The Auswine Forum

Folks,

Every so often I've encountered wines and wineries, where my appreciation differs markedly from one or other wine critic - and I do mean in either direction. One such instance for me is wines from Eagle Vale. I've enjoyed four or so wines from this winery and yet one prominant critic gives this winery a lowish rating and similar low ratings to one or more of the wines I've enjoyed a lot.

Differences in preferences are, of course, a feature of wine appreciation. Nonetheless, I'd value comments from those who have tasted multiple wines from Eagle Vale or know something about the wine making chioces favoured by Eagle Vale's wine makers.

Looking forward to any comments,

John

I have had a fair few Eagle Vale wines over the years and generally have liked them, especially their chardonnay, fume blanc and cab sav. I haven't bought as much recently due to price hikes and I haven't visited the winery for a couple of years. The winemakers are French and were looking to make more European style wines and certainly their chardonnay I found quite steely and minerally. The fume blanc style I really liked and they claimed it would age well - I had a few at age 5-8, which became lovely and buttery with a crisp finish, so I was happy enough with them for sure with a bit of age. Their 2001 cab sav was outstanding and one of the best cab savs I have had from Margs. I tend to like my wines with a bit of age so some palate bias may be evident here!

Cheers

Dave

I have a couple of bottles of the 2004 Eagle Vale Whispering Lake Single Vineyard Cab Sauv. Will cellar well for a few more years and I think that its an absolute ripsnorter - although I was left scratching my head because it seems that Halliday gave it a pretty average rating from memory.

I'm curious as to why you don't name the critic?

Panda9D,

"Differences in preferences are, of course, a feature of wine appreciation"

I guess the poster just wanted other poster's opinions as opposed to another thread about critics (and how many people agree/disagree with them.) Being the tallest poppy, Halliday is usually the no.1 target for Halliday-wannabes. It's rather a tired topic.........

I assumed it was Halliday but their website has good ratings/quotes from Halliday so I was just curious. You make a fair point about critic bashing though.

Folks,

Yes it was JH. Eagle Vale may quote him selectively, I have not checked; I find JH's comments on Eagle Vale on his Wine Companion website to be faint praise - but the trigger for my post was specific wines: several sub-90 scores for wines I liked a lot.

I left out JH's identity because I wanted impressions on Eagle Vale wines; views on the validity of JH's judgements generally were not my interest here.

Suffice to say, I am reassured that my incredulity with some scores is backed up by comments made above. I have not followed JH threads; I am intrigued by suggestions that others too have found large differences between their appreciation of EV wines and JH's ratings on those wines.

JH might be a terrifically astute judge, nonetheless. But if so, it underscores the large scope for differences in appreciation of specific wines among those with a deep affection for wine.

Cheers,

John

Softie wrote:JH might be a terrifically astute judge, nonetheless. But if so, it underscores the large scope for differences in appreciation of specific wines among those with a deep affection for wine.

Cheers,

John

Sorry I can't comment on the wines themselves as I have only had them at tastings, but you make an underappreciated point. Wine styles judges/critics like vs styles they don't like or don't "get". Impartiality can be maximised by practice, taken into account in assessments, etc. but it will always be there.

Pleased you like the wines John! The most important bit!

Cheers

Michael

Bullshit! Halliday always rates wines too highly! Just ask all the JH bashers! He cops flak regardless. Walsh and Mattinson are often a point or two lower than his but I've seen a number of JH ratings three, four or five points lower than theirs. Haven't tried any Eagle Vale wines but will check TWF and TWC to gain some impressions.

Since someone brought it up...

JH does rate wines too highly....at least in the last 5-10 years or so......Everywhere but Australia his ratings are considered a bit of a joke...I don't know what happened, he's obviously very knowledgeable and very respected...But his scale has totally gone nuts when it comes to scoring a wine...

Actually a lot of Australian critics rate things too highly....It is at the point where their scale starts at around 93...and JH's starts at 95....I know that isn't true but it does start feeling like it...

I really do apologise.. it was my question that turned this thread to the exact thing you said you didn't want it to become.

Softie wrote: - but the trigger for my post was specific wines: several sub-90 scores for wines I liked a lot.

