The Auswine Forum

When you have finished browsing this site, do yourself a favour and log on to
www.erobertparker.com
and click on to the discussion forum. Please have a look at the thread
"exceptional Syrah" and read it carefully.

If, after reading the full thread, you would ever, ever buy a bottle of Edmunds St John wine, please call back into this site and let me know.
IMO, Steve Edmunds makes a complete fool of himself, and is one of those typical (in the minority) arrogant Yank wankers that the rest of the world loves to hate.

Aussie Johns wrote:When you have finished browsing this site, do yourself a favour and log on to
www.erobertparker.com
and click on to the discussion forum. Please have a look at the thread
"exceptional Syrah" and read it carefully.

If, after reading the full thread, you would ever, ever buy a bottle of Edmunds St John wine, please call back into this site and let me know.
IMO, Steve Edmunds makes a complete fool of himself, and is one of those typical (in the minority) arrogant Yank wankers that the rest of the world loves to hate.

For myself at least, I prefer to laugh at arrogant wankers, and to do so no matter their nationality, favorite band, depth of literary and/or other subject knowledge or lack thereof and the arrogance and 'wankiness' that results As to whether I'd buy the wine - is it any good? Everybody buys products from wanky, evil, stupid, exploitative or otherwise reprehensible companies every single day, and most all fail to give it a second thought. Anyway, has anyone tasted the wine and would care to share notes? That for me would be a better measure of worth of purchase...

Aussie Johns wrote: If, after reading the full thread, you would ever, ever buy a bottle of Edmunds St John wine, please call back into this site and let me know.

Yep I'd definitely be willing to buy a bottle of his wine to try, I didn't find his letter or couple of posts amongst many others "hate-worthy" at all. I think there has been much, much worse on the Squires forum and some other US forums and outsiders reading some of the stuff here and on other local forums wouldn't always go away with a good impression of us Aussies either.

Bit of an overreaction me thinks, aussiejohn. Read through the thread and found it to be quite interesting and consistent with what much of the industry is working through concurrently - be Steve Edmunds a w*nker or not, he has an opinion which is valid both here and in CA.

As an aside, I've had a bottle of Edmund St John in a tasting (an 89 if my memory serves me right, no idea if that was a good or poor vintage), and found it so, so - winner on the night was HoG '91 by a street.

Cheers

Mark G

(e)

Paul Simpson wrote:Hate is an very strong word for this

Ah Paul, you are just jealous because you are an American and not ugly!

From my perspective its got nothing to do with the fact that Edmonds is America, I disagree with what he said but unfortunately a lot of "olde worlde" wine lovers feel that way.

On this board we have seen posts where Oz wine lovers - including those that like refined olde worlde styles - have been to tasting like those put on by Ultimo Cellars and the majority of the wines get canned. Now I bet if one of us started a thread that said "98% of Frog wine is crap" there would be an outcry. Thats exactly what Edmunds has done in reverse. Many of the "olde worlde" wine lovers feel they have a monopoly of taste and what is good wine. They feel the need to dictate what we should be drinking. Sounds bigoted to me.

I have just had another look at that thread and its grown a bit overnight. Here is a quote that I thought you may all find interesting.

Elegance, finesse, complexity, and, most importantly, balance. These are, and always have been, the hallmarks of great wines. Other factors such as extraction, concentration, and power are also worthy attributes but never at the expense of the first four characteristics.

Remember, my fellow winemakers, the ultimate goal of a wine is to complement a meal. We are producers of a condiment, if you will. Whenever a wine becomes too difficult to drink with a meal, it has lost its purpose. I know this is a tad oversimplification but it is vital that we remember that.

Note the very first word in that quote. So according to the writer for a wine to be great it must have elegance. and then wine is only supposed to be drunk with food.

TORB wrote:Note the very first word in that quote. So according to the writer for a wine to be great it must have elegance. and then wine is only supposed to be drunk with food.

Ah Ric, those of us with long memories of the early 80's reds may equate 'elegance' with thin and wimpy or even green, but I like this part of the dictionary.com definition:

Tasteful opulence in form, decoration, or presentation.

I think elegance can be a very desirable attribute and some of the best wines I've ever tried including the odd first-growth bordeaux and some high-priced and stunningly complex burgundies have had both elegance and power.

