The Auswine Forum

Gary W wrote:there are far better reasons to disregard you

Indulge me ...

Gary W wrote:

chuckles wrote:
I just don't think it is fair to shitcan a wine for something as ridiculous as "reduction on the palate", which is something that doesn't exist, when there are numerous other wines that suffer from problems far worse than "reduction on the palate"

... On the palate the pace steps up with explosive lime and lemon sherbet fruit and some sulphide characters. ...

I've learnt something here, "on the palate ... sulphide characters..." = "reduction on the palate", which doesn't really exist. Yet it's a problem, but there are others far worse, and they do exist.

Says it all really...

chuckles wrote:
I don't even work for the winery, I just happen to like the wines they produce.

I just don't think it is fair to shitcan a wine for something as ridiculous as "reduction on the palate", which is something that doesn't exist, when there are numerous other wines that suffer from problems far worse than "reduction on the palate"

Me thinks you need to go back to wine school 101. Reduction in a wine does exist and if you don't believe me, look at page 565 of the Oxford Companion to Wine. The said reduction can show either on the nose or the palate.

As far as "shit-canning" a reductive wine, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck, it ain't likely to be goose, and the only one that looks like a goose is the goose that calls the duck a goose.

Gary W wrote:
mattECN wrote:
2007 Shaw & Smith Sauvignon Blanc (Adelaide Hills)

Plenty of cut grass and acidity, a touch of chlorine taste to this as well, not enjoyable at all. Disjointed and unbalanced wine, perhaps a faulty bottle? I cannot image them releasing a wine in this shape.



No. Perhaps the glass was dirty. It is a very good wine.
GW

I laugh at the amount of times on this forum where people say "you musta had a bad bottle", "perhaps it was faulty". Have you never poured a wine from the same bottle to have one person like it and one person not??

Perhaps its just a case of people liking different things, no big deal. No need for WWIII to start over such a thing. You can go to ebob for that sort of carry on

Craig(NZ) wrote:

Gary W wrote:
mattECN wrote:
2007 Shaw & Smith Sauvignon Blanc (Adelaide Hills)

Plenty of cut grass and acidity, a touch of chlorine taste to this as well, not enjoyable at all. Disjointed and unbalanced wine, perhaps a faulty bottle? I cannot image them releasing a wine in this shape.

No. Perhaps the glass was dirty. It is a very good wine.
GW

I laugh at the amount of times on this forum where people say "you musta had a bad bottle", "perhaps it was faulty". Have you never poured a wine from the same bottle to have one person like it and one person not??

Perhaps its just a case of people liking different things, no big deal. No need for WWIII to start over such a thing. You can go to ebob for that sort of carry on

Craig, your 'voice of reason' act isn't as good as your normal one.

In this case the original poster (Matt) raised the 'faulty' question after describing a clearly faulty wine and then Charles 'played the man' and "shitcanned" a TN for a wine that wasn't even on this forum or the subject of the discussion.

Oh I get it, you are really just fanning the flames.

Craig(NZ) wrote:Perhaps its just a case of people liking different things, no big deal. No need for WWIII to start over such a thing. You can go to ebob for that sort of carry on

Well those that haven't been banned at least

In this case the original poster (Matt) raised the 'faulty' question after describing a clearly faulty wine and then Charles 'played the man' and "shitcanned" a TN for a wine that wasn't even on this forum or the subject of the discussion.

exactly! it is so far into 'who cares' territory that you shouldnt give it the time under the spotlight

Craig(NZ) wrote:

Perhaps its just a case of people liking different things, no big deal. No need for WWIII to start over such a thing. You can go to ebob for that sort of carry on


Well those that haven't been banned at least

because im diplomatic i havent been banned from ebob, neither do i have a page on my website dedicated to its politics. oh hang on maybe thats because i never bothered to join hehe

Craig(NZ) wrote:
exactly! it is so far into 'who cares' territory that you shouldnt give it the time under the spotlight

and the irony being for Mr Who Cares NZ is that you are doing exactly that...anyway, yes sometimes people do not like the same wine. Of course! This S+S sounds clearly faulty though (Halliday Top 100 - I know you love that sort of thing so bound to impress you) and Matt raised the question himself. It is not a matter of not liking it but more that it tastes of chlorine or whatever. Faulty. Opening two bottles of the same wine at the same time often produces different results but there are also a few other factors at play like dirty glasses etc. I am not generally one of the 'must be a bad bottle' brigade either when someone disagrees with my exquisite good taste so I get your point.

It is all good wine related debate anyway...and it IS a wine forum.
GW

and the irony being for Mr Who Cares NZ is that you are doing exactly that

Works for me. Always hard to win an arguement with a trophy against someone who doesnt care. It is the 'Judo' of the forumite

when someone disagrees with my exquisite good taste so I get your point.

yeah nice line! I always say that people are allowed to disagree with me. They have the right to be wrong

chuckles wrote:

griff wrote:Its an ambush, but is it marketing?

cheers

Carl

It is definitely not marketing!

I don't even work for the winery, I just happen to like the wines they produce.

Cheers

Charles

Sorry Charles, but I'm not sure if I can really believe this, especially since Sue caught you out telling porkies about yourself already:

chuckles 16/7/2007 wrote:Dear Colin

I am not ITB but I do like to think that I can spot a good wine when I see it.

chuckles 23/8/2007 wrote:Its good to see that some people love the wine that I helped craft!

Satisfaction!

