The Auswine Forum

Few people realize that the little known and mystical Yarra Valley winery of Mt Mary, produces one of Australia's original three icon wines. Quintets, a Bordeaux style blend, sits in the shadows of Grange and Hill of Grace, true greats of the wine-world presented on may occasions to the HKWS.

Museum wines are hard to source at reasonable prices retail. So over the last 18 months, I've sourced well cellared bottles from an Adelaide collector, a failed wine investment fund and worked closely with an auction house that has provenance assessment . Tonight, we will get a complete view of the nineties in vertical and a mini-vertical over dinner with the 2004-2006.

Vertical Tasting-

Mt Mary Quintet 1990
Mt Mary Quintet 1991
Mt Mary Quintet 1992
Mt Mary Quintet 1993
Mt Mary Quintet 1994 ( Steve & Vincci's collection )
Mt Mary Quintet 1995
Mt Mary Quintet 1996
Mt Mary Quintet 1997
Mt Mary Quintet 1998
Mt Mary Quintet 1999
Mt Mary Quintet 2000

Dinner Wines-

2 x Mt Mary Chardonnay 2006
2 x Mt Mary Quintet 2004
2 x Mt Mary Quintet 2005
2 x Mt Mary Quintet 2006 en magnum

Well this is going to be short lived ! I've just sat down to right a report and I have no notes ! Left at the restaurant.

Chateau Palmer 2005 replaced the 1995 Mt Mary. Yering Station Reserve Cabernet 1999 replaced the 2001 Mt Mary. The 2006 Coldstream Hills Reserve chardonnay was as spare that I opened alongside the Mt Mary chardonnay.

Guests were told that two wines failed the line-up due taint and non-arrival. I decided to serve the wines 1990-2001 in the Quintet tasting in reverse chronological order, oldest to youngest, but tasters did not know what the ring-ins were nor what they replaced. Made things a little interseting.

I saw a grown man weep when Palmer was revealed and it came 11th ! Nobody knew Palmer was in the mix and the apologists were silenced when I consulted with the sommelier who'd served this wine dozens of times this year who declared it typical- he'd know the short pour had be up there like a flash and I found a big glass and a third of a bottle still available ! The Yering Station was simplistic in this line up and was rated last. 1990, 1994, 1998 were the top three rated wines.

Mt Mary was a revelation to the Group. Very popular style amongst an Old World drinking crowd. Earlier wines were not in the best shape though performed very well when the opened in the glass.

The group consensus was they are wines of fragrance, elegance and poise.

I'll chase up my notes .....

Thanks to Phil off the forum for the 91,92,93. I'll get some Barolo to you in a vertical for your tasting group.

How did the dinner wines show Jamie ?

Mt Mary Quintet 1990- I bought two from auction where provenance was claimed to be from a wine fridge if I recall correctly. I kept the higher fill for tonight and drank the lower fill a few months ago. The more ullaged bottle turned out better.

Delicate fragrance of red candy and licorice like fruit, faded plum nuances and classic cedar/tobacco/ Island spice. Sits nicely within a long length offering impeccable balance.

Can you imagine how well this wine would be if professionally cellared !

93pts

2 First 3 Seconds 0 Lasts

WOTN for the Group and 5th for Me

Mt Mary Quintet 1991- Cork was very bad. Sodden and broken and having decanted the wine in the morning into a half decanter, washed the bottle out and re-poured I was happy that some aeration in the glass blew off cooked caramel, mulch and warm malt. Blackberry frui emerged with oatmeal, working well with a plump palate richness with that licorice and red fruit like notes and burnt fig.

I do find old world drinkers receive Aussie wines quite well that aren't in great nick.

92pts

4 Firsts 1 Second 1 Last

4th for the Group and 8th for Me.


Mt Mary Quintet 1992- Cooked fruit blew off toward a breazy mint-cassis and more concentrated violet like fruit. Works well on the palate with the fragrant charm that seems to be a common appreciation of the group.

93pts

1 First 2 Seconds 0 Lasts

7th for the Group and 5th for Me

Mt Mary Quintet 1993- Cork was sodden all the way through possible explaining a reticent nose. Again the quality of the wine eventually shone through with alluring cooked prune and plum messing well on the nose, excellent length and balance with a tobacco and hay like infusion.

89pts

8th for Me and 11th for the Group

Mt Mary Quintet 1994- Soft, mellow wine with blackberry/menthol aromatics. Warm, creamy berry driven palate, good length- poweful wine on the finish.

