JO's 2009 Wine annual - WTF???

John #11 · Post by **John #11** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:35 pm

Was browsing at lunchtime today, a few downright disturbing (and IMO wrong) assessments....

Ben Glaetzer's wines copped a real "hiding" :shock:

John Duval wines copped some low point scores

What's going on?

Craig(NZ) · Post by **Craig(NZ)** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:40 pm

Was browsing at lunchtime today, a few downright disturbing (and IMO wrong)

be opinionated but don't be disturbed. it shouldnt take a fulla long to work out that everyones tastes are different. you are no less a man for liking something less or more than someone else

ChrisV · Post by **ChrisV** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:23 pm

I'm definitely no fan of JO's. I bought the annual a couple times largely to have a rough vintage guide to various wines, but no longer. His pinot ratings are totally nuts imo.

That said, having tasted through the current Glaetzer range recently, I was very unimpressed.

Jay60A · Post by **Jay60A** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:25 pm

I haven't tasted the Duvals.

I agree there is no way that the Glaetzer Amon Ra 2005 is an 82 point wine btw. You can argue (and I would not disagree) it's over-ripe, and won't age like the 2004 ... but in the mouth it's gorgeous.

There's also the possibility of bottle variation? ... I found one bottle of this quite a lot hotter and more alcoholic (and less enjoyable) than others btw.

John #11 · Post by **John #11** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:11 pm

There are many other anomalies, here is a huge discrepancy...

Houghtons Gladstones2002 Cab Sav JO=80 JH=96 points.
A bit more than bottle variation I would think.

The rating for Dalwhinnie Moonambel Shiraz 2006 can be read as either 89 points, or 82 points ???

Daryl Douglas · Post by **Daryl Douglas** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:19 am

I renewed my Halliday Wine Companion subscription last weekend.....

Jay60A · Post by **Jay60A** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:35 am

ChrisV wrote:I'm definitely no fan of JO's. I bought the annual a couple times largely to have a rough vintage guide to various wines, but no longer. His pinot ratings are totally nuts imo.

That said, having tasted through the current Glaetzer range recently, I was very unimpressed.

Chris - any reason why?

I thought the 2004s were very smart indeed (Amon Ra, Godolphin, Amon Ra, Shiraz (now discontinued).

Just interested to get your views on the latest wines (06s?)

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:19 am

On a number of occasions in the past people have questioned Oliver's seemingly non sensible ratings on certain wines. History then showed that he had got it right and the others were wrong. 98 Mt Edelstone was jsut one.

Another was the 02? Mt Langi. Halliday and others rated it around 95 and the wine was subsequently not released and poured down the drain. It was full of Brett.

Weather you agree with him or not, and I certainly don't always, Oliver has one of the best technical palates around.

ChrisV · Post by **ChrisV** » Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:29 pm

Jay60A wrote:Chris - any reason why?

I thought the 2004s were very smart indeed (Amon Ra, Godolphin, Amon Ra, Shiraz (now discontinued).

Just interested to get your views on the latest wines (06s?)

All the 06's looked overripe and disjointed to me. Fruit not containing the alcohol in some wines despite an alleged 14.5%. Amon Ra and Anaperenna were both decent wines (and 82 for the Amon Ra is silly, although Jay Miller's 96-100 or whatever it was is equally ridiculous) but definitely not worth the money.

Mahmoud Ali · Post by **Mahmoud Ali** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:23 am

I had an opportunity to taste wines with Jeremy Oliver at Fig Tree Cellars in Sydney some years ago. He was on hand to present wines that he considered to be among Australia'a best and to autograph his 2001 edition of OnWine. The wines included the Grange, Moss Wood, Howard Park, Hill of Grace, Petaluma, Noble One, etc.

His description of the wines, their characteristics, what he looks for in these wines, impressed me. I think he had an excellent understanding of what makes a truly excellent wine, and part of that understanding involves balance, finesse, flavour profile, and, in the case of premium wines, a certain amount of longevity.

If you read his writing you will find that he rails against hugely extracted, "dead fruit", over-oaked wines that may collapse in a few years. These qualities may be okay in a "quaffer" but not in a high priced, quality wine destined for the cellar. And he is not the only one shaking his fist at "Parker-styled" wines.

Sure people make mistakes. We all do. But the wine critics' preferences are important too. My guess is that the low scores were based on the style of wine, not immediate drinkability.

Cheers..............Mahmoud

Christo · Post by **Christo** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:12 pm

05 rockford BP below 90pts?? :shock:

(cannot remember offhand exact score).. but its toted by others as one of best BP's to date... but i guess the style is not JO's prefrence.

c

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:27 pm

Christo wrote:05 rockford BP below 90pts?? (cannot remember offhand exact score).. but its toted by others as one of best BP's to date... but i guess the style is not JO's prefrence.

c

I don't know what you have been reading (or smoking ol mate :wink:

) but what you have written is not true.

The 09 BP gets 91 points. Oliver doesn't think it will last as long as many others - 2013 - 2017

He also gives it a 2 Ranking. His scores are as follows:
2005 91
2004 95
2003 92
2002 96
2001 89
2000 93
1999 96
Looks like he likes it to me.

For the record, I didn't think it was as good as many other vintages either.

