The Auswine Forum

40$C
14% alc
Yesterday I picked up an extra bottle (aside from the ones in my cellar) as I was having a friend over who loves Aussie Shiraz.
I'm glad I did, as I'm returning my cellared Filsell's after this tasting.
This is in the style of those sweet Parkered Shiraz's I dislike so much, and my friend explained he preferred the Leasingham Bin 61 '01 (27$)we had two weeks ago over this wine.
I was disappointed too.
Big and ripe, nice nose but heaps of oak. I normally have nothing against oak if the fruit and structure remain sound and classic there is also the hope that this will integrate in a few years, but this was hampered by a freakish amount of sugar and globby concentrated juice.
Big nose of coconut and milk chocolate oak, over-ripe blueberry, raspberry, lavender and purple flowers. The palate was decadently rich and sweet, concentrated and structured nicely with tannins, but no discernible acid at all - it was more a syrup, not winelike.
The finish was long, strangely sweet like blueberry jam, and intense in that style.
My first thought as I was drinking this was of the Amon-Ra's and those other freaks of Shiraz who refer to themselves as wine.
Great for those who enjoy this style and don't care to pair with food, as I can't think of anything aside from hard cheeses that this would compliment.
If you like glob monsters it'll be your thing, it's not my thing.

This does not sound like the same wine I tasted and purchased in November 2004.

On that occasion I noticed the oak but also expected the wine to integrate with some age and thought it was well-made and avoiding exactly the problem you state.

It was neither overpowering nor syruplike (both of which comments I have mamde of Aamon Ra).

Rather I thought at AUS$19.90 it was a good quaffer which would reward 5-6 years cellaring but was drinkable then (opened in fron of me and tasted in store, and I then sipped it and watched it develop over half an hour in glass prior to purchase).

Unless there is an export model or enormous variation, this sounds violently & inexplicably different (and note that if anything I tend to go for more sphisticated and savoury - perhaps cool climate than over the top - and avoid fruitbombs)....

I have not been a huge fan of the Filsell - but thought this was wellmade.

fred

I have to agree with Fred's comments; now there's a worry! FWIW, here is my TN. Grant Burge 2002 Filsell Shiraz SA2004 The perfumed, youthful, fruity bouquet was clearly letting the fruit speak and the oak is overt, rather than covert. On the palate, it was no surprise to find the driving force was pure, distinct, deep, strong fruit which delivered blackberry, savoury meat, aniseed and chocolate with good length. The balance between fruit and the fine grained, smooth, dusty tannin was also good. Ample in weight, the complexity is well developed and whilst it is drinking well now, it will improve in the short to medium term. It is clean, it is solid and you are crazy if you miss it. Rated as Recommended with **** for value, the rating should go up as the wine matures.

You think thats a worry TORB? im afraid im going to have to agree with you too! It is a little bit on the one dimensional side for me, but at the price I think its a pretty good drop for that style. hopefully it will gain a bit in the cellar

Is there a full moon? Solar Storm?

BTW I agree with the three of you, don't recognise the wine I tried from your note Mishy.

Mishy,

Despite all the criticism here, good on you for telling it how it was, probably fully aware that the post would create some harsh feedback based on the wine's credentials in Oz. I must admit that while I didn't share your impressions on the wine (perhaps a bad bottle, heat effected, bottle shock..?), I haven't been drawn to this wine like everyone else has. I first tasted the '02 Filsell on release twelve months ago (or thereabouts) and I really wasn't sure what to make of it. I had a second bottle about two months ago and the fruit expression had become a little clearer, but still not 'slap-me-in-the-face this is good'. Maybe I'm not giving it enough breathing time, or maybe this particular vintage just isn't for me. Crack one of those twelve bottles from the cellar and let the truth be known!

Cheers,

Very glad to see everyone's playing nicely here today. Exemplary behaviour by all really and not 'harsh feedback' by any means. Just everyone putting their opinions out there and nothing more and nothing less.

I tasted this at Wine Australia and loved it. Didn't take any notes but was very impressed at the time and thought I should buy some - which I didn't. I could see it coming across a bit sweet if you weren't fond of this but I found this appealing and made it all the more approachable. A cellared bottle may make the difference but then it just might not be your style, Mishy.

Last post was mine - doh!

My opinion is it's Parkerized and sweet, and I really wanted to like this wine as it's at a price-point for a cellarable wine that I can easily swallow.
But I didn't.......
Thanks for your opinions.
On a side note, what the heck happened to my rockin' avatar ???!!

Sigh, more work for Gavin to nuke this stuttering fool...

Red Bigot wrote:Sigh, more work for Gavin to nuke this stuttering fool...

Done

There are requirements of 'guests' and politeness and adding value to the discussion are two.

I just checked with the winery; there was only one batch and there is no difference between the local and export bottles.... except for lableing requirements.

TORB wrote:I just checked with the winery; there was only one batch and there is no difference between the local and export bottles.... except for lableing requirements.

I doubted it was a different bottling, and the wine was completely sound.......... but is it so hard to believe I didn't like a wine you and your mates loved ?
We all have our own unique tastes, after all Jancis and I totally disagreed on Pavie - but what the F does she know anyway
Parker and I totally disagree on Aus, he's an idiot when he goes down........ er, under but I totally go for his Bordeaux advice.
And then there's TORB, love him, hate him, I usually agree with him........just not this time.
Don't worry TORB, very few read my TNs for buying advice or precision , my following has little to do with wine or massive avatars.

[quote="Mishy
I doubted it was a different bottling, and the wine was completely sound.......... but is it so hard to believe I didn't like a wine you and your mates loved ?
[/quote]

FWIW:-

I object to being classed as one of Ric's "mates" (BTW where is the "tongue in cheek" emoticon?)

It is not a question of liking or disliking - that is always a matter of personal preference and tastes can and should differ.

Rather, it was the fact that the description as to jam and syrup did not match my understanding or use of those terms (although it is apparent that we agree that Aamon Ra qualifies), which led me to believe you were describing a different wine.

Rightly or wrongly (and unless we actually taste the same bottle we will never know), the others who have commented have also noted that your descriptors did not match the wine they drank. C'est la vie.

fred

Mishy,

From my perspective, its not really about likes and dislikes. We all have our own unique tastes and each one of us is perfectly entitled to like and dislike what ever flavours and textures pleases us or displeases us, as the case may be.

What surpries me is our two differing tenchnical analyses of the wine in question. It is easy to understand when you see similar descriptors but some what differing conclusions because of personal tastes. What is harder to understand is substantially different analytical decriptors, as we had in this case. Hope you get the drift of what I am trying to explain.

Fred,

Strange minds think alike, and they dont come much stranger than yours. Funny that we should both post similar themes at much the same time, I was typing up my response as you posted your thoughts.

As a member of the "Spruke Grabbit and Run" fraternity, you are far more elquant than I am.

I honestly found this wine almost completely offensive..........but we drank the bottle anyway. It was not because of a flaw per se, it was entirely a style.
I hoped it would become more than glop, but it continued to be gloppy.....................I used to love Kaesler until '01, but now they too produce glop. I wish I could learn to love this style as I have a couple of cases in cellar that I just don't know what to do with.
I love Shiraz's like Elderton, Blackwell, Old Block (for as long as I can remember, although I haven't had the '02) and Petaluma consistently (I'm mentioning in the price-bracket here) - but like my much beloved Kaeslers, unfortunately wineries are changing styles to support popular opinions such as Arpies.
I have to tread more carefully in Australia recently because of this.
BTW, like any woman, I'm quite sensitive to sugar levels, I love it in my whites, I loath it in 'certain levels' in my reds.
I really don't like RS in my reds that's for sure, that's why I don't drink California Zinfandel.
Some Aussie Shirazes are reminding me of Zinfandel.

Mishy,

To some extent, your last post confuses me. I have been tasting Kaesler wines for a number of years now and have certainly not noticed a shift in their winemking style towards more overt sweetness. Sure, some of the Grenache based wines are sweet (and alwatys have been) but the more expensive shiraz based wines seem pretty conistent to my palate.

As far as residual sugar in the Filsell, I don't know if there is any. According the winemaking blurb they gave me last year "The jucie was then fermented down to 1.5 degrees Baume, then pressed and transferred to new American and French oak to complete fermentation. After malo was complete, various batches were blended and returned ....."

Yes, I agree the wine is sweet, my TN indictaed it, but I am not sure that it is residual sugar; it could be normal sweetness from the fruit.

It also may be possible that your taste is changing rather than some of the Oz wineries bending to Arpys taste.

TORB wrote:I have to agree with Fred's comments; now there's a worry! FWIW, here is my TN. Grant Burge 2002 Filsell Shiraz SA2004 The perfumed, youthful, fruity bouquet was clearly letting the fruit speak and the oak is overt, rather than covert. On the palate, it was no surprise to find the driving force was pure, distinct, deep, strong fruit which delivered blackberry, savoury meat, aniseed and chocolate with good length. The balance between fruit and the fine grained, smooth, dusty tannin was also good. Ample in weight, the complexity is well developed and whilst it is drinking well now, it will improve in the short to medium term. It is clean, it is solid and you are crazy if you miss it. Rated as Recommended with **** for value, the rating should go up as the wine matures.

Your TN didn't refer to this wine as sweet..........Where does it say sweet because I'm at a loss ?

Quoted by TORB:
Yes, I agree the wine is sweet, my TN indictaed it, but I am not sure that it is residual sugar; it could be normal sweetness from the fruit.

BTW, "fruity" is not sweet, it's ripe.....there was no dusty here........and "meaty" or "solid and clean" does not indicate sweet............
I think you and RB were drunk and dehydrated in intense heat (BTW - that was a joke........ *nudge-nudge*)
Your posts are confusing me too

Mishy,

RB was not with me on that trip.

As far as the sweetness goes, you are correct, I did not use the word "sweet in my typed TN" although the word was used on my origional hand written form. Not every word on that form makes into into the final TN for obvious reasons.

BTW, "fruity" is not sweet,...

That may be your opinion and you are entitled to it but there is no reason why the word "fruity" can not indicate sweetness. Lets not forget that unless you write a 1,000 word tasting note, it is virtually impossible to cover every nuance of the wine; most TN's just provide a basic impression of the high and low lights.

I notice you didn't comment on any of the other points I raised in my previous post; just this one point about the use of, or non use of one word.

I didn't like the '02 Kaesler Shiraz either.........do a search on winefanatic........I loved the '01 - do another search.
It's not just the Grenache-er blends.
Your first TN I refered 'origionally" was with with I thought was RB (but it was John) as I first read it.......on your tour diaries........... it mirrors this one almost completely.....
http://www.torbwine.com/pf/SA%202004%20 ... %20Two.htm
[/i]Grant Burge 2002 Filsell Shiraz has not been released yet. So far, this is the best wine of the line up and John wanted to place his order on the spot. The perfumed, youthful, fruity bouquet was clearly letting the fruit speak and the oak is overt, rather than covert. On the palate, it was no surprise to find the driving force was pure, distinct, deep, strong fruit which delivered blackberry, savoury meat, aniseed and chocolate with good length. The balance between fruit and the fine grained, smooth, dusty tannin was also good. Ample in weight, the complexity is well developed and whilst it is drinking well now, it will improve in the short to medium term. It is clean, it is solid and you are crazy if you miss it. Rated as Recommended with **** for value, the rating should go up as the wine matures. [i]
Things have changed a bit weirdly in this millennium in Aus.

John is not RB.

Anonymous wrote::lol: John is not RB.

........and drugs are bad
My point is still valid

Here's a thought.

