The Auswine Forum

A comment was made on a separate thread regarding Australian shiraz being "dreary" due primarily to the somewhat overbearing intensity and fruitiness of the wine. I believe that there are some Australian winemakers who make then with restraint often calling the syrah instead of shiraz signally to consumers that they are leaning towards a northern Rhone style. Sort of like producers who use either pinot gris or pinot grigio.

As a recent example I mentioned Annie's Lane 'Copper Trail' Shiraz, in particular the 2013 vintage. Another producer whose shiraz I was impressed with when is Castagna's Syrah. What do others on this forum think about the difference and which wines would you nominate?

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

Agree 100%. There's generally a huge difference in style between typical SA shiraz and say typical VIC shiraz. But there are exceptions.

Castagna is one of my favourites too. Also Best's, By Farr, Mount Langi & Mayford.

Agree certainly, Mahmoud, that I would expect a different style depending on the nomenclature "Shiraz" or "Syrah". Exceptions, of course, abound - think of the old Rosemount Balmoral Syrah in the 1990s. Regional differences contribute more, however, IMHO.

As the above post says, it's uncertain territory.

I would expect a 'Syrah' to be made in a cooler-climate style - that is to say, paler colour, less ripe fruit character, and apparent savoury notes ranging from black pepper to leather, to meaty, or bloody flavours. Examples I've enjoyed recently would include Eden Road's Long Road, or the Mac Forbes Syrah.

But there are loads of exceptions - I had several 'Shiraz' wines in Orange that I would consider putting in the 'Syrah' category - but maybe the winemaker just didn't want to confuse people who recognise the word 'Shiraz'?

I wouldn't hold by the assertion that Aussie Shiraz is dreary though. Bad wine can be made from all grapes, though the obvious pitfalls may differ. Shiraz can be excellent, without necessarily aiming for particular restraint.

asajoseph wrote:I wouldn't hold by the assertion that Aussie Shiraz is dreary though. Bad wine can be made from all grapes, though the obvious pitfalls may differ. Shiraz can be excellent, without necessarily aiming for particular restraint.

To me dreary does not equate to bad wine. It just means boring, uninteresting, uninspiring in the context of the world of wines.

As for my take on Aussie Shiraz, to put it in perspective, I would say exactly the same thing for Northern Rhone Syrah. To be crystal clear, there's nothing wrong with it whatsoever -- Aussie or French Shiraz/Syrah. There's many amazing wines to drink in those styles. Some of them would even "wow" me from time to time.

I think it largely depends on what you've been exposed to and what your palate finds interesting. When I put Barolo, Burgundy or Etna into the same bucket as Shiraz/Syrah (New World or Old World), I would rather not drink the Shiraz/Syrah given a choice. The other wines are just more interesting to me in general and I get a lot more enjoyment drinking them.

Ozzie W wrote:

asajoseph wrote:I wouldn't hold by the assertion that Aussie Shiraz is dreary though. Bad wine can be made from all grapes, though the obvious pitfalls may differ. Shiraz can be excellent, without necessarily aiming for particular restraint.

To me dreary does not equate to bad wine. It just means boring, uninteresting, uninspiring in the context of the world of wines.

I'd still probably make the same point though - I love Barolo, but there are plenty of drab, boring Barolo's out there, even if most of them end up on supermarket shelves in Piedmont, rather than into the import rack of your local merchant over here.

Ultimately though, your palate is your own, and totally valid in its own right. Personally, I get pleasure from most regions / styles, just at different times & in different ways, & also, I suppose, depending on who I'm drinking with. A huge part of my enjoyment of wine is sharing it with other people, which in turn means I'll tend to open styles of wines I know the people drinking them will enjoy. Interestingly for me, I have a huge amount of Barolo still in the UK, which I intend to ship over to Aus in the next 12 months or so, yet I know nobody over here who I think would enjoy sharing it! Worse problems to have, I'm sure...

In any case, I guess it just comes down to preferences - for me, there is plenty of interest in a well made Syrah or Shiraz. I wouldn't always pick it over a Barolo - but sometimes I would!

asajoseph wrote:I'd still probably make the same point though - I love Barolo, but there are plenty of drab, boring Barolo's out there, even if most of them end up on supermarket shelves in Piedmont, rather than into the import rack of your local merchant over here.

I wish I could find Langhe Nebbiolo in supermarket shelves in Australia, let alone Barolo.

asajoseph wrote:A huge part of my enjoyment of wine is sharing it with other people, which in turn means I'll tend to open styles of wines I know the people drinking them will enjoy.

+1

I'm meeting some friends next Friday for dinner and I'll be sharing a couple bottles of Aussie Shiraz from my cellar with them.

Ozzie W wrote:

asajoseph wrote:I'd still probably make the same point though - I love Barolo, but there are plenty of drab, boring Barolo's out there, even if most of them end up on supermarket shelves in Piedmont, rather than into the import rack of your local merchant over here.

I wish I could find Langhe Nebbiolo in supermarket shelves in Australia, let alone Barolo.

Some friends of mine visited from the UK last week. They brought along a Langhe Neb from Giovanni Rosso, a winery we visited together last autumn. It was heaven

If used reasonably consistently, the use of syrah vs. shiraz would be useful to the consumer, and ditto pinot gris vs. pinot grigio. In both cases it can give a big hint as to which side of a sometimes broad spectrum the wine may sit.

You'll get no Syrah is better than Shiraz or vice-versa arguments from me. I might lean strongly towards preferring the Syrah style, but not exclusively and there are occasions where a Shiraz would be ideal and a Syrah less so.

The only thing I would say was dreary, was the Aussie wine critics talking up South Australian shiraz as much as they did. I'm hoping they have adapted to the way the market itself has moved and don't have such a focus on Barossa and McLaren Vale Shiraz made in a big/luscious style. It has its place but for me it was over-represented in their view of great Aussie wines.

Ian S wrote:If used reasonably consistently, the use of syrah vs. shiraz would be useful to the consumer, and ditto pinot gris vs. pinot grigio. In both cases it can give a big hint as to which side of a sometimes broad spectrum the wine may sit.

Agreed, though I think winemakers, including Australians, made choices along these lines quite early on. When the Australian shiraz craze took off a number of other countries, I am thinking of Chile in particular, started using shiraz on their labels. At the same time, as Aussie shirazes started to get bigger and bigger, a few Australian wineries pushed back against the trend. They called their wines syrah. At a wine show many years ago I asked Julian Castagna about his use of "syrah" on his label and he told me he wanted to make a more restrained, elegant shiraz, a style that he felt was suited to his vineyard and region.

Then there were wineries who used both syrah and shiraz on their labels, often the shiraz being the less expensive wine geared towards a larger market. For example I know that the South African winery Graham Beck made both a shiraz and a syrah. At a syrah/shiraz tasting many years ago their single vineyard '02 'The Ridge' Syrah most memorably trumped a Peter Lehmann 'Eight Songs' Shiraz by a country mile which, at the time, was three times the price. No prize for guessing which one I bought and cellared.

Ian S wrote:You'll get no Syrah is better than Shiraz or vice-versa arguments from me. I might lean strongly towards preferring the Syrah style, but not exclusively and there are occasions where a Shiraz would be ideal and a Syrah less so.

Agree completely, though I do think that there is no harm if winemakers rein in the overwrought shiraz wines while still maintaining the style.

Ian S wrote:The only thing I would say was dreary, was the Aussie wine critics talking up South Australian shiraz as much as they did. I'm hoping they have adapted to the way the market itself has moved and don't have such a focus on Barossa and McLaren Vale Shiraz made in a big/luscious style. It has its place but for me it was over-represented in their view of great Aussie wines.

I remember when many wineries in South Australia used to consider wines from less fancied areas to be under-fruited and of lesser quality. They generally felt sorry for them. The Hunter Valley in particular was subject to the most scorn, even in Victoria. The sentiment expressed was that the Hunter only survived because it was close to Sydney. Mine was a lonely voice at defending Hunter shiraz and semillon.

Mahmoud.