The Auswine Forum

There is a common, but debatable, impression that the American wine palate has been influenced by consumption of sweet carbonated drinks like Coca-Cola. This notion has even been implied in comments by Robert Parker; who also believes that the Japanese consumption of tea influences their preference of wine styles.

But what defines the Australian wine palate? Having been born in Australia and begun my wine appreciation there, but lived in the USA for the last 20 or so years, my own preferences seem to have changed. My early favorite wines were PenfoldÂ’s Bin 389 and RedmanÂ’s Claret (Shiraz). My memory of the latter is of a medium bodied wine with good Shiraz character and loads of acidity. When I first came to the USA (1982) my initial impression was that California wines lacked body, they were like diluted RedmanÂ’s! But I developed a taste for them as Aussie wines were few and far between in California wine shops in those days. Fast forward to the mid-90Â’s and the rise of Rosemount Shiraz. Others may know when the change occurred in this wine. Although others suggest that a special bottling is made for the USA. But what is clear is when I first tasted the wine in the USA it was vastly different from what I remember from Australia. All of a sudden here was a wine with ripe fruit flavors, in fact it smelled not unlike a glass of liquid blueberry/blackberry jam. It was a wine you could easily appreciate; the same is not so true of recent vintages.

The trend for these rich, ripe wines has continued to the present day as most Aussie Shiraz that reaches the USA are characterized by rich, ripe aromas backup up with the vanilla from American oak. Many say that these wines are made for the American market, but it is clear that the style is also favored in Australia. Critics like Halliday, Mattinson, and Oliver give many of these wines high points – it is not just a Parker phenomenon.

Mike

Mike,

I'm not sure why I'm responding to this, because I'm pretty sure I and a lot of the people I drink red wine with are not typical of the great bulk of Australian wine drinkers.

However the info I can offer includes some observations on the styles of (mostly Australian) wines I've been drinking over nearly 40 years.

I was weaned onto red wine in the late 60's with the likes of Yalumba Signature blend, Orlando Barossa cabernet, Moyston Claret, Wynns Ovens Valley Burgundy, Baileys Bundarra Hermitage etc, mostly wines of good structure and a fair amount of fruit. The first time I struck Wynns Coonawarra reds I kept looking around to see if a cleaner was going around spraying disinfectant, the peppermint characters were so strong.

In the early 70's we used to home-bottle rich Barossa and Riverland reds, big ripe fruit, some even with some decent oak treatment, a couple from Tollana and Berri were incredible wines for the prices and even with home-bottling matured well for more than 5 years with ease.

What I'm saying is that big ripe warm-climate reds have been around for a long time, they fade into the background at times, such as in the early-mid 80's when thin green weedy cabernet seemed to be the trend, thankfully that didn't last too long and despite the criminal amount of old vines uprooted and burnt the bigger richer reds emerged again.

What is a bit different this time around is the number of producers "pushing the limits" and sometimes not pulling it off. I love some of the big, rich sweet-fruited reds that Parker gives high points to and curse his influence on the prices and availability of some of them. On the other hand, I see and reject those that have gone too far an ended up with "dead-fruit syndrome" where the freshness is gone and the wines will fall apart quickly, or those that are boosted to ridiculous prices on the basis of high Parker scores.

With new yeasts and other technology the alcohol levels of some wines are creeping up to levels that scare a lot of people. As a drinker of neat brandy (Armagnac is my fave) and single malts (esp the rich peaty ones) I'm pretty tolerant of higher alcohol levesl and some makers have the knack of producing a balanced wine even at 15-17% a/v, Warrabilla being a leading example of this. As far as I'm concerned, I can cope with big fruit, big extract, oak and tannin, big alcohol as long as the balance is there.

On the other hand I love some of the more elegant cooler climate shiraz that is made in Victoria and WA in particular and the sometimes spectacular cabernets from Coonawarra, Margaret River and even the Yarra, all of which (thankfully) Parker does not seem to pay a lot of attention to.

So, what is typical? I don't know and I don't care, as long as I can get the reds I like at a price I can afford. My tastes haven't changed that much in the last 20 years, during some parts of the stylistic cycle it's been a little more challenging to find the reds I like. At them moment there is an over-abundance of choice (and a lot of very ordinary wine around) but the good stuff is available without paying inflated prices for Parkerised cult wines and my cellar is bulging at the seams.

Comment Gary Walsh? (I like your red and white style, boy weren't we robbed Friday night?)

Steve,

Cannot speak for Gary, but I wouldn't hold your breath for a response from him. A post from another wine forum communicated that Gary is taking a bit of a holiday from the Forums for a unspecified amount of time.

AJ

PS Eagles for the flag and the Blueboys too bounce back next year (miracles do happen now and again).

I would think eucalyptus, perhaps tinged with a hint of singed marsupial fur.

Don't the supporters of the so-called non-Parkerized wines have anything to say?

What about all those who argue that the Aussie wines sent to the USA are not typical of the bulk of Australian wines?

Where are the supporters of the cool climate reds?

I'm beginning to think Jeni Port is right and you all have cellars full of Yellow Tail Shiraz and Grosset Riesling, with just the odd Grange for show!

Mike

KMP wrote:But what defines the Australian wine palate?
Mike

Carnivorous

KMP wrote:Don't the supporters of the so-called non-Parkerized wines have anything to say?

I'm beginning to think Jeni Port is right and you all have cellars full of Yellow Tail Shiraz and Grosset Riesling, with just the odd Grange for show!

Mike,

I think Brian "slummed" it up pretty well when he said "I'm not sure why I'm responding to this, because I'm pretty sure I and a lot of the people I drink red wine with are not typical of the great bulk of Australian wine drinkers."

As for my cellar being full of Yellow Tail, the fish are in the front of the shop and whilst you will find Silver Perch, Barrumandi and also sorts of Australian native fish, there in not one Yellow Tail, either in the tanks or out the back.

KMP wrote:Don't the supporters of the so-called non-Parkerized wines have anything to say?

I thought I did. I'd guess 80% of my cellar would be wines without (high or any) Parker scores, including a swag of Heathcote, Grampians, bendigo, Sunbury, Beechworth, Gt Southern Shiraz and a thousand or so Coonawarra, MR, Yarra, Gt Southern, Pyrenees etc cabernets.

KMP wrote:What about all those who argue that the Aussie wines sent to the USA are not typical of the bulk of Australian wines?

That is too self-evident to comment on. We don't even see quite a few of them for local sale, although some of the early-days export-only wines are available locally now.

KMP wrote:Where are the supporters of the cool climate reds?

See first point above. (But you can exclude Tasmania and Mornington Peninsula most years for me)

KMP wrote:I'm beginning to think Jeni Port is right and you all have cellars full of Yellow Tail Shiraz and Grosset Riesling, with just the odd Grange for show!

Mike

Don't laugh too much, there a few premium-level Yellow Tail reds coming through that I'd be happy to have in my cellar. Even some of the local (less sweet) versions of Yellow Tail reds are an acceptable drink (if you are really, really desperate).

KMP wrote:Don't the supporters of the so-called non-Parkerized wines have anything to say?

What about all those who argue that the Aussie wines sent to the USA are not typical of the bulk of Australian wines?

Where are the supporters of the cool climate reds?

I'm beginning to think Jeni Port is right and you all have cellars full of Yellow Tail Shiraz and Grosset Riesling, with just the odd Grange for show!

Mike

Mick,

Don't have a Yellow Tail nor a Grosset in my cellar. But do have lots of non-parker stuff as well as lots of parker stuff, which I think might be representative of the bulk of those who actually store wine (way less than 5% of wine buyers). I think that Australians have a much broader palate than most would believe and that the vocal few who are wedded to a niche style tend to outway the vast majority who drink across a broad range of wