"Interesting" Penfolds Grange Vertical Review

[Craig(NZ)]

http://www.geoffkellywinereviews.co.nz/index.php?ArticleID=209

What does everyone think?

[Panda 9D]

Grange IS overrated (mainly in terms of price) but so is Lafite and just about any other 'trophy' wine. Grape juice just isn't worth $800 a bottle.

This guy, however, has an extremely narrow view of what wines should be. He likes cool climate.. fine, but it isn't the only game in town.

[sjw_11]

I agree: interesting but seems to be a relatively narrow viewpoint... For example he also appears to be extremely sensitive to "eucalyptus" seeing it in nearly every Aussie wine he tastes (which is not that many based on this recent reviews)

I think the whole concept of terroir is the aim of an Aussie red should be to be an Aussie red, not a cote rotie, Austrian Sylvaner, or an Argentian Malbec etc.

I do agree though there has been a degree of "over ripeness" as a goal in and of itself in Aussie wine, manifested in alcohol too high, and to a degree (particularly if you mainly only taste well known and major SA labels) this does in fact cloud the "terroir" and quality that could otherwise be achieved... Probably also hurts cellar-a-bility too.

[AaronL]

I don't think he does himself any favours:

by nearly doubling the price of the latest release of Grange shiraz from around $500 to more than $800 per 750 ml bottle

But follows that up with

2008 Penfolds [ Shiraz ] Bin 95 Grange 18 ½ + South Australia, Australia: 14.5%; $899
2007 Penfolds [ Shiraz ] Bin 95 Grange 18 South Australia, Australia: 14.5%; $769

Perhaps I have a different definition of what "nearly doubling" is

[Brucer]

This is a comment he made about 2004 Mt Edelstone. HUH!

It is very hard to take these euc'y shirazes seriously, when they can't be run constructively in international tastings.

[mjs]

jeez, something crawled up this guy's bum ... a very petulant narrow minded review in my opinion

did he have his rattle taken by an Aussie playmate at kinder one day?

Seriously, its hard to take such hyperbole seriously, he is doing exactly what he complains about in the promotion of Grange by others.

Grange is not my favourite style, but its still a bloody good wine. I've certainly tasted lots of Barossa wines that do conform with his complaints though.

[tarija]

Good to see the NZ reviewer tell it as he sees it. He is less likely to be subject to conflicts of interest when reviewing Australian wine, and he sounds like he has quite a broad international perspective with which to compare.

He doesn't bag all Australian wines - very high ratings for stuff like RWT 2002-03, Bin 389 2005, 2006, etc. Even said to go long on the 2005 and 2006. In fact, seems pretty fair if anything.

Addendum: the reviewer looks like he's been in the wine game for as long as James Halliday, writing wine articles for NZ publications starting in the 80s...nowadays he also contributes articles to The World of Fine Wine magazine (probably the best wine magazine in the world) - he definitely would know his stuff.

[dan_smee]

I am so conflicted reading this. It is like the embodiment of the 'wine-snob' argument that is so frustrating. It is always the ones complaining about wine snobs who epitomise everything that the passing wine appreciator would expect to see in a wine snob. There is no middle ground with wine snobbery either - it is either overblown, exotic, exuberant and exhausting prose, or so downplayed and targeted towards the VB market ("when all you want is a bloody good wine!") that it dumbs down everything that makes wine unique.

The reason this article does just that is that it rightly lambasts Penfolds for the ridiculous claims of peking duck and tightly packed liquorice (seriously? WTF is the difference between tightly packed liquorice, and the regular packed kind???), yet is so narrow in its focus that it lumps all Australian reds into a generic fruit bomb category ("so much of what passes for red wine in Australia" and any number of a multitude of comments regarding his derision for warmer climate wines). He seems to only value subtlety in what he refers to as the Syrah style - subtlety can also read "boring". Big wines have their place, and can be every bit as intoxicating, captivating and ethereal as 'elegant, subtle' wines.

So I am conflicted. I love his note writing style. An economy of bombastic descriptors, and an abundance of useful information. Such a shame that he has his blinkers on and can't be relied upon to judge a variety of wine styles for their respective qualities in their style field. I rate his article a 16, or 3 stars. He provided some solid structure, but it was lacking overall with regards to balance, length and purity of fruit flavour.