I agree with Gavin's idea of protecting the anonymity of posters to encourage those in the business like yourself to contribute to the forum, and indeed some of your input is very interesting and informative. On the other hand, quite a few of your posts seem far from objective and driven by some vested interest - by the sound of it I'm not alone thinking this either.

Cheers,
Ian

Gary W wrote: I am not generally one of the 'must be a bad bottle' brigade either when someone disagrees with my exquisite good taste so I get your point.

Gary,

I guess that comment applies to me so I will respond.

I could flippantly say its better to tell someone that that had an off bottle rather than tell them they are a Richard Cranium and that their taste buds are firmly planted at the entrance to the alimentary canal.

Seriously, when I tell someone they may had had an off bottle it is not because they disagree with my taste (be it good or bad) - its because they describe something that is completely different, so different that it sounds like a different wine.

A perfect example was the Jacobs Creek Reserve interchange between Ian, Craig, myself and Sue where Ian described the wine as "then disturbingly fishy and stinky/rubbery. "

Three of us found the wine different, but those difference were within reason. The fourth was so far from the first three you could not put it down to personal taste (even Ian's )

Also, given that about one in 10 of all cork sealed bottles are either suffering from some level of oxidation or TCA, from almost undetectable to rank, there is a good chance of people describing wines that are so afflicted may do so without spotting the root cause, especially if the level of the cause is low.

As you know, even bottles under screwcap are sometime defective, and whilst the level is is low, these are particularly a problem as most people either don't realise you can still have problems under screwcap or if they do, don't know that when they find a dud bottle that the wine was not the way it was intended to be.

Chuckles, you must really like Jim Barry wines, because you seem to have mentioned them, directly and indirectly, in at least 5 out of your 26 posts.

rooview wrote:

Gary W wrote:

mattECN wrote:2007 Shaw & Smith Sauvignon Blanc (Adelaide Hills)

Plenty of cut grass and acidity, a touch of chlorine taste to this as well, not enjoyable at all. Disjointed and unbalanced wine, perhaps a faulty bottle? I cannot image them releasing a wine in this shape.

No. Perhaps the glass was dirty. It is a very good wine.
GW

Indeed, S+S 07 SB is a lip-smacking ripper.

thanks for the info, generally my first choice of white wine is sauvignon blanc, I have tried too many to count. This bottle of 07 S&S did not show well (first time I have tried it), others were drinking from it also, but I did not get their opinions, hence posted my thoughts here and posed the question and perhaps other users on this forum who have tried it could post their opinions.

incidentially I like reading Gary W's tasting notes, his views on wine seem similar to mine.

TORB wrote:

Gary W wrote: I am not generally one of the 'must be a bad bottle' brigade either when someone disagrees with my exquisite good taste so I get your point.

Gary,

I guess that comment applies to me so I will respond.

No. It was not directed at you at all and I agree that when a bottle is described wildly differently to ones own experience of it then bottle variation can come in to play. This as opposed to purely personal taste. Environmental considerations (temperature, humidity, glassware), storage, transport, physical health (mouth chemistry, fatigue, snuffliness), experience and consistency of the taster are also factors.

Jacobs Creek Reserve would have to be a VERY big make so there is bound to be some variation. Same goes with Wynns Black Label I think.
GW

n4sir wrote:
Sorry Charles, but I'm not sure if I can really believe this, especially since Sue caught you out telling porkies about yourself already:

chuckles 16/7/2007 wrote:Dear Colin

I am not ITB but I do like to think that I can spot a good wine when I see it.

chuckles 23/8/2007 wrote:Its good to see that some people love the wine that I helped craft!

Satisfaction!

I agree with Gavin's idea of protecting the anonymity of posters to encourage those in the business like yourself to contribute to the forum, and indeed some of your input is very interesting and informative. On the other hand, quite a few of your posts seem far from objective and driven by some vested interest - by the sound of it I'm not alone thinking this either.

Cheers,
Ian

Sorry Ian

If you can selectively quote and get it completely wrong I applaud you.

That post about me crafting the wine refers to a Craggy Range Wine which was made over two years ago, when I was working at that winery.

But good on you for trying to make me look like a fool, only my own posts can do that!

Cheers

chuckles wrote:But good on you for trying to make me look like a fool, only my own posts can do that!

And I, for one, must compliment you on the outstanding talent you have shown in this...

chuckles wrote:

n4sir wrote:
Sorry Charles, but I'm not sure if I can really believe this, especially since Sue caught you out telling porkies about yourself already:

chuckles 16/7/2007 wrote:Dear Colin

I am not ITB but I do like to think that I can spot a good wine when I see it.

chuckles 23/8/2007 wrote:Its good to see that some people love the wine that I helped craft!

Satisfaction!

I agree with Gavin's idea of protecting the anonymity of posters to encourage those in the business like yourself to contribute to the forum, and indeed some of your input is very interesting and informative. On the other hand, quite a few of your posts seem far from objective and driven by some vested interest - by the sound of it I'm not alone thinking this either.

Cheers,
Ian

Sorry Ian

If you can selectively quote and get it completely wrong I applaud you.

That post about me crafting the wine refers to a Craggy Range Wine which was made over two years ago, when I was working at that winery.

But good on you for trying to make me look like a fool, only my own posts can do that!

Cheers

For this forum 'ITB' means in the business. If you are unemployed now or changed profession you still should say you were ITB rather saying that you are not.

Anonymity is a privilege that requires responsibility. Some people can't handle it but I hope you can. It involves not telling lies or even half-truths.
Another issue is your unprovoked flaming of wines, wineries and now other forumites. If you have a negative comment to make, at least provide a reason.

cheers

Carl