I think here in a nutshell is the problem, the 100-point system reduced to a 10-point scale:

90-100: good to excellent wines, those we like and seek to buy and cellar.
01-89: poor to less than good wines, those that disappoint and cause one to second guess their worth.

Points shouldn't matter that much, the emphasis should be on the producer and their reputation. If you like the wine, drink it; if you want to cellar it don't worry about the points, they often aren't an accurate guide. Trust the producer and their track record for making durable wine that stand the test of time.

Examples of poorly rated wine I have thoroughly enjoyed and would love to try again:

'76 Ch. Leoville Poyferre, Bordeaux- Parker 75 pts.
'82 Ch. Pape Clement, Bordeaux - Parker 62 pts., Wine Spectator 84 pts.
'86 Lindemans Pyrus, Coonawarra - Wine Spectator 77 pts., Jeremy Oliver 16/20
'96 Lopez de Heredia, Bosconia Reserva, Rioja -Parker 89 pts., Wine Enthusiast 84 pts., Wine Spectator 80 pts.

Examples of highly rated wines I didn't particularly like and wouldn't buy:

'05 Glaetzer Amon-Ra Shiraz, Barossa - Wine Spectator 92 pts., Jeremy Oliver 15/20 (at least he got it right)
'05 Mollydooker Carnival of Love, McLaren Vale - Parker 98 pts., Wine Spectator 94 pts., Halliday 87 pts

John, rating wines is not only personal but very subjective. There style considerations and for the better wines it an attempt to aim at a moving target, to qualitatively evaluate not only how the wine is in the present but also how it might develop in the future. Don't fret about the points, the experts often get it wrong because with a fine wine that has potential they can't objectively know what it will be like in the future.

In the case of Eagle Vale Winery few wine critics would have had an older bottle since the vineyard was planted in 1997 and the first vintage was 2001. Young vines, few vintages, short track record, European wine making philosophy in an Australian region, a perfect scenario for a bit of guesswork. I've never had the wine but from the few comments I've read it seems that they are making well balanced, cellaring-style wines. And you like it, what more is there to say.

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

Panda 9D wrote:I really do apologise.. it was my question that turned this thread to the exact thing you said you didn't want it to become.

Yeah..but some discussion is better than no discussion...

I personally don't care about scores when I have a chance to try something first..it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks...

But at least when faced with possibly buying something without having tried it, you could pull up some reviews and get an idea based on how they've described it and scored it..but with points inflation, it has all become very nebulous. It even looks like certain iconic wines score the same thing year after year even when comparing fantastic vintages to very mediocre ones...You start to doubt whether some wines are even being tasted or properly evaluated.

Suggestion: Eagle Vale offline dinner!

Mahmoud Ali wrote:... And you like it, what more is there to say.

This is the key.
I am not one for being able to describe a wine in terms of tar, boot leather et al, and mentioned this and the points ratings that 'experts' hand out when at a winery in Clare. The winemaker replied along the lines of "You drink the wine you like to drink.", and that his preferred wine came from about 30km away.

I have never bought (and rellies are informed never to get for me) any of the wine guide type books because I don't want to be influenced by writings of some far distant individual. (and it annoys the crap out of me when at a CD and the individual behind the counter prattles on about scores and trophies to anyone who steps up to the bench top.)

Mahmoud Ali

I agree on the points 90+ vs less than 90. Although I usually don't like reds below, say, 93 points. For whites, I can drink wines that Halliday rates less than 90 as everyday wine.

I may be missing something here, but if I read you correctly, I disagree about producers being the key to a good wine, though. Wine being the variable product it is, I think we need to evaluate each vintage individually. A personal example for me is Mike Press wines. I loved the 2008 Cabernet and the 2009 was also good. But when I bought a 2010 as a sample (I was planning on buying case of it), I didn't like it. It was obviously a Mike Press wine and of high quality (for the price), but it just had something about it that I didn't like (acidity? oak?) Halliday gave it 94, so he also thought it had the quality.

But wine isn't just about technicalities. It's also very personal. The producer is just one of many variables when it comes to judging a wine for one's own consumption.

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious.

Agree on the MP CS 2008, I drank plenty. Wasn't quite so impressed by the 2009, thought the 2010 to be at least equal to the 2009. As you say, it is all about the individual palate.