The Auswine Forum

sjw_11 wrote:OK I normally stay out of Pinot debates since it is not my thing and I think everyone knows my views on whether all roads end in Burgundy but my observations:

1) How many times do people say "this is the best Aussie Pinot... its almost like Burgundy / like an old world wine / etc" ... seriously, what is the point of making a wine 12,000 miles away from Burgundy in an entirely different climate and that is your best selling point? I agree, before air planes were invented that might have been a handy trick, but really.

2) Of the names mentioned, I had a Pooley 2011 and a Hoddles Creek 1er 2012 in February, both were pretty good. Both cost probably twice the equivalent Aussie quality of Shiraz or Cabernet. Are they worth it? No, but then even in France half the Bourgogne isn't worth what it costs either (and I dread to think about Aussie prices).

3) I am not surprised no mention of Lucy Margaux, the couple I tried were technically faulty. I am not a natural wine fan. Natural should not be an excuse for lazy or technically incorrect. I am quite sure some of the avant garde Aussie Pinot fits this category.

4) We are debating between about 25 decent Aussie Pinots. Some Burgundy producers make that number of wines themselves from all the different sub-regions/vineyards, or lieux-dits. I don't know if that is good or bad (except I do know it is good marketing, and I fully encourage the Barolo and Barberesco peepz to keep following the same path, as they are)... actually I do think it is a bit ridiculous and invites wine snobbery of the kind "oh darling, you should know of course that no truly good red wine ever comes from Marsannay, you really should go all of 5 miles away to Gevrey-Chambertin before even thinking of buying". But that is just me.

Sean wrote:

Tucker Wine Studios wrote:Mahmoud, I really liked Kooyong PNs when they were made by Sandro Mosele, but haven't had one for ages.
Cheers, Mario

Sandro has gone to Ten Minutes By Tractor. That was back in 2017 when they built their own winery. (Previously the TMBT wines were made under contract at Moorooduc Estate.) So it will be interesting to see how that goes.

I had a 2018 10X pinot earlier this month and it was bang on his kind of wine.

Cactus wrote:Ok I am just drinking a Chatto Isle 2017 and it is the most incredible Pinot I can remember drinking in many years. I humbly nominate.

WineRick wrote:Tapanappa 'Foggy Hill' and his new 'Difinitus' are both tidy wines.

marsalla wrote:Sorry, I havent changed that since I registered, I used to be in Sicily, but am now in Vic, the vineyard is going in near Ballarat,

Rory wrote:Haven't tried them myself, but where would Pooley sit in all this?

Dragzworthy wrote:Winfront score is high or low? I like Pooley and Paradigm Hill...think these producers fly under the radar a bit though maybe I'm out of touch

Wizz wrote:

Dragzworthy wrote:Winfront score is high or low? I like Pooley and Paradigm Hill...think these producers fly under the radar a bit though maybe I'm out of touch

89 and 90

sjw_11 wrote:It says it all about critics points that 89 and 90 are seen as being a dreadful result and a sign that something went horribly wrong

Dragzworthy wrote:

Wizz wrote:

Dragzworthy wrote:Winfront score is high or low? I like Pooley and Paradigm Hill...think these producers fly under the radar a bit though maybe I'm out of touch

89 and 90

So like a suckling "I'm 95 points on that"?

sjw_11 wrote:It says it all about critics points that 89 and 90 are seen as being a dreadful result and a sign that something went horribly wrong

mychurch wrote:Off years happen - check out scores and reviews of ‘13 Lafite.

I still score according to the Parker scale. A bottle of supermarket Chilean Cabernet or Rioja with no Faults gets a 75-80 score. That’s fine. Most wines I drink would get a score in the 85 to 89 Range. A few time a year I drink a wine in the 95 plus range, but they tend to be older wines with a lot of bottle age. Last weeks brilliant 1990 Vouvray would 89/90 - on the border of 3.5* and 4*.

In that context, I imagine I would score a young Pinot in a difficult year low to mid 80’s.

If you go back to the guides, Parker himself always said that 85pts was a very good wine and 1 he would seek out. The score inflation at the end of his career was more to do with increases in quality and more confidence in his own judgement. He really thought that 00, 05,09 and 10 were younger, better made versions of 82 and 61. The scores just reflected the number of improved wines and I think he was more confident on how these wines would turn out after 10+ years in the bottle. A number of his critics thought he should have stuck to only scoring wines relative to each other in a given vintage, but I think he wanted to show just how far things had moved on.

What probably should have happened was that new critics like Neil Martin should have rebased their scores using a modern version as the yardstick eg make Latour 09 the standard for 100 points, instead of 75 La mission or 82 Pichon Lalande. We all want to read about high scores though, so I presume that idea was always doomed