how good the dry Rieslings are. Another surprise is their unoaked Chardonnays, which are delicious at the top level.
More comments on his introduction will be on Shiraz, with more analysis of the scores in the future once I get the hardcopy.
Mike
TWA #161
Hmmm.... Very interesting. I was very suprised to see that the 2002 Greenock Creeks scored so lightly, I would have sworn that they way outclassed the 2001's - I was expecting the Alice and Apricot block to hit the 99-100 range but, oh well - I love 'em and thats all that matters.
I was suprised to see the Noon 2003 score so highly, didn't think they were as good or better than the 2002's....
I was suprised to see the Noon 2003 score so highly, didn't think they were as good or better than the 2002's....
Cheers
-Mark Wickman
WICKMAN'S FINE WINE AUCTIONS
FREE membership, LOWEST auction commissions in Australia.
Now accepting wine for our next auction.
http://www.wickman.net.au
Twitter: @WickWine
YouTube: WickWineAuction
-Mark Wickman
WICKMAN'S FINE WINE AUCTIONS
FREE membership, LOWEST auction commissions in Australia.
Now accepting wine for our next auction.
http://www.wickman.net.au
Twitter: @WickWine
YouTube: WickWineAuction
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
DaveB wrote:And Mount Mary Cabernets got 83 points.....narrowly pipped by Oxford Landing Shiraz.....it is a pretty good snapshot of what one man's preferences in wine are...
...and the truth shall set you free!
DaveB is absolutely correct, and the comment applies to all other opinions except your own. Parker will even admit to it. The worst thing anyone could do would be to buy wine based just on RP Jr's recommendations. But I'll bet all the high scoring wines will be "Sold Out" when I next visit any of local wine shops that sell Aussie wines. The classic example will be the box of Trevor Jones Virgin Chardonnay that I've been pulling a bottle or two from every now and then - it will all be gone!
Mike
-
Mike Hawkins
- Posts: 2747
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:39 am
I thought the introductory notes in WA were quite balanced. Yep, we produce some crap, but then again, so do the Frogs and the Yanks.
I was pleased to see Parker make mention of the diversity of shiraz styles, which is unfortunately lost on many so-called experts over here. There is this myopic mindset that we only produce "fruit-bombs", and I think Parker to an extent told his readers that is not actually the case.
Mike
I was pleased to see Parker make mention of the diversity of shiraz styles, which is unfortunately lost on many so-called experts over here. There is this myopic mindset that we only produce "fruit-bombs", and I think Parker to an extent told his readers that is not actually the case.
Mike
-
Milwaukee Twin
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 4:58 pm
- Location: Home of Harvey Davidson
Mike Hawkins wrote:I thought the introductory notes in WA were quite balanced. Yep, we produce some crap, but then again, so do the Frogs and the Yanks.
I was pleased to see Parker make mention of the diversity of shiraz styles, which is unfortunately lost on many so-called experts over here. There is this myopic mindset that we only produce "fruit-bombs", and I think Parker to an extent told his readers that is not actually the case.
Mike
I too thought his notes at the start were pretty accurate.
The simplified guide to Australian wine regions was a wee bit over simplified though methinks......
Cheers
Dave
-
Golf&PinotNut
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:46 am
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Contact:
Well, there's an interesting discussion that I started about the Mt. Mary debate: http://fora.erobertparker.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/1/69453.html?
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
Golf&PinotNut wrote:Well, there's an interesting discussion that I started about the Mt. Mary debate: http://fora.erobertparker.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/1/69453.html?
It was predictable that the Parker fans will support whatever he does - they come as close to wine lemmings as its possible to be.
That said Paker does blast individual wineries in the Aussie TWA, for example Penfold's copped it last time. But its a worry that he went out and looked for Mt Mary. This may be the fault of posts (from Aussies or Aussie wine supporters) that appear now and then on eBob that claim that many Aussie wines don't come to the USa and that those that do are the big, in-your-face styles. There was a post like that some time ago where Parker specificaly asked for wines (if I remember correctly icon wines) that he had not reviewed. I don't know if Mt Mary was in any list that was provided, but its a fair bet it was.