94pts

3 Firsts 3 Seconds 0 Lasts

2nd for the Group and Me

Chateau Palmer 1995- Rich and ripe berry dominated nose, there's some complexity in a mulch/tobacco and spice shade. Voluminous in comparison to Mt Mary with far more weight ad concentration of flavor- far more powerful tannin profile, ripe and firm.

I enjoyed the wine but unlike the tasters I knew it to be Palmer ! Corrected a short pour which is typical of HKG and it's Bordeaux obsession !

94pts

0 Firsts 1 Second 8 Lasts ( Holly F@#$ )

3rd for Me and 12th for the Group. Yep, that's right, the last wine of the night!

Mt Mary Quintet 1996- I love 1996 and this had brilliant aromatics of complex berries and even more complex spiced nuances. Marvelous texture with a delicate creaminess delivering red and black fruit shades with a candied strawberry and cream ripeness.

94pts

12th for the Group and WOTN for me !


Mt Mary Quintet 1997- Reticent and muted perhaps just a lack of vintage intensity? Typical Quintet aromatics emerge in a delicate fragrance. Capsicum, olive high notes on the palate though consensus was the ripeness levels more than appropriate. Long wine- acid spice and resolved tannin.

91pts

0 Firsts 1 Second 1 Last

7th for Me 9th for the Group

Mt Mary Quintet 1998- Stewed fruits, cherry tomato and a candied fruit note. Leather, tobacco and lime too. Very energetic wine with condensed fruit notes on the palate, sage and cpsicum.

93pts+

2 Firsts 2 Seconss 0 Lasts

3rd for Me 4th for the Group


Mt Mary Quintet 1999- Menthol, lolly red fruits, mandarin peel. Subtle vanilla oak. Vibrant, linear acidity with fine tannin.

93pts+

0 Firsts 1 Seconds 0 Lasts

6th for the Group and I

Mt Mary Quintet 2000- Very shy, blackberry, capsicum and some plum. I found the wine had an austerity throughout though plenty in place to rate well.

92pts

0 Firsts 1 Second 0 Lasts

9th for the Group and 9th for Me




Yering Station Reserve Cabernet 1999- I wanted to like this wine but it lacked dimensions and in the line up seemed simple compared to the elegant mystery of MM.

89pts

1 First 5 Lasts

11th for Group 12th for Me.

Dinner Wines-

Mt Mary Chardonnay 2006-Rich, classy peach-melon fruit framed with a steeliness. Very good on the palate, oatmeal with a rich melon texture, oak pokes out a little though softens in the glass, some phenolic grip amongst the grainy oak on the finish. Very enjoyable and well received by the group.

93pts

Coldstream Hills Reserve Chardonnay 2006- More restrained and technically correct than the Mt Mary in the mini shoot out. Very fresh under screwcap, spicy citrus fruit, very natural and correct in its palate feel. Excellent wine. Lauded by most as eclipsing the very good Mt Mary.

94pts

Notes becoming blurred due more a social event now.

Mt Mary Quintet 2004- All class and a stunning Mt Mary. Wine always performs better over dinner with food and a massive pour. Spice, violets, sweet dark fruit- crafted over a great length.

94pts +

Mt Mary Quintet 2005- Over two bottles this wine struggled and needs time to assess.

Mt Mary Quintet 2006 en magnum- One magnum showed signs of less than perfect storage though both from the same failed wine investment fund. Explosive aromatics, warm fruit throughout, oak spice in a great length.

Must have been pretty satisfying as an Antipodean for the MM's to show so well against the Palmer.

They'll be plotting how to get you back no doubt

Great tasting. I'm seeing 1996 becoming a great vintage for a lot of regions in Oz. Seems to surpass anything from the later years of the decade as they put on age. (Barossa, Coonawarra etc)

dave vino wrote:Must have been pretty satisfying as an Antipodean for the MM's to show so well against the Palmer. They'll be plotting how to get you back no doubt.

On the other hand, maybe the Antipodeans don't really understand Bordeaux. The Chateau Palmer website says that their 1995 is "A modern, concentrated wine with good ageing potential". And it goes on to state that the aging potential is, wait for it, 2030+ . So their "plotting" is already in place, you just have to wait about 15 years.

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

Mahmoud, AFAIK the tasters were predominantly non-Aussies.


1995 was one of he best 1990s vintages in Bordeaux, but generally the top wines still need another decade at least.

I've said it a few times on here before, Yarra Valley makes the most Bordeaux-like wines in Australia.