Not everyone can enjoy a bottle of a huge but balanced Barossa or McLarenVale Shiraz as a meal like we can

I think there is room for all types of preferences in the wine world, but it can be a thin line in others interpretation between voicing a strong opinion and claiming to have the only correct one.

Well, maybe "hate" is too contraversial. I use it lightly, as in "I hate the weather at the moment"
Didn't mean it to be as offensive as some have thought.

Still, doesn't stop me from being upset with the crap that is spewing out of that thread. Mind you, those that counter that idiot Steve Edmunds are doing it very well, and making him look a greater fool than I ever could.

Why are people so insanely jealous of the fact that areas like the Barossa have the perfect climate for growing shiraz, and 100+ year old vines to capitalise on that advantage.

Elegant??
What the hell does that mean?? Is 2000 Bordeaux elegant??
Ever tried a Pignan from Rayas??
How about 47 Cheval Blanc??
Clape's Cornas??

In 1990, at a blind tasting attended by a multitude of MW's and the world of wine experts, including Parker, Broadbent, Evans, Coates and others, the 1955 Grange Hermitage was universally picked as a RONANEE CONTI FROM 1959!!!!!

Just because some fool's wine is so acidic, thin and weedy that he needs a bowl of pasta to help wash it down doesn't mean we all have to drink wine only with our dinner.
Nothing better than sitting in front of a fire after dinner and cracking another red or three for those long into-the-night discussions. You can bet your life those reds won't include any cat's piss made by Steve "aren't I amazing" Edmunds.

I read the thread, but not the more recent updates, and didn't have too much of a problem with it with it's american viewpoint.

There is a stereotypical view in the US of Australian Shiraz being the riper sweeter style. This is because those are the style of wines that sell well over there.

This applies across the market segments. One of the key factors in Yellowtail's success is in having greater than 10g/l residual sugar. Jindalee Estate adds concentrated grape juice to sweeten it's reds to the US market at the requirement of the importer, otherwise they don't buy it. (I've tried the pre and post, the pre was already sweet enough, the post, at 7-8 g/l was almost sickly to me).

So if it's a style that sells, it's logical that others will leap on board for that style as well, then the stereotype strengthens. It's popular but doesn't, in itself, make it great in Steve's view, to me that's what he's questioning.

I don't think that Australian Shiraz is that singular style, however I accept that the sweeter riper style is more popular to the US market in comparison to the breadth of styles seen here.

Taking it the other way; all the Syrah's I've had from California have been ripe and sweet as well. Having said that I've had a grand total of 2, so I haven't reached a solid conclusion, at this stage, that "all Californian Syrah are sweet oak bombs".

It's an interesting discussion, and harks back to a previous discussion on the seeming number of Californian Pinot's that were Syrah-like, and whether this is a good thing. Many argued that it was.

I'd be happy to try Steve's wines, whther I'd buy is probably more in the context of pricing due to exchange rate, tax and margin than how I feel about his opinions.

Aussie Johns wrote: Just because some fool's wine is so acidic, thin and weedy that he needs a bowl of pasta to help wash it down doesn't mean we all have to drink wine only with our dinner.
Nothing better than sitting in front of a fire after dinner and cracking another red or three for those long into-the-night discussions. You can bet your life those reds won't include any cat's piss made by Steve "aren't I amazing" Edmunds.

A-J, whilst I can agree with 'after dinner cracking of another red or three', I can't see how you can judge a person's wine as "acidic, thin, weedy ... cat's piss" when you have only a dislike for the wine-maker as a perspective.

Wine, to me, is more than just the "drink".
Site of origin, vintage, winemaker etc., all mean something to me. I'll drink any 1955 wine and probably love it 'cause its my birth year. I just love the Cote de Nuits- a very special region, one of the greatest in the world, and therefore I have an affinity for their wines.
If I dislike a winemaker, I won't bother with his wines- I went off the Giaconda mailer the day after I met RK- and I couldn't see myself liking this pratt Steve's wines either.
Sorry.......guess I am just another quirky consumer. But, then again, it is my money!!