Mike
I think its time that you guys read this, as it was the basis of the outbreak on Squires forum.
There was a link to my site but Squires deleted it.
There was a link to my site but Squires deleted it.
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
Ric
Interesting piece.
But not too sure about this for the USA Most alcohol drinkers consume beer, spirits or cocktails as their drink of choice, not wine unless you are adding beer and spirit drinkers together? A recent Gallup poll had wine drinkers pulling ahead of beer drinkers for the first time, and wine has made big gains in the last decade. See here.
Also as regards this comment Parker states that over the last five years many of the top producers have moved towards more subtle wood regimes and that the wines are better for it; I don't think any sane person would disagree with that comment. While I agree that French oak can do more for Shiraz than American you can call me insane but I think that part of the so called improvement over the last 5 years has just as much to do with some pretty special vintages as with any change in oak or being "better in tune with old vine vineyards".
Be interesting to look and see how many of "the great, classic old vine cuvées of Shiraz and Grenache from South Australia, particularly those from the Barossa Valley, McLaren Vale, and Clare Valley" have changed their oak in the last five years.
Mike
Interesting piece.
But not too sure about this for the USA Most alcohol drinkers consume beer, spirits or cocktails as their drink of choice, not wine unless you are adding beer and spirit drinkers together? A recent Gallup poll had wine drinkers pulling ahead of beer drinkers for the first time, and wine has made big gains in the last decade. See here.
Also as regards this comment Parker states that over the last five years many of the top producers have moved towards more subtle wood regimes and that the wines are better for it; I don't think any sane person would disagree with that comment. While I agree that French oak can do more for Shiraz than American you can call me insane but I think that part of the so called improvement over the last 5 years has just as much to do with some pretty special vintages as with any change in oak or being "better in tune with old vine vineyards".
Be interesting to look and see how many of "the great, classic old vine cuvées of Shiraz and Grenache from South Australia, particularly those from the Barossa Valley, McLaren Vale, and Clare Valley" have changed their oak in the last five years.
Mike
Hi Mike,
I did mean beer and spitits together. As the poll shows only 39% of drinkers prefer wine so the balance is 61% who prefer either beer or spirits.
As far as oak is concerned, its not just the use of French versus American oak, it is the quantity of new oak that is being used; IMO overall there is less of it (new) being used than there was say 7 years ago.
I did mean beer and spitits together. As the poll shows only 39% of drinkers prefer wine so the balance is 61% who prefer either beer or spirits.
As far as oak is concerned, its not just the use of French versus American oak, it is the quantity of new oak that is being used; IMO overall there is less of it (new) being used than there was say 7 years ago.
-
Golf&PinotNut
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:46 am
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Contact:
Ric,
taken from your article,
"In an exchange of e-mails from a producer who (deservedly) did rather well, they said, ….. “Mmmmm lots of sour grapes from some who did not get a listing. Someone has just claimed that it is "totally impossible" to get higher than 90 for wine made from young vines."
Well, not if he is told they are old vines, when they're not! In his note for the Schubert Goose Yard Shiraz 03 (a wine I loved, by the way), RPj mentions how it was a "A fabulous example of old vine Shiraz" . Gave it 95 points.
The vineyard was planted in 1996.
Cheers
taken from your article,
"In an exchange of e-mails from a producer who (deservedly) did rather well, they said, ….. “Mmmmm lots of sour grapes from some who did not get a listing. Someone has just claimed that it is "totally impossible" to get higher than 90 for wine made from young vines."
Well, not if he is told they are old vines, when they're not! In his note for the Schubert Goose Yard Shiraz 03 (a wine I loved, by the way), RPj mentions how it was a "A fabulous example of old vine Shiraz" . Gave it 95 points.
The vineyard was planted in 1996.
Cheers
Last edited by Grant on Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Golf&PinotNut
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:46 am
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Contact:
Grant wrote:Ric,
taken from your article,
"In an exchange of e-mails from a producer who (deservedly) did rather well, they said, ….. “Mmmmm lots of sour grapes from some who did not get a listing. Someone has just claimed that it is "totally impossible" to get higher than 90 for wine made from young vines."
Well, not if he is told they are old vines, when they're not! In his note for the Schubert Goose Yard Shiraz 03 (a wine I loved, by the way), he mentions how it was a "A fabulous example of old vine Shiraz" . Gave it 95 points.
The vineyard was planted in 1996.
Cheers
frickin beautiful!
does anyone know how to get a hold of this mag here in Australia? In Perth I haven't seen it available in too many places so I'm more than happy to buy it online.
Or would people recommend subscribing to the website? While I'd prefer the information in magazine format, if subscribing is the only option available to me, I'll have to consider it!
cheers
max
Or would people recommend subscribing to the website? While I'd prefer the information in magazine format, if subscribing is the only option available to me, I'll have to consider it!
cheers
max
www.yum.org.au
food, drink and life in western australia
food, drink and life in western australia
I think the thing to remember is that RPJ is selling a service, so he has to spice it up a bit with a slagging, the pennies piece last year was a good example.
Another example is slagging the local press, lowers the tone a bit, but he is saying he knows more than the locals, dont go by their judgement.
He has positioned himself as the lone champion of the consumer, a sort of Nader for wine, so he has to stir up a bit of controversy, our discussing it here tells me his approach works a treat.
Good luck to him, I dont use his ratings, but then I dont use any others either
cheers
Another example is slagging the local press, lowers the tone a bit, but he is saying he knows more than the locals, dont go by their judgement.
He has positioned himself as the lone champion of the consumer, a sort of Nader for wine, so he has to stir up a bit of controversy, our discussing it here tells me his approach works a treat.
Good luck to him, I dont use his ratings, but then I dont use any others either
cheers
DaveB wrote:And Mount Mary Cabernets got 83 points.....narrowly pipped by Oxford Landing Shiraz.....it is a pretty good snapshot of what one man's preferences in wine are...
I just got a pallet of Oxford Landing real cheap. Now let me see, MM goes for $100+ at auction, so I'm gunna put a similar reserve on the OL and watch the money roll in.....
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
Just an FYI. Received the hardcopy of TWA #161 today and I see it says 952 wines were recommended out of 3230. This is different from the online site which states 852 were recommended. At present I believe the online figure as you get 50 wines/page and there are 17 full pages and the 18th has two wines. But if anyone wants to count.............
Mike
Mike
But if anyone wants to count.............
~~~~ sigh ~~~~~
I threw the numbers into a spreadsheet and excluding fortifieds; my count showed there were 831 non fortifieds listed. That makes the 852 figure the most likely correct number as there is no way there is 120 fortified wines there.
Looks like that is an oops; they could always fix the online version but correcting the hard copy after its been printed is a bit difficult.
Looks like poor humble little Rutherglen has to carry the can again! 
Another three hundred pointers for the region, and many in the high 90's. Most commentary seems to have skipped over Rutherglen's results, and being a vocal local, I for one tip my hat. Funny how I only pay attention to his fortified scores, and disregard anything else!
Incredibly odd that RPJ would award the Buller Fine Old Muscat and Calliope Rare Muscat both 96. Chalk and cheese is not a strong enough descriptor to explain the difference in quality between the two wines. Raises questions as to whether or not he fully comprehends the style.
Another three hundred pointers for the region, and many in the high 90's. Most commentary seems to have skipped over Rutherglen's results, and being a vocal local, I for one tip my hat. Funny how I only pay attention to his fortified scores, and disregard anything else!
Incredibly odd that RPJ would award the Buller Fine Old Muscat and Calliope Rare Muscat both 96. Chalk and cheese is not a strong enough descriptor to explain the difference in quality between the two wines. Raises questions as to whether or not he fully comprehends the style.
