The Auswine Forum

Can anyone give me their tasting notes on this wine - it seems to be garnishing some favourable press at the moment and I wanted to find out whether its justified before committing to buying any number of dozens.......

Luke - Here's a direct cut and paste jobby from *Moredsir on Brian's very helpful website:

Teusner 2010 Riebke Shiraz $16.90
ok, I just don't get it, or perhaps I do and Halliday doesn't. This is not remotely a 96 pointer, it's not even a 92 in my non-scoring book. It's green and hard, with a raspberry tinge, and acid slightly too high with regard to fruit balance. The nose is somewhat light and bland, palate has very little complexity. Cannot imagine this going the long haul with it's tannins and structure but JH knows more than me so I'll argue with him in 2030. Rates a Agreeable *** for me even at $17. I'll let the bottle age a coupla days more, maybe 2 hours breathing wasn't enough for this $16 'Grange'.

pc79 wrote:Luke - Here's a direct cut and paste jobby from *Moredsir on Brian's very helpful website:

Teusner 2010 Riebke Shiraz $16.90
ok, I just don't get it, or perhaps I do and Halliday doesn't. This is not remotely a 96 pointer, it's not even a 92 in my non-scoring book. It's green and hard, with a raspberry tinge, and acid slightly too high with regard to fruit balance. The nose is somewhat light and bland, palate has very little complexity. Cannot imagine this going the long haul with it's tannins and structure but JH knows more than me so I'll argue with him in 2030. Rates a Agreeable *** for me even at $17. I'll let the bottle age a coupla days more, maybe 2 hours breathing wasn't enough for this $16 'Grange'.

yow! that's a bit scarey - thanks - any other opinions?

I bought a dozen last night. But then again I always but half a dozen each year as I think it is a good drop for the price. I don't think you can go too wrong with it being 2010 but I don't think it will go 20 years - I think it is a good 5-10 proposition but that is based on all the other vintages I have had - not the 2010

I really enjoy Teusner as a whole and think they offer good value for money across the range.

Haven't tried the 2010 yet but the 09 was pretty solid, perhaps a little on the jubey, confected side for me but decent value. God knows how this is a 96 point wine though, seriously. When I first started drinking wine about 4 years ago I purchased a few Halliday 96 pointers under $20 and thought, wow is this really close to a perfect wine?? I think Halliday devalues his brand with his ratings, I cannot imagine the Riebke is as good as the Teusner FG wines for example. For me the 09 Riebke was an 89-91 point wine.

I'd agree with Rosewaterwrx, Luke. It's good, but 4% from perfection? I don't think so. Buy a bottle to try, then go nuts if it's what you like. Knowing a little of what you like I can't see you buying dozens. As for Halliday, I remarked yesterday at a tasting that he has a five point scale. 95 is the low end and 100 the top. Shame really, I thought his ratings were good about 10 or 12 years back, but sadly I think they have deteriorated since.
Just my 2 cents.
Let us know what you decide to do.

I took your advice Rens, and bought a bottle this morning. I then decanted it for a couple of hours and have spent the last 10 minutes swishing it around the Riedel trying to get it into balance with my olfactory system.

The wine is a dark bloody crimson and it smells better from a distance rather than up close, as it initially overpowers the senses with a hot aroma of rhubarb and bubble gum. I think I can smell the jubey/confectionary that you mentioned, Rosewaterwrx - a powerful set of aromas that would probably stand out in a crowd for jaded palates or nasal mucosas after tasting 100 other wines (making excuses for JH). The interesting thing here is the more I shake around the wine the more muted the esters appear to become but if I leave it sit for a minute or so the fragrance returns.

My first sip is pleasant but not quite meeting the expectation brought on by the aroma. The wine has obvious balance, nice tannins and agreeable fruit flavour. The second and third swills give evidence to the potential of the wine - lots more red and black berry fruits, more harmony and more layers of flavour.

Another 10 minutes goes by and the aroma has become strawberries and raspberries and the heat has blown off the top. The oak is lovely and I suspect that the wine will stay fairly approachable for quite a while before it starts to settle or go into a dormant phase. My guess is that it'll last at least 10 or 15 years in good cellaring and will become more elegant. Its grown on the Ebenezer vineyards, is 14.5% and seems a straight shiraz (but with that nose it wouldn't surprise me if there were some extra aromatics or a percent or two of viognier).

I like it and will be happy to buy a dozen and drink them slowly over the next decade or so. If I had to rate the wine I'd give it around 94-95 points.

Cheers

Luke

And hence why I hate the 100 point ratings system. Halliday starts from about 90 these days and his point creep is getting worse. Basically every wine gets 90 just for turning up. Every semi half decent wine is now a 94, 95 or 96. Several years ago if he gave a wine 94+ you knew it was a really good wine. Now I have tried some of his 94 point wines and thought "what the?". In fairness to him though, every now and again I do taste one of his highly rated wines and it blows me away. It is getting harder and harder to find a critic who is really balanced in the way they rate the wines. Every second wine has a good Halliday review attached to the marketing hype these days. Makes me question whether or not he (Halliday) is at the service of the big wine companies nowadays.

I really liked the Big Red WIne Book, but sadly that doesn't seem to have been released this year. If they have gone internet only then this is sad. Maybe the book didn't sell enough to make it viable, I hope not. By the time you have subscribed to a few review sites to get a wide selection of wines reviewed, it gets rather expensive.