In comparison, Coonawarra cabernets tend to be much richer and Right Bank-like (even though the latter are Merlot-dominant.) Margaret River wines are somewhere in between in my experience.

Mahmoud Ali wrote:e]

On the other hand, maybe the Antipodeans don't really understand Bordeaux. The Chateau Palmer website says that their 1995 is "A modern, concentrated wine with good ageing potential". And it goes on to state that the aging potential is, wait for it, 2030+ . So their "plotting" is already in place, you just have to wait about 15 years.

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

Hi Mahmoud,

You sound like the Palmer apologists on the night. The bottle was totally representative according to the Sommelier ( and me as I rated it pretty well ) and Bordeaux is very well understood in Hong Kong.

It's a private group in a private environment but we have MW's, a Bordeaux journalist, Fine Wine specialists in various areas without giving too much away and high end collector/drinkers with a significant level of Bordeaux exposure. It doesn't really matter but I'm very proud to present Australian icons in a fastidious manner and it's warming to be among some pretty impressive palates and experienced drinkers who happily lauded the wines - as they have at other Aussie wine tasting dinners with wines that can be polarizing back home ( Wendouree for example ).

Reflections-

Quintet was summed up as a fragrant style with a commanding elegance needing significant time to show it's form. Many of the earlier bottles would probably have been rated at much higher levels if given the storage of high-end Bordeaux. A number of guests were seeking Quintet for their cellar based on earlier bottles which I felt were good but would have been outstanding if in professional cellaring.

Prices were relatively cheap and seem to be stuck in the mud due Parker's brow-beating ensuring it's off the radar from international collectors and local demand spoilt for choice and immediate gratification isn't going to found in the style.

JamieBahrain wrote:
Chateau Palmer 1995-

94pts

0 Firsts 1 Second 8 Lasts ( Holly F@#$ )

3rd for Me and 12th for the Group.

Very surprised at that.
Ah....blind tasting. Always a good leveller!

As Dave mentioned before. I'm organising a 95 Bordeaux horizontal. It's a vintage I like to drink for various reasons which I won't go into because I don't want to corrupt the tasting as a few on the forum here are coming. I have never had the 95 Palmer though I do prefer Right Bank in 95 but still. Will eat my words!

The dinner wines reflected their position well. I used to go to cellar release days at Mt Mary. The 2004 and 2006 were standouts of the marque and the 2005 was always a lesser vintage.

Red Smurf wrote:

JamieBahrain wrote:
Chateau Palmer 1995-

94pts

0 Firsts 1 Second 8 Lasts ( Holly F@#$ )

3rd for Me and 12th for the Group.

Very surprised at that.
Ah....blind tasting. Always a good leveller

Mt Mary showed a consistency over the course of the tasting despite vintage variations and the limits this can place on vineyard site. Perhaps this is the reason for Palmer's poor showing? Tasters were conditioned by 4 wines before Palmer- the four wines the 90,91,92,93,94 showed the most variation in the style due age and provenance. 96-00 were very consistent and the 99 Yering Reserve was pretty miserable in the line-up but was it? Or did it show the limitations of a straight cabernet versus a blend?

I enjoy presenting Australian wines in such a favorable light. Not too fazed with the whole Palmer incident, it was just a ring-in from our stock at a book value of $80 Aussie.I have a few other ideas for future events. Mt Edelstone 1952 to 2002 would be a cracker. But they are my wines and depleting such well stored stock hits home when you start sourcing from the secondary market - Australia's storage culture is appalling !

So I'm really nervous putting on future dinners unless from known cellars. I wish the secondary market wise enough, strong enough to genuinely command a premium for provenance.

Agreed Jamie. I've stopped going to dinners where I know the wines have come from questionable sources (including direct from Italy) because of the high "meh" rate.

JamieBahrain wrote:

Red Smurf wrote:

JamieBahrain wrote:
Chateau Palmer 1995-

94pts

0 Firsts 1 Second 8 Lasts ( Holly F@#$ )

3rd for Me and 12th for the Group.

Very surprised at that.
Ah....blind tasting. Always a good leveller

99 Yering Reserve was pretty miserable in the line-up but was it? Or did it show the limitations of a straight cabernet versus a blend?

What's the story behind the Yering Station? Seems a strange choice for me. Yeringberg or Yarra Yering would have been much much better options, or was it a case of not having them wines available.

The 2001 Mt Mary Quintet didn't arrive so I checked the society stock list and they had the Coldstream Hills and Yering Station reserves. Thought they'd be great. The Coldstream Hills was stunning and a terrific contrast but the Yering Station a solid, dry red only.

Chris H wrote:The dinner wines reflected their position well. I used to go to cellar release days at Mt Mary. The 2004 and 2006 were standouts of the marque and the 2005 was always a lesser vintage.

Looks like it was a great night, Mount Mary is one of my favourite Australian Cabernet and Chardonnay producer.

I thought that both the Quintet and the Pinot were disappointing from 2005.
There was something very wrong with Pinot.

Cheers Con.

swirler wrote:Mahmoud, AFAIK the tasters were predominantly non-Aussies.

To be clear I was only replying to the comment implying that Antipodeans would be pleased and that Palmer/The French would be plotting revenge. I had no idea who was at the tasting and merely pointed out that the '95 Palmer, according to the Chateau itself, still had a way to go.

JamieBahrain wrote:

Mahmoud Ali wrote:Hi Mahmoud,

You sound like the Palmer apologists on the night. The bottle was totally representative according to the Sommelier ( and me as I rated it pretty well ) and Bordeaux is very well understood in Hong Kong.

It's a private group in a private environment but we have MW's, a Bordeaux journalist, Fine Wine specialists in various areas without giving too much away and high end collector/drinkers with a significant level of Bordeaux exposure. It doesn't really matter but I'm very proud to present Australian icons in a fastidious manner and it's warming to be among some pretty impressive palates and experienced drinkers who happily lauded the wines - as they have at other Aussie wine tasting dinners with wines that can be polarizing back home ( Wendouree for example ).

As I explained above, I didn't know who was at the tasting, and by your description I'm sure you didn't expect me to know either. I hinted at the notion that not all wines show their best at any given moment no matter how good they might be. Therefore to conclude that I am an "apologist" is to imply that I am one of those who defend a wine even though it might not be as good or is bested in any given evening. That is hardly a fair conclusion. At a tasting many years ago I felt that a '97 Moss Wood was drinking far better than the '95 Grange but I would have been reckless to conclude that the Moss Wood was necessarily a better wine than the Grange, nor that anyone who said that the Grange might not be showing as well because it was too young or that it was built for the long term as an "apologist". That would be condescending, in effect suggesting that they are defending the indefensible.

I too cellar Australian wines, and present them blind to other tasters. I delight in catching them thinking that it might be an old world wine or disabusing them of the notion that Australian wines do not age. In fact I even surprised an Antipodean who lives here in Edmonton when I opened a 20 year-old Pyrus one night. He thought I was "lucky" that it had survived. Myself, I wasn't surprised, many of my older Australian wines have done yeoman service at the dinner table, even the whites.

As for Bordeaux, and like many other wines, it is often quite tricky to predict longevity and maturity, even for a critic like Robert Parker. There are a number of instances where in my experience he has got an individual Bordeaux wine wrong. Most recently, a 1977 Cos d'Estournel, a wine from a miserably wet vintage, surprised everyone. First, it showed no signs of its poor vintage pedigree, and then it appeared much younger than its 38 years. Why? Who knows, it's the magic of wines, older wines in particular. I'm sure that at different stages of it's long life it would have performed badly. Years ago I was served a 1986 Cos that was about half the '77s age, and the person who served it to me thought it was past it's prime and that the fruit was gone. The "apologist" that I am, I argued that it was in its dumb phase, and that it need considerably more years to come around. Was I right or was he? I'll never know unless I am served another '86 Cos as I don't have a bottle am not likely to buy one. Someone else will have to tell me.

A number of years ago, for a friend's birthday, I opened a '96 Custodian and a '90 Pavie Maquin. Most people would expect the Bordeaux to trounce the Custodian, after all the Pavie Macquin is a Saint-Emilion and the Custodian is a seemingly lowly Grenache from Australia. However, on the night the Custodian was the superior wine, the Saint Emilion looking very ordinary and stolid. That night I would have traded my remaining bottle of Pavie Macquin for a Custodian, in a heartbeat. Will the Pavie Macquin ever come around? I'll only know by holding on to it for a while longer.

This is why I so enjoy cellaring wine, and I do it with everything, even with a Wolf Blass Yellow Label from the 80's, silly fellow that I am, a sucker I guess for all those awards and gold medals from wine festivals in Ljubljana and other obscure places listed on the side of the label.

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

I'm still confused. Let's move on.

You are not alone Jamie.

Ahh the old brown paper bag...masked wines are generally a great leveler even for supposed esteemed established old world palates.
Lost count of the number of times a $20 bottle has trumped one 10 times the price or that the $500 bottle has been universally panned.