[Luke W]

In some ways he's doing what we all do and that's cutting the legs out from the tall poppy. We're a bit sensitive about Grange cause it's our national treasure (and if he's a Kiwi then it's probably sour grapes because they still don't have anything on the world stage yet). He's entitled to his view (after all who can afford to drink 7 or 8 Granges) and his general impressions in terms of preference aren't too far off the mark from our own judges. I quite like euc'y -used to be a fan of Greg Follett's Benoota and that's a lot more euc'y.
The thing is this - we know that Grange is a good wine and most Granges are as good as most other wines made in Oz in any particular year but we also know that it should be about $100 a bottle rather than $800 if it was going to represent true value. Because its put itself on that pedestal it deserves to cop the flack as well as the adulation.

[mjs]

Firstly, my view is that Grange is overpriced, but what icon wines aren't? Combination of quality, marketing, snob value, stupid buyers. If Pennies can get the asking price for grange, then why wouldn't you as a good business plan!

I think everyone is entitled to his/her opinions, Grange has a certain style, some do not like the VA which seems to be present on occasions, but clearly he doesn't like Australian red wine in general, probably preferring what he would consider as more elegant, lighter styles. To me however, a dislike for a style should not blinker you to recognising that particular wines are good and enjoyable! This is where I think his prejudices shine through on occasion ... here's a couple of quotes

it actually smells winey, unlike so much of what passes as red wine in Australia, including from Penfolds.

There is some euc taint, but what can you say: simply that the wine would be so much better without it – but then you reflect the Aussies can't even see it.

Australian to a fault.

So, for me its hard to really take seriously

[GraemeG]

I think he's pretty close to the money, on the whole, although quite how Gimblet Gravels has become a top world region for syrah in less than a decade puzzles me a bit (which is not to deny it might look that way in 30 years). He's certainly right about the pricing, and the merciless corporate outlook of Penfolds' owners. He's also right about the fact that the last 10 Grange vintages are resolutely 14.5%, which you almost never saw until the late-90s, so Grange did indeed suffer the same disease as the rest of Oz shiraz.
The defence might consist of the fact that the wine is (theoretically) meant to be drunk at 20+ years, not 5-12 as he's tasted them, but he does concede the performance of older vintages.
But I'm still inclining to the view that many, many Australian reds had a very bad decade from 98-08, for a lot of the reasons he mentions in the context of his discussion about South Australian reds.
And I don't think Grange is an exception to that...
GG

[Polymer]

I don't necessarily feel that his overall assessment was off..but he has a bit of an outdated view of both Australians and Americans that was a bit meh...I feel like if he wrote this 6-8 years ago, it would've been a bit more accurate but since it isn't, makes him sound a bit sour/jealous/uninformed...

[Mahmoud Ali]

Frankly I don't see what the fuss is about, Geoff Kelly is a writer with an opinion and he isn't far off the mark. He thinks the Grange is overpriced and hyped and I think almost everyone agrees with that regardless of the fact that so are other wines.

He prefers the older Granges to the recent crop is an opinion and I think that is fair comment. Lots of people think that the older Australian wines were made differently and the same may be said about other wine areas including Bordeaux.

Talking about over ripe high alcohol Australian wines is nothing new and, although there are plenty of exceptions, many consider it a trait of Australian wines. As far back as 2001 Jeremy Oliver in his On Wine annual wrote:".....for despite a generally magnificent Australian red wine season in 1998, there are still far too many red wines whose making miserably fails to to realise the potential of this special vintage." I seem to recall that many posters here are also of the opinion that the many of 1998s haven't lived up to the hype.

Oliver went on to say "Too many Australian red wines are made from fruit which has travelled well beyond normal ripeness, be it flavour or physiological. Not only do these wines taste of shrivelled, dried out fruits such as prunes and raisins, but they lack life and freshness, the sort of vitality which can even ten year-old wines taste young." It was Brian Croser of Petaluma fame who also criticised these wines as "dead fruit" wines.

As to the eucalyptus comment I clearly remember wineries that I visited back in 2001 talking about their efforts to eliminate or minimize the eucalyptus effect/flaw in their wines by reducing or removing the gum trees in the area of their vineyards. Chateau Taltarni (as they were then called) is one that comes to mind. Much like the "burnt rubber" flavour and aroma in some South African wines the eucalyptus effect in Australian wines is also something that has been researched and studied. Initially the South Africans were very sensitive to the issue but eventually had to deal with it and now I believe have discovered the culprit to be a virus of some kind. That someone should observe and criticise the eucalyptus character in some Australian wines should not automatically mean that the writer is anti-Australian.