Luke, I am sure that the wine in mention is a decent wine. But the question then is...what about Teusner's top tier and better wines? I have had a couple of Kim's wines and to be honest, they are very good. The Joshua and Avatar are always exceptional. The Albert is very, very good. If his basically bottom wine is getting a 96, it doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room if he releases better wines does it. They will be 97 and 98's. This is Grange territory. I once asked Jeremy Oliver at a wine dinner how he could give a $20 wine 95 points and a $200 wine the same mark when it is obvious the $200 wine is much superior. He wouldn't give me a straight answer. A wine should be marked on what it is and the price shouldn't come into it. At least Halliday has addressed this in some way, as he now gives good value wines a pink star in his books and web site.

The sooner the 100 point system is banished the better as far as I am concerned.

Rant over.

Cheers
Ian

Point taken Ian. I served the wine with Osso Bucco last night to a couple of afficionado's and they thought the wine was stunning for its price point. I think you're right - we probably don't even look at a wine that scores below 95 points anymore and for some silly reason we believe in the scores that almost any reputable wine taster bestows. The ridiculous thing is that most wines are tasted and reviewed far too early and don't really score the wine at its peak (or indeed at its trough!). I suppose then that its difficult to determine whether the 96 point Grange is a better or worse wine than a 96 point Riebke unless we add another dimension - and maybe that's why the French Classification and the Langton's Lists exist - to assist us with an extra way of determining quality.

The subjectivity of wine is a sensitive issue - so often I like or hate a wine in contrast to my peers. A friend yesterday got quite indignant when I tipped out a glass of the NZ Riesling that he brought along. I just found it too sweet and cloying compared with the racy, astringent Aussie examples that I prefer. He prefers the NZ rieslings - his point scores would be the reverse of mine.........

Remember the last wine night - so much disagreement about what we each thought of particular wines.

Cheers

Luke

I think Halliday is becoming an easy target on his ratings these days but rather than offer opinion on that I thought I would check how some of the statistics look based on his most recent book. These numbers are what I could work out from a search of the winecompanion website (so may not be perfect but think are pretty close to correct). Numbers are all for 2012 book (according to the website, which I am not sure exactly match what the book says).

Total wines reviewed: 9296: 94-100 - 2168 (23.32%), 90-93 - 3154 (33.93%), 87-89 - 2434, 84-86 - 1161, 80-83 - 355, 75-79 - 24

From what I could gather from his best of the best list - ratings 96 or more: 100 - 2, 99 - 0, 98 - 4, 97 - 44 (0.47%), 96 - 255 (2.74%)

Other random numbers: 307 of 1003 (30.61%) Chardonnays get 94 or more (43 get 96 or more, 4.3%), 592 of 1762 (33.6%) Shiraz get 94 or more (114 get 96 or more, 6.47%).

Now I should do some real work.

ticklenow1 wrote:And hence why I hate the 100 point ratings system. Halliday starts from about 90 these days and his point creep is getting worse. Basically every wine gets 90 just for turning up. Every semi half decent wine is now a 94, 95 or 96. Several years ago if he gave a wine 94+ you knew it was a really good wine.

I agree there has been some point creep in Halliday's ratings. It would be interesting if mf did some retrospective number crunching to see whether the numbers bear out that assumption.

ticklenow1 wrote:I really liked the Big Red WIne Book, but sadly that doesn't seem to have been released this year. If they have gone internet only then this is sad. Maybe the book didn't sell enough to make it viable, I hope not. By the time you have subscribed to a few review sites to get a wide selection of wines reviewed, it gets rather expensive.

Not sure why the BRWB wasn't released this year, but the winefront site still has the best reviews IMHO. I think there is a little point inflation there also, but I think that is more enthusiasm for wine than anything else!

ticklenow1 wrote:The sooner the 100 point system is banished the better as far as I am concerned.

Rant over.

Cheers
Ian

Not sure about banishing things (other than cane toads maybe) but I focus on the descriptors. I avoid the ones I dislike (such as "strawberry", "green pepper", "smokey" or "charred") and look for the ones I like (for example "black cherry", "spice" and "chocolate"). I take the points as a very rough indicator of overall quality (90-94 = likely to be good to very good; 94+ likely to be very good to excellent).

And unless something has a 10 year + track record I would never buy a dozen sight unseen. I don't think I even bought any of my regulars this year without tasting them first. I think it it worth the investment to go out and buy a bottle, even at 'single bottle' price, to try before I buy.

Sounds like I should try a Riebke - although I am somewhat already over budget for 2011.

Cheers

Michael

Reminds me of the 97pt 1997 Abercorn Shiraz affair I think I have forgiven JH now but at the time I was a little miffed after trying the first bottle of my stash.

Sometimes one can make a mistake I suppose. With over 9000 wines there will be more than a few. Also, it is the overrated that gain more exposure than the underrated.

cheers

Carl

Luke W wrote: I served the wine with Osso Bucco last night to a couple of afficionado's and they thought the wine was stunning for its price point.

This is where i think Halliday's interpretation may be? Ratings based on price point not overall quality?

Either way as some others and myself have said Teusner is producing some very good quality across the range. At around the price point the Kalleske Pirathon gets a nod from me as well and is a staple half dozen buy each year .....

I've not tried the Riebke 2010 but have enjoyed earlier vintages, so 96pts does seem high even though an earlier poster here was giving the wine 94-95pts. What seems to be forgotten here is that most tasting notes and ratings are but reports/assessments of moments in time.

On first tasting Metala Langhorne Creek Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon 2009 and getting a big gob-full of black fruits, I thought, "Yeah, that's a 90pt wine for me." So I checked the Wine Companion - Halliday rating is 89pts, also mentions the black fruits.

Teisto wrote:

Luke W wrote: I served the wine with Osso Bucco last night to a couple of afficionado's and they thought the wine was stunning for its price point.

This is where i think Halliday's interpretation may be? Ratings based on price point not overall quality?

That's why sub 90pt wines are given good value stars................