Of course as a Canadian, I was completely drawn to this thread based on the title .....
For what it's worth:
I have had, and still own Edmunds St. John Parmalee Hill Syrah '97, and in last tasting it just July 4th '03 it was almost unyielding and tannic. Yet, it still had amazing structure, full plummy fruit and a medium finish......I figure the next one won't be opened for another 3 years. No guarantees on whether this will retain balance over the long term though, it could have too much structure and not enough fruit, I suppose I'll see.
Elegant it is absolutely not, but it's a good wine.
Cheers,
Mishy

Aussie John,

why don't you argue your point over on squires board, rather than here. That's where the argument lies surely?

Murray wrote:I read

There is a stereotypical view in the US of Australian Shiraz being the riper sweeter style. This is because those are the style of wines that sell well over there.

precisely.

I am amazed by the reaction on here to this thread. It's focuses primarily on california syrah, so why all the hostility. I think the principal that

Steve Edmunds is making is that there needs to be a distinction between what is popular and what is good. how does that make him a w***er?

fwiw his wines aren't bad either.

Ric, even Manfred Krankl states that all wines have to have an elegance.

Wow!!!

What a ridiculous response. So Steve Edmunds says there needs to be a distinction between what is popular and what is good.

err........Mr Wine Snob................please explain to me, a poor dumb and undeucated ol' Aussie, the difference between a popular and a good wine.


Poor Mr Edmunds. I can guarantee you that Yellow Tail has done lot more for the world's wine industry than you could ever hope to achieve, or could even dream of. Thank God there are people like Parker who are prepared to tackle the ridiculous snobbery that has strangled this industry for decades, and appreciate wine for what it is- an enjoyable drink.

Mr Johns,

You're doing a perfectly good job of making an ass of yourself, but why don't you have the gumption to put your views out over on the board debating it, rather than sniping here.
is it because you would be found wanting????

Remember, my fellow winemakers, the ultimate goal of a wine is to complement a meal. We are producers of a condiment, if you will. Whenever a wine becomes too difficult to drink with a meal, it has lost its purpose. I know this is a tad oversimplification but it is vital that we remember that.


Interesting thread. I find the above quote particularly amusing.. Its just like saying 'Because this muscat didn't match my pan-fried scallop, it does not have a purpose and is not a good wine'!

The difference between 'good' and 'popular' is that while 'good' is a subjective judgement, 'popular' can be measured in many ways (e.g. sales volume). No use to get upset just because you think some hugely popular wine is crap!

Cheers,
Alan

Anonymous wrote:Mr Johns,

You're doing a perfectly good job of making an ass of yourself, but why don't you have the gumption to put your views out over on the board debating it, rather than sniping here.
is it because you would be found wanting????

Dear Guest,

Sorry, but ain't you sniping here as well?

Cheers,
Alan

Well, Mr Guest.
I would be happy to post on that site, but I have no intention of paying the subscription for the effort.
Not sure why anyone would bother, given there are a zillion free forums available. And to be honest, I am not really interested where Mr Parker or Mr Rovani wined and dined in the States, it is of no relevance to me.

I read that site from time to time, usually for a laugh, which is what the majority of threads are.

Off to the McLaren Vale Divine tasting tonite to taste about 90 over-extracted, over-blown, inelegant, non-ageworthy, fruit-bomb, not-so-good (but incredibly popular) wines. Gosh, aren't we Ozzies just sooooooooooo booooooorish!!

Aussie Johns wrote:Well, Mr Guest.
I would be happy to post on that site, but I have no intention of paying the subscription for the effort.

You can post on the BB for free - there's no subscription required for that. Tchnically it's still the Squires BB, its just on the eRP site...

cheers,
Graeme

Aussie Johns wrote:Well, Mr Guest.
I would be happy to post on that site, but I have no intention of paying the subscription for the effort.
Not sure why anyone would bother, given there are a zillion free forums available. And to be honest, I am not really interested where Mr Parker or Mr Rovani wined and dined in the States, it is of no relevance to me.

I read that site from time to time, usually for a laugh, which is what the majority of threads are.

Off to the McLaren Vale Divine tasting tonite to taste about 90 over-extracted, over-blown, inelegant, non-ageworthy, fruit-bomb, not-so-good (but incredibly popular) wines. Gosh, aren't we Ozzies just sooooooooooo booooooorish!!

The forum is free to post on. You just have to register.

Aussie Johns wrote:Well, Mr Guest.

Off to the McLaren Vale Divine tasting tonite to taste about 90 over-extracted, over-blown, inelegant, non-ageworthy, fruit-bomb, not-so-good (but incredibly popular) wines. Gosh, aren't we Ozzies just sooooooooooo booooooorish!!

Or pretentious whining assholes...whichever you prefer.

Tried the '96 Edmunds St. John and wasn't that interested, although to be fair it had sat on a shelf for a couple of years in the bottle shop. If it was tasting how it was meant to I would say that it was very dry, not terribly powerful by any means, and had a very odd nose that I couldn't describe in hindsight (but I remember it wasn't terribly pleasant) and v.green tannins. Don't know enough about the wines to support or damn.

As for only making wine to go with food, bah! Can't tell you how many times I ran into this opinion in France. Personally, I rarely drink wine with food unless dinner is ready half way through a bottle, or friends come over for dinner (even then a bottle or two are consumed before we get to the table).

AJ, don't worry about it so much, we all know what we like, and they do too.

regards,

Great news AJ, you can hate Jancis Robinson as well as well as the Americans and the French.

Beepa wrote:Is there anyone out there still making wines for drinking? And I do mean drinking, as in taking a good old mouthful and swallowing it - not sipping, nor tasting which is a different thing altogether.

Let me tell you what I enjoy most about wine. I like washing down a meal with mouthfuls of the delicious and stimulating liquid that is the fermented juice of the grape. I love the miraculously varied taste of different wines, and the way they go so well with so many foods, partly because, unlike so many other drinks, they are not sweet.

But wine is changing and, to my mind and palate, becoming very
much more difficult to drink - especially with food.

Since an increasing proportion of wine is now drunk without food, especially in anglo-saxon countries, it has become sweeter-tasting, even if this is unrecognised by most consumers. But the chief problem is that over the last five years or so it has also become so much stronger. When I started writing about wine in the mid 1970s many a red bordeaux contained only about 10.5 per cent alcohol - and anything over 12.5 per cent was exceptional. Today wines less than 13 per cent alcohol are rarer and rarer, while an increasing proportion of labels confess to alcoholic strengths of 14 or 15 per cent - about the same as sherry.

Dear Mr Guest (or Uncle Sam, if you would prefer)..

I prefer to be known as a pretentious wine-ing arsehole rather than a pretentious whining asshole, if you please.
The great news is that I get to taste some of Mr Edmunds products this weekend, so I will offer my humble opinion on his (obviously good, you ignorant Aussie cretin) wines on Monday.

I am surprised at how thin-skinned some of you Americans remain, despite having the wrath of most of the rest of the world pointed squarely at you over the past decade. Still, little Jonny and littler Tony will still be your friends.(at least until the next elections, when both will get their just rewards for their dis-honest dealings in the WOMD fiasco)

Murray-
Thanks for that. Jancis was already on my list, well and truly, and for many years. Cutie-pie, dumb-arse journos who smoke two packets a day aren't my cup of tea. However, her latest book, confessions of a wine bore, is one of the world's great insomnia cures.

PS- Ilove the French, and everything about France. My favourite country, without a doubt (except Oz, of course)

Oops, your'e right AJ, it's simmwho hates the French in this context.

simm wrote:As for only making wine to go with food, bah! Can't tell you how many times I ran into this opinion in France.

Aussie Johns,

I think you have this completely wrong. Here is a link to the original letter that Edmunds wrote:

http://www.westcoastwine.net/forums/vie ... hp?t=89282

Please note he only mentions California.

And I agree with him - it would be awful if all Shiraz was overextracted, over-ripe and high in alcohol. One of the great thngs about Aussie shiraz is the breadth of styles, whereas the 'cult' wines that sell for high prices in the US tend to lean much more toward Mr Parker's preferences.

Rob

Since an increasing proportion of wine is now drunk without food, especially in anglo-saxon countries, it has become sweeter-tasting, even if this is unrecognised by most consumers. But the chief problem is that over the last five years or so it has also become so much stronger. When I started writing about wine in the mid 1970s many a red bordeaux contained only about 10.5 per cent alcohol - and anything over 12.5 per cent was exceptional. Today wines less than 13 per cent alcohol are rarer and rarer, while an increasing proportion of labels confess to alcoholic strengths of 14 or 15 per cent - about the same as sherry.

Yep, because they are letting the grapes ripen as distinct from making them thin, green and unripe. If thats a retrograde step, so be it!