ChrisV · Post by **ChrisV** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:28 pm

I don't have a lot of experience with Rockford BP, but I thought the 04 was much better than the 05, and would agree with JO's scores.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:51 pm

Out of all the critics, I place the greatest weight on Jeremy Oliver's - one of the most experienced in the game, discusses technical aspects far more than any other reviewer, and is far more critical of the wines he assesses. Also more useful in highlighting variations in quality between vintages, with his greater scoring deviations between vintages.

Christo · Post by **Christo** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:07 am

TORB wrote:
Christo wrote:05 rockford BP below 90pts?? (cannot remember offhand exact score).. but its toted by others as one of best BP's to date... but i guess the style is not JO's prefrence.

c

I don't know what you have been reading (or smoking ol mate ) but what you have written is not true.

The 09 BP gets 91 points. Oliver doesn't think it will last as long as many others - 2013 - 2017

He also gives it a 2 Ranking. His scores are as follows:
2005 91
2004 95
2003 92
2002 96
2001 89
2000 93
1999 96
Looks like he likes it to me.

For the record, I didn't think it was as good as many other vintages either.

crap, what was i reading?... shoulve bloody bought it instead of just skimming. thanks for correction.

c

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:50 am

lightning wrote:Out of all the critics, I place the greatest weight on Jeremy Oliver's - one of the most experienced in the game, discusses technical aspects far more than any other reviewer, and is far more critical of the wines he assesses.

Agreed. He is the best technical writer around. JO may not be as "floral" or entertaining as some,but for my money he is the best around. I have learned heaps about wine from reading and then thinking about what he has written. He also has the ability to sum up, a wine with a great deal of information, in a very succinct way.

ACG · Post by **ACG** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:38 am

I really like JO's tasting notes and ability. I regularly disagree with him on certain wines, but thats the joy of opinion. He also has the most realistic scoring (and closer to the wine show system vis-a-vis scoring range) in my opinion (and I use the humble 20 point scoring too).

Andrew

drunkenbum · Post by **drunkenbum** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:04 pm

TORB wrote:Agreed. He is the best technical writer around. JO may not be as "floral" or entertaining as some,but for my money he is the best around. I have learned heaps about wine from reading and then thinking about what he has written. He also has the ability to sum up, a wine with a great deal of information, in a very succinct way.

I think he has a great way with words. I like the direct, straight to the point approach, there is only so much repetetive crap I am willing to read.
Clearly he has a leaning toward wines with a more traditional style, and tends to admonish "show style" wines or the big reds people accept as the norm these days.
When he is harsh on a wine, I find it entertaining as well. He doesnt hold back, thats for sure. I am sure a few people would love to front him about their writeups! :lol:

dazza1968 · Post by **dazza1968** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:34 pm

I find it interesting reading this as i believe he loves elegance and has a distinct hate for over ripe fruit...................I have a few friends who think rock ford is over rated and they love big heavy shiraz's like the tatachilla foundation shiraz , Now JO tends to give them a hiding as to him its all dead fruit and lacks finesse ...........................I totally agree with him

Regards Dazza

Sean · Post by **Sean** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:30 am

deleted

griff · Post by **griff** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:17 am

Sean wrote:I would say JO is very fair and technically minded when he reviews a wine. But his scores sometimes tend to show his preference for elegant wines. So a genuine question to regular drinkers of BP.

If he gives 96 pts to the 1999 (a vintage of elegant wines) and the 2002 (a cool vintage of high acid wines), is it because they are the best wines or elegant ones??

Haven't had the 02 yet but the 99 was opened too early. Was great and I think up there with the 98 as the best I have had! My experience only stretches back to 96 which was the first vintage I bought. I think it is like comparing the 90 and 91 Wynns cabernet.

cheers

Carl

dazza1968 · Post by **dazza1968** » Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:24 pm

griff wrote:
Sean wrote:I would say JO is very fair and technically minded when he reviews a wine. But his scores sometimes tend to show his preference for elegant wines. So a genuine question to regular drinkers of BP.

If he gives 96 pts to the 1999 (a vintage of elegant wines) and the 2002 (a cool vintage of high acid wines), is it because they are the best wines or elegant ones??

Haven't had the 02 yet but the 99 was opened too early. Was great and I think up there with the 98 as the best I have had! My experience only stretches back to 96 which was the first vintage I bought. I think it is like comparing the 90 and 91 Wynns cabernet.

cheers

Carl

If it has elegance he loves it I have had the 98,99,02 recently and found them all fantastic and yes luptious and yes extremely elegant to ssy the least :idea:

and Carl the 91 is better than the 90 Black label

IMO

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:06 am

Are the top end Torbreck elegant?

I just wondered cause JO always rates them highly! :oops:

Are elegant wines my favourite?

They must be cause I usually agree with JO's notes. :roll:

He likes balanced wines that are well made, technically sound, don't show alcoholic warmth, are not over oaked, and use optimally ripe fruit.

dazza1968 · Post by **dazza1968** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:20 am

TORB wrote:Are the top end Torbreck elegant?

I just wondered cause JO always rates them highly!

Are elegant wines my favourite?

They must be cause I usually agree with JO's notes.

He likes balanced wines that are well made, technically sound, don't show alcoholic warmth, are not over oaked, and use optimally ripe fruit.

Now Now do i detect Sarcasm :lol:

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:46 am

dazza1968 wrote:Now Now do i detect Sarcasm

Wot ?????

Moi????

Never been known to happen. :wink: