The Auswine Forum

That's the perspective from Wine Spectator . Click on this.

http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Main/Feature_Basic_Template/0,1197,2330,00.htm

What do you think of the list and the ratings?

Rick

Rick, in answer to your heading, IMO yes, we've never made better wines.

In the serious Shiraz category, we're still making blockbusters but to a large degree avoiding jammy/portiness and using new oak much better. Some of the icons drink so well as young wines but will also be long lived.

The Torbreck Run Rig 2001 is just ethereal, in the same class as the sublime 1998, how good can the 2002 be?. One of my bargains of the year is the 2002 Torbreck Struie, real class at a fraction of the Run Rig price.

If you haven't already, have a look at the two Super Shiraz tastings done recently by the Blacktongues, their posted here on Auswine Forum.

Hope you get to see some of the best over your way.

Getting better or getting different (which in a strange way actually means to me getting the same)

I actually had to sit and think a while about your question. I got into wine seriously in the mid 70s and it was certainly a cheaper passtime then than now, even allowing for inflation.

Is the current Grange any better than those form the 70s. I really don't think so.

The Rutherglen shiraz that I loved in the 70s have certainly changed and are far more approachable young now. But are they better? I am not sure.

Certainly in the mid range there is now a plethora of very drinkable and quite pleasant shiraz available now compared to then, but they all tend to have a certain sameness. On the other hand I still have relatively cheap bottles in the cellar from the 60s and 70s which are still drinking pretty well today. Will this be the case of the fatter style mid to low price shiraz made today?

Winemakers have certainly learned to tame the tannins in shiraz and make them far more approachable when young, and they have figured out how to best use oak to get the spice, chocolate, vanilla, and coconut falvours into the wine without overoaking (in most cases). But is it better?

I sort of hanker for the days when winemakers made what they liked and you either agreed or darnk something else. Of course the market was different then, winemaking had far less lucre attached, and winemakers could sort of afford to please themselves and their group of customers, rather than pander to the gods of wine or miss out and perhaps go bust.

Davo:

Your experience is similar to mine. I haven't bought Grange since the 1982 vintage. It was too expensive (about $70CDN) relative to my income then, but I wanted to put away some special wines. And they were. Still have some 1978 and 1982 in the cellar. But at today's prices, it hasn't been hard to pass.

In our market, Australian wines have a lock on the lower end market, although there is growing competition from South America and (of all places) California which until recently had almost abandoned that market. But wines like the Wolf Blass Riesling at $12CDN are hard to beat.

I agree that there is a lot going on in the mid-price market in terms of choice from Australia, and I think for many wines the quality has gone up faster than the price. There are a lot of those (mostly Shiraz) in my cellar and on my regular drinking list.

I still buy Dead Arm each year, even though the price has gone from $25 to $50CDN between the 1998 and 2002 vintages. But looking at the US prices, they are a great bargain here.

Anyway, enough of this ramble.

Rick

Improvement is subjective, this is reflected in the answers to the question posed by Rick. However some things that have impacted on the improvement and change in wine over years that are a given.

The industry in Australia has matured remarkedly over the last two decades. Viticulture was not a career considered by our young undergraduate students entering tertiary education twenty years ago, now it is a course available in most of our major and in particular regional universities. This has seen an influx of young ambitious and enthusiastic wine students willing to embrace new technology and explore the old world methods to improve the science of making wine which has refined and changed the type of wines we now drink.

Australian palates have also matured with the booming interest in wine. Look at some of the earlier books written about Australian wine in the 50's and 60's, the terminology was basic and reflected a lack of sophistication in the market. With our increasing interest in wine came a better understanding of what it could provide if the resources were properly used. This has placed the producers on notice and they have responded to the demand for quality and diversity by improving their techniques and styles, henceforth the explosion of new smaller wineries run by formally educated winemakers who saw a market begging for something other than the stock standard stuff.

Undoubtedly though the issue of whether Aussie wines have improved is subjective, however it would be hard to argue against this notion given the recognition afforded to our industry by the old world producers. Value for money, well that has definitely gone south as our top end wines gain recognition and become a tradable commodity on the world market.



Colin

Harvey Steinman does the Wine Spectator Australian wine ratings. He seems like an amiable guy, so I'll be nice I think his ratings are very hard to calibrate to personal tastes. Sometimes he likes a thick shiraz, other times he complains about it being too heavy. Sometimes a lighter style gets a high mark, other times it can be thin. He seems to like wines with some acidity to them.

Anyway, I think his list is not really useful. Too many producers are missing, and too many of the ratings seem way off the mark to me. Without reviewing the list again, I think he gave the '02 Possums Shiraz a 83, where I think it should be closer to a 90. Some wines that got 70's type scores like Kay Brother are unfathomable. On the other hand, in the past he has liked the regular Rosemount Shiraz and assigned it 90 points.

So, take the ratings with a grain of salt.

corcoran wrote:So, take the ratings with a grain of salt.

Brian,

More like a bucket full. But then I say that about most lists of points, once again proving the TN is the most important thing, not the score.

Just a couple of quick points about the Steiman (not Steinman) article as I'm busy at work.

I'm never sure where Steiman tastes for his articles on Oz wines; East or West Coast of the USA or in Australia. But many of the Top Wines are not readily available here in Southern California. The Elderton Command is the most readily available, but its the 1999 that is still available to me. The Ares I've seen for $95USD. Even a lot of the Smart Buys are not that readily available, or at least not tasted by those who post notes. I've only posted on the JIM BARRY Shiraz Clare Valley The Lodge Hill 2002 on my eBlog and Eric Anderson has posted on a few more. We certainly aren't the only ones who post TNs. The Parker site has TNs, and while there is discussion about the value of a TN versus a score many live for Parker's 100 point scale there (really a 50 point scale but who's counting).

The WS issue has a listing of a number of Aussie shiraz producers with scores. I've not gone over it in any detail as I do trust my own palate more than any publication. However if anyone has any questions about the WS listing I'll be happy to try an provide answers.

One note on the regular Rosemount Shiraz that has in the past received quite good scores from several publications here in the US. I've tasted this in blind tastings quite a few times and in the past it has done quite well. In my own opinion this wine, in terms of an early drinking style as well as value for money, has always done well in comparison with other shiraz/syrah. (I guess I could try to drag up my TNs from relevant tastings if people want that information.) As I've noted before on this forum this wine has not tasted the same to me when I've had it in Oz. The wine in Oz seems less fruit forward and more acidic. I don't taste any residual sugar in the wine here in the US, but then I've never done a side by side comparison with a bottle from Oz so these are just my impressions.

Mike

Mike et al,

Point taken on the 100 point scale. In reality, it is only(at best) a 20 point scale(80-100) given that it is rare to find anything listed outside of the 85-95 point range. What this ends up doing is placing an undue emphasis on the importance of a one hundredth incremental adjustment. I could go on forever about this, but I think the concept is here to stay,like it or not. In these days of short attention spans, most of us just look to the bottom of the note for a score and then,maybe, if we have the time or inclination,read the tasting note. Wine nuts like us take it a bit more seriously but for the majority a number speaks greater volume than words.

Cheers

I suspect though, it might go the way of the sportsmans cliche "Yeah, I gave it 110% today".
They started at 100%, then moved onto 101%, then 102% then 110% and I've certainly heard 200% recently. My guess is that we'll be at 1000% before we know it.

I'm also sure wine %'s will follow the same line of stupidy

Ian S wrote:I suspect though, it might go the way of the sportsmans cliche "Yeah, I gave it 110% today".
They started at 100%, then moved onto 101%, then 102% then 110% and I've certainly heard 200% recently. My guess is that we'll be at 1000% before we know it.

I'm also sure wine %'s will follow the same line of stupidy

If there must be a point scale, it seems it will always result in drinkable wines being compressed into a narrow band, regardless of the maximum score and the graduations. Who would be interested in a 15/20? Most who take note of point scores convert 15/20 to 75/100. What about eight to ten with graduations limited to .0001. Oliver would have great fun with that, from what I can gather from reading reports of his wine assessments on this and other boards.

Some alignment of palate preferences is bound to happen when following different wine assessors/writers. We all know the syndrome.

So what is: don't bother, acceptable, agreeable, good, very good (is there ever a very, very good, before:), excellent, outstanding, ultimate; but just another personal categorization of what you've just enjoyed relative to what you've enjoyed before.

Wine show scoring for appearance and bouquet are irrelevant for me. Seen too many reports of wines the looked and smelt great..... but. What matters is the wine in the gob. As it should. And without a similar alignment of palates, opinions will always vary.

On that note, the Blacktongues may well be a reflection of at least some of the foregoing drivel.

Regards all

daz

daz

It was interesting to see the 2001 Primo Estate Joseph Angel Gully Shiraz get 95 points, as I was disappointed with the wine 6 months ago.

It was good timing to try it again yesterday, and again I came to the conclusion it's grossly overrated and overpriced. $45 (on special) for a new wine from 3-5 year old vines is ridiculous, especially when the Moda Amarone and 2002 Tin Shed Single Wire Shiraz were the same price on the day. Both put it to shame, exposing it as weak-fruited and over-oaked, lacking the length and body of the other two genuinely classy wines.

The Wine Spectator list certainly manages to include most of the big export names and cult wines, making me wonder if it's more influenced by marketing than genuine enthusiasm.

Cheers
Ian