Just goes to show the quality of Mount Mary

As I heard once why drop 5 grand on a Parker pen when a 20 cent Bic allows you to read the words

Cheers
Craig

I knew where the Palmer was and it delivered. The palates were excellent and included a Bordeaux fraud specialist/consultant, a Bordeaux journalist and the organizer of the fine wine Bordeaux dinners.

I'd say it's palate conditioning. The MM were very typical and consistent with high acidity, resolved tannins whereas Palmer was riper, more fuller and grittier tannins. It was out of the normal and out of place in the line-up.

The best way to assess a wine for my palate is a whole bottle over the evening in front of the fire place.

JamieBahrain wrote:I'd say it's palate conditioning. The MM were very typical and consistent with high acidity, resolved tannins whereas Palmer was riper, more fuller and grittier tannins. It was out of the normal and out of place in the line-up.

Exactly.

Only way to solve this is to stick a MM in a line-up of Palmers...

Sorry I didn't get the Halliday tasting notes to you Jamie, but they were >15 years old, and only ran to the late 90s anyway, as I recall!
cheers,
GG

JamieBahrain wrote:I'm still confused. Let's move on.

Sorry, my fault for being a bit too verbose. Let me explain in simple and hopefully understandable English.

Point 1. Palmer 1995 fares poorly against Mount Mary wines and Palmer/French people will plot revenge.

I say Palmer may need more time and no plotting of revenge is necessary.

Point 2. I'm told I sound like an apologist for Palmer not faring well in the tasting.

I mention that at one of my own tastings a simple Aussie Grenache bested a prestigious Bordeaux. I am no apologist, rather each wine has a different timeline to show its best.

Point 3. You say that you are proud to present Australian wines to "impressive palates" and "experienced drinkers" who laud Australian wines.

I say that I cellar Australian wines and also impressing my wine friends who I think are experienced and have good palates (though clearly not as impressive as your friends) are also impressed by the ability of Australian wines to age.

So once again, sorry for being verbose, I hope this simplifies things and that you are no longer confused. Otherwise moving on is probably wise.

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

You were not labelled and apologist and if you look at the original post it was clearly banter with one of those silly smiley faces connecting your comments to all the excuses under the sun for the poor Palmer showing. I was very careful to try and ensure that the piss-take was on my friends at the dinner on the night ( including antipodeans at high levels within the ultra -fine wine trade ) who were shocked that a totally representative 1995 Palmer came one of the most convincing lasts ( outside of TCA ) I've seen at a blind event. But you've carried on as if you have been unfairly tarred and a victim over a number of posts. Lighten up?

The rest is a little suck eggs? A Chateau quote and no experience with the wine. Yep, moving on.

JamieBahrain wrote:You were not labelled and (sic) apologist ....

Well, maybe I'm wrong and there is more than one way to look at this but here is what you said:

JamieBahrain wrote:You sound like the Palmer apologists on the night.

Looks clear to me but perhaps you're just being pedantic, in that I wasn't literally "labelled" an apologist, only that I "sounded" like the Palmer apologist.

JamieBahrain wrote: .... and if you look at the original post it was clearly banter with one of those silly smiley faces connecting your comments to all the excuses under the sun for the poor Palmer showing.

I'm well aware of the original post since I was responding to it and I did see the smiley face. In my defense, I try not to use emoticons when I write so perhaps my banter was misinterpreted. It may not have been clear to some but my point was not to offer "all the excuses under the sun" as you so quaintly exaggerate. I never questioned Palmer's poor showing at your tasting. All I did was suggest that the Palmer might not be mature to the point where it would show well and that it's revenge, if you want to call it that, would come later when it might, I repeat, might, fare better. Again, banter, but without a smiley face, a winking face, or a nudge nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean face (apologies to Monty Python) so perhaps you didn't understand.

JamieBahrain wrote:I was very careful to try and ensure that the piss-take was on my friends at the dinner on the night ( including antipodeans at high levels within the ultra -fine wine trade ) who were shocked that a totally representative 1995 Palmer came one of the most convincing lasts ( outside of TCA ) I've seen at a blind event. But you've carried on as if you have been unfairly tarred and a victim over a number of posts. Lighten up?

Your friends have the right to be "shocked" that the '95 Palmer came last. Big deal, I never questioned it. Again, all I suggested was that the Palmer might be better with more time under it's belt. You of all people ought to know that Bordeaux (as with other premium wines) evolve at different rates. As I have already pointed out, I too have seen an Australian wines best a Bordeaux, and that I too am proud to serve Australian wines to impress my friends. I tried to explain that in my long post but your response was a brusque "I'm still confused". If anything, it is you who seem to be defensive about my posts. All I did was say that I am not an apologist for Chateau Palmer and that I too am a fan of well-cellared Australian wines.

And as for the following:

JamieBahrain wrote:The rest is a little suck eggs? A Chateau quote and no experience with the wine. Yep, moving on.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but it sounds rude and the less said the better.

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

Your original post was shot from the hip with what looked like a swipe at antipodeans and a ramble on the Chateau's drinking window. It's a nice forum so the responses were pretty courteous in pointing out an international dinner. Your responses indicated an amazing depth and complexity to your original post which just wasn't there in any context and frankly, looks like nothing more than trolling to save face.

JamieBahrain wrote:Your original post was shot from the hip with what looked like a swipe at antipodeans and a ramble on the Chateau's drinking window.

Wow, amazing stuff. First off, my post was only two and a half lines, hardly a ramble and second, it was hardly a "shot from the hip" as you have n ow decided to describe it. Dave Vino had one line and I responded with two. I will reprise the exchange for your benefit:

Dave Vino: "Must have been pretty satisfying as an Antipodean for the MM's to show so well against the Palmer. They'll be plotting how to get you back no doubt."

Me: "On the other hand, maybe the Antipodeans don't really understand Bordeaux. The Chateau Palmer website says that their 1995 is "A modern, concentrated wine with good ageing potential". And it goes on to state that the aging potential is, wait for it, 2030+ . So their "plotting" is already in place, you just have to wait about 15 years."

In subsequent posts I said that I knew that Dave Vino's post was banter (I did not think he meant that Chateau Palmer was literally going to get at you) and tried to explain to you that mine was also banter (though without a smiley) suggesting that Palmer's revenge may already be in the bottle - i.e. when it matures in about 2030.

That is where it could have ended except that you said I sounded like the apologists at the tasting. I said I wasn't, that I was merely pointing out what should be universally known, that wines have different evolutionary time frames. I tried to empathize by pointing out that I have also experienced an Australian wine being better than a Bordeaux in an evening. I also went out of my way to say that, like you, I also enjoy showcasing Australian wines to other people and impressing them. It was a long post about my experiences with different Australian wines (The Custodian, Grange, and Moss Wood) but you responded to none of it, except to say "I'm still confused" which I thought was rather brusque and condescending. It's perhaps true that my writing may have been long-winded and to some a bit unclear but there was plenty of scope to discuss it further or to ask questions. My next response, I admit, was a bit tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic but that was mostly as a result of your attitude which I thought was dismissive. However, keep in mind I used the word sorry twice.

Your next post was rather more agitated, now claiming that you didn't label me an apologist when in fact you did. You accused me of carrying on as if I was "unfairly tarred" and feeling like a "victim". Nothing of the sort, I don't feel victimized at all, nor tarred. You said I sounded like an apologist and I said I wasn't; you said I didn't understand Dave Vino's comment and and I said I did; you said you didn't understand my response and I explained. All through this you are trying to tell me what I understood, wrote and meant, despite my telling you otherwise. I don't think I'm being victimized, I just see someone bashing their head against a wall. Oh, and then you told me to go suck eggs. Lovely.

JamieBahrain wrote:It's a nice forum so the responses were pretty courteous in pointing out an international dinner. Your responses indicated an amazing depth and complexity to your original post which just wasn't there in any context and frankly, looks like nothing more than trolling to save face.

Yes it is a nice forum, and usually very courteous. Thank you for the compliment regarding depth and complexity. You did not find it in the original post because it was a brief response to the original post in that they were both meant as banter. Dave Vino's banter has inherent in it the idea that the French might get upset when their wines are bested by new world wines (and perhaps by any non-French wines for that matter) and, going deeper than that, they were the among the first to stop the Australian wine industry from using words like claret and burgundy. In a similar vein my initial response was brief but therein was the premise that the Palmer might not be at it's plateau. Since you said you had difficulty understanding my post the subsequent posts were indeed longer.

And now you call me a troll? You do know what that is don't you, and I am assuming that you are not referring to fishing or Scandinavian folklore. Well, that is rather rude, and incorrect to boot. Look up the definition.

You keep saying you're going to move on, why don't you? You keep coming back to try and chang the premise of my original post, and it's not working. Take your advice and move on for goodness sake.

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