Referring to the "subtle" versus the "bold" styles it is not only Geoff Kelly who prefers the subtle style which, as anyone ought to know, is not synonymous with boring. In other parts of the world there are winemakers purposely choose to label their wine either "Shiraz" or "Syrah" depending on the style they wish to emulate. One producer from South Africa, Graham Beck, labels their lower end wine Shiraz and their single vineyard wine Syrah. Castagna from Beechworth, one of the best wineries in Australia, deliberately (I presume) chose to call their wine Syrah instead of Shiraz to highlight a difference. A preference does not necessarily mean a bias.

One more thing. I've read that Penfold's sometimes uses powdered tannins in the making of Grange.

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

[burgster]

I think he writes well and without bias. He has still scored the wines quite highly and his relative ratings of the various vintages is probably on the mark, not many of you have commented on that.

[tarija]

I think he writes well and without bias. He has still scored the wines quite highly and his relative ratings of the various vintages is probably on the mark, not many of you have commented on that.

It's a tough life, writing about Australian wine.

You get slandered if you are overly optimistic and give too many wines 96 points. On the other hand, you don't get taken seriously, or are accused of hyperbole, if you are critical about some Australian wines.

[mjs]

bah humbug .... its my birthday and I'm going home to a fat rib eye and a bottle of Grange

[Polymer]

I think he writes well and without bias. He has still scored the wines quite highly and his relative ratings of the various vintages is probably on the mark, not many of you have commented on that.

It's a tough life, writing about Australian wine.

You get slandered if you are overly optimistic and give too many wines 96 points. On the other hand, you don't get taken seriously, or are accused of hyperbole, if you are critical about some Australian wines.

I don't think his assessment was off...he just wanted to take his fair share of shots at Australian wine in general...and has a bit of an outdated view of a lot of things that weren't really necessary to his review...To me it was the equivalent that we see on US Wine boards...where all they know about Australian wine is the 10 years of fruit bombs that were getting sent there and thinking all Aussie wine is like that....

[mjs]

I think he writes well and without bias. He has still scored the wines quite highly and his relative ratings of the various vintages is probably on the mark, not many of you have commented on that.

It's a tough life, writing about Australian wine.

You get slandered if you are overly optimistic and give too many wines 96 points. On the other hand, you don't get taken seriously, or are accused of hyperbole, if you are critical about some Australian wines.

I don't think his assessment was off...he just wanted to take his fair share of shots at Australian wine in general...and has a bit of an outdated view of a lot of things that weren't really necessary to his review...To me it was the equivalent that we see on US Wine boards...where all they know about Australian wine is the 10 years of fruit bombs that were getting sent there and thinking all Aussie wine is like that....

Pretty much agree with Polymer on this, his reviews were ok, it was the other comments that were a bit off.

[mjs]

bah humbug .... its my birthday and I'm going home to a fat rib eye and a bottle of Grange

Like I said, brontosaurus steak and 99 Grange



Steak was glorious, Grange a bit disappointing

[Panda 9D]

Happy Birthday mjs.

[mjs]

Thanks.

Not from a renowned year, this bottle was acquired in Adelaide a couple of years ago, not entirely sure of provenance. The 99 had good colour, med dark red purple, bouquet was definitely Grange with a bit too much VA at first, good flavour, but a bit one dimensional, was a bit too porty, this improved over a couple of hours and some complexity was trying to come through, but didn't quite get there. Good but not great, certainly not worth the price you would have to pay for it.

[wiggum]

Here here Dan Smee. Just another disgruntled kiwi.

[TiggerK]

Another quote from GK (taken out of context but stands alone really) from his recent Chardonnay thread...

The results (for winewriting) are therefore like most Australian winewriting, bizarrely chauvinistic, myopic, over-praising, and downright misleading.

[daz]

Another quote from GK (taken out of context but stands alone really) from his recent Chardonnay thread...

The results (for winewriting) are therefore like most Australian winewriting, bizarrely chauvinistic, myopic, over-praising, and downright misleading.

Pot, kettle, kettle pot!

[Mahmoud Ali]

Another quote from GK (taken out of context but stands alone really) from his recent Chardonnay thread...

The results (for winewriting) are therefore like most Australian winewriting, bizarrely chauvinistic, myopic, over-praising, and downright misleading.

I think what I quoted from Jeremy Oliver (above post) is an example of writing that is NOT "chauvinistic, myopic, over-praising, and downright misleading". I don't really know Mr Kelly's work but the quote above does itself seem misleading.

Mahmoud.

[Craig(NZ)]

These two reviews from his website written on the same wine. I wrote to him to ask him how he explains such glaring inconsistancies. I never received a reply. Good bottle? bad bottle? Good reviewer? Bad reviewer?

2007 Te Mata Estate [ Cabernets / Merlot ] Coleraine 18 + ()Havelock Hills, Hawkes Bay, New Zealand: 14%; $72 [ cork – superb 55 mm costing c.$2 each; hand-harvested CS 52%, Me 34, CF 14; de-stemmed, extended cuvaison; average vine age 20 + years; 20 months in French oak 75% new; http://www.temata.co.nz ] Ruby, carmine and velvet, a notch less dense than the top wines, about midway in depth, more a match for the Cheval Blanc, but the hue fresher. Bouquet stands apart from the New Zealand wines mentioned so far in this tasting, in that it is more subtle, more restrained, more integrated, perhaps less oaky, and more Medoc-like. The actual quality of the cabernet-influenced bouquet reminds me of some lesser Margaux classed growths. Palate does not quite match the bouquet, however – there is often this worry in the Te Mata claret styles, that in pursuing elegance they lose sight of the old American truism, that a good big one will always beat a smaller good one. So here there is not quite the richness of ripe berry, and there is the slightest undertone of leaf, as characterises many fine Medocs in sub-optimal years. But, 2007 was a fine year in Hawkes Bay, and 2007 Coleraine doesn't quite show that. The quality of oak is good, though, adding to the resemblance to Bordeaux. In terms of finesse, Coleraine is at best unmatched in New Zealand, and this leads to high praise from visiting European wine critics habituated to standard Bordeaux – which is the unashamed model for both Coleraine and Awatea. But this wine in a great Hawke's Bay year is not quite as ripe as the Cheval Blanc in a fairly standard year. So, the tide has come in around Coleraine, and if it is to regain its place as New Zealand's top Bordeaux blend, rather than resting on its laurels, it needs to be both riper and richer. Hopefully cropping rate will be the place to start, in correcting this. Cellar 5 – 25 years. GK 01/10

2007 Te Mata [ Cabernets / Merlot ] Coleraine 19 ()Havelock Hills, Hawkes Bay, New Zealand: 14%; $72 [ cork – superb 55 mm costing c. $2 each; hand-harvested CS 52%, Me 34, CF 14; extended cuvaison; average vine age 20 + years; 20 months in French oak 75% new; http://www.temata.co.nz ] Ruby, carmine and velvet, a classic youthful claret colour, fractionally deeper and clearly younger than the 2005, but not a huge wine. Bouquet is sweetly floral, more floral than 2007 Craggy Range Sophia, with great cassisy berry reflecting the higher cabernet percentage, still very primary alongside the 2005. Palate is delightfully fleshy for a high-cabernet wine, every bit as good as the 2005 and probably better in the long run, with wonderfully subtle and integrated cedary oak. These two Coleraines are reminiscent of the before-their-time '82 and '83 wines, but now exhibiting more finesse, ripeness, richness and technical control. The Margaux analogy is even more apposite here. They show exactly why British winewriters increasingly say the best Hawkes Bay cabernet / merlot is the closest competitor Bordeaux has. Cellar either of these wines with great confidence for 10 – 20 + years, and open them only for people who appreciate fine wines sculpted in a classical style. Even so, that means buying two cases, to have only one bottle a year over their cellar-life (less than 20 years north of Taupo). Coming back to the wine at the re-tasting against notes stage, it is the best Coleraine ever, I think. Dry extract seems greater than the 2005. The whole wine is in a much more classical and understated Bordeaux / Medoc style than the matching blend 2007 Craggy Range The Quarry. Good too that Te Mata have reduced their price c.7% on their 2007 range, reflecting current economic vicissitudes. VALUE GK 03/09

On the Grange thing I think some comments above reflect my thoughts. 1. No it aint worth the dosh. 2. Yes it is good wine especially after some time in the cellar.