LL,
Agree with much of your commentary. When Parker first started reviewing Oz fortifieds, most of the Muscats out-pointed the Tokays, which I thought was inconsistent with my understanding of these wines.
As far as the Bullers Rare Tokay (a wine I normally adore) I have seen a number of TN's for the current release (including some on this forum) that indicate that for what ever reason, it is not as good as previous releases.
Now there is an idea; I will check it out for myself in 10 days time at the winery. (Afternoon of Monday 21st)
Agree with much of your commentary. When Parker first started reviewing Oz fortifieds, most of the Muscats out-pointed the Tokays, which I thought was inconsistent with my understanding of these wines.
As far as the Bullers Rare Tokay (a wine I normally adore) I have seen a number of TN's for the current release (including some on this forum) that indicate that for what ever reason, it is not as good as previous releases.
Now there is an idea; I will check it out for myself in 10 days time at the winery. (Afternoon of Monday 21st)
-
Adam
Adam,
It may not have been on this forum, (I do look at a number of them) and I am not going to search every instance of Bullers to try and find them, but I know I have seen and heard a number of comments that the current batch is not as good as the previous ones.
Brian tried it when he was at the winery earlier this year and told me about it personally.
For the record, I love the Bullers Museum Tokay and Muscat, so its not a case of bagging the winery.
It may not have been on this forum, (I do look at a number of them) and I am not going to search every instance of Bullers to try and find them, but I know I have seen and heard a number of comments that the current batch is not as good as the previous ones.
Brian tried it when he was at the winery earlier this year and told me about it personally.
For the record, I love the Bullers Museum Tokay and Muscat, so its not a case of bagging the winery.
TORB wrote:Adam,
It may not have been on this forum, (I do look at a number of them) and I am not going to search every instance of Bullers to try and find them, but I know I have seen and heard a number of comments that the current batch is not as good as the previous ones.
Brian tried it when he was at the winery earlier this year and told me about it personally.
For the record, I love the Bullers Museum Tokay and Muscat, so its not a case of bagging the winery.
Sorry to ruin your story Ric, it was the Bullers Rare Muscat that I (and the others with me) found wanting in March this year. To be sure I checked my cellar, I definitely bought the Tokay, not the muscat. We all remarked that the wine from the bottle of the Rare muscat on offer seemed quite flat and lacking in brightness and life to back up some obvious aged material. The cellar door manager admitted the Tokay was selling at a much greater rate then the Muscat. Maybe just a dud bottle, even cork, but nothing obvious, it just seemed old and tired rather than old and lively and luscious.
Cheers
Brian
Life's too short to drink white wine and red wine is better for you too! :-)
Brian
Life's too short to drink white wine and red wine is better for you too! :-)
-
Andrew Jordan
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:53 am
- Location: Sydney
does anyone know how to get a hold of this mag here in Australia? In Perth I haven't seen it available in too many places so I'm more than happy to buy it online.
Or would people recommend subscribing to the website? While I'd prefer the information in magazine format, if subscribing is the only option available to me, I'll have to consider it!
cheers
max
Max,
Ordered the hardcopy Monday last week and it arrived today in the mail, so a very quick turn around time considering it came all the way from the US. Admittedly for you it will need to cross the continent, but surely that would only add a few days to the delivery schedule maximum.
Cheers
AJ
Cabernet is ... and will always be ... KING!
AJ
Cabernet is ... and will always be ... KING!
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
KMP wrote:Just an FYI. Received the hardcopy of TWA #161 today and I see it says 952 wines were recommended out of 3230. This is different from the online site which states 852 were recommended. At present I believe the online figure as you get 50 wines/page and there are 17 full pages and the 18th has two wines. But if anyone wants to count.............
Mike
Just to add to this in case there are folks using their fingers and toes to count their way through #161. ERPSupport has stated The wine count as published in The Wine Advocate is incorrect. The correct count is 852 and the web site does contain everything that was in the newsletter.
Mike