I wonder which other wines Mishy had been drinking before the Mamre Brook. Sometimes after drinking French/Italian wines and then Australian/US wines or vice versa, you notice the differences much more. Maybe it's the contrast that's showing.

I'm sure if you gave an Italian a glass of most Barossa Shiraz they'd come up with similar descriptors to Mishy.

Ian

Ian S wrote:Here's a thought.

I wonder which other wines Mishy had been drinking before the Mamre Brook. Sometimes after drinking French/Italian wines and then Australian/US wines or vice versa, you notice the differences much more. Maybe it's the contrast that's showing.

I'm sure if you gave an Italian a glass of most Barossa Shiraz they'd come up with similar descriptors to Mishy.

Ian

Ian, first, I wasn't drinking Mamre Brook I was drinking Filsell, and prior to drinking this wine I was just drinking water and cooking dinner.
Does everyone have to undergo interrogation here when they don't like a popular Australian wine ? On 'our' local Canadian forum people sometimes post negative reviews on Canadian BC wines I like, I don't usually care and nor does anyone else.....
Our local 'Bill' is constantly bashing the local Ice Wines and I think he's crazy but that's his taste, everyone doesn't necessarily like the same things.
It's always good to have a wide variety of TNs from different palates, good or bad they are all helpful.
It's just wine anyway, I try to post proper and thorough Tns not idiot vague ones, but I seem to be taking a lot of abuse on this site recently.
On a side note, I don't know how someone can write identical TNs on a wine tasted at completely different times - and one was a barrel sample. I've often tasted the same wines a month or 3 apart and came up with quite different reviews - although they are always somewhat similar, never identical and almost verbatum............

Mishy wrote:On a side note, I don't know how someone can write identical TNs on a wine tasted at completely different times - and one was a barrel sample.

Mishy,

Neither do I, who does that, Parker?

Mishy wrote:

Ian S wrote:Here's a thought.

I wonder which other wines Mishy had been drinking before the Mamre Brook. Sometimes after drinking French/Italian wines and then Australian/US wines or vice versa, you notice the differences much more. Maybe it's the contrast that's showing.

I'm sure if you gave an Italian a glass of most Barossa Shiraz they'd come up with similar descriptors to Mishy.

Ian

Ian, first, I wasn't drinking Mamre Brook I was drinking Filsell, and prior to drinking this wine I was just drinking water and cooking dinner.
Does everyone have to undergo interrogation here when they don't like a popular Australian wine ? On 'our' local Canadian forum people sometimes post negative reviews on Canadian BC wines I like, I don't usually care and nor does anyone else.....
Our local 'Bill' is constantly bashing the local Ice Wines and I think he's crazy but that's his taste, everyone doesn't necessarily like the same things.
It's always good to have a wide variety of TNs from different palates, good or bad they are all helpful.
It's just wine anyway, I try to post proper and thorough Tns not idiot vague ones, but I seem to be taking a lot of abuse on this site recently.
On a side note, I don't know how someone can write identical TNs on a wine tasted at completely different times - and one was a barrel sample. I've often tasted the same wines a month or 3 apart and came up with quite different reviews - although they are always somewhat similar, never identical and almost verbatum............

Mishy
Definitely no offence meant. Not sure how I transposed Mamre Brook into Filsell as well...
I guess I was feeling like it was Mishy vs. the combined South Australian palate, so I was trying to give an alternative possibility that wines you may have had (say over the previous week - I didn't mean that night ), may influence how you view a different style of wine.

It's not pleasant when everyone casts doubts on something you've written (even if they are trying hard to be non-confrontational, it can come across that way). I was trying not to add to it but think I did

Apologies

Ian

I find most of the 2002 Barossa Shiraz wines to be sweet. There you go.
GW

I quite liked this wine when I tried it, but thankyou for posting your opinion Mishy.

This @#%##@ idiot with a 1-track mind running in a tight endless loop gives us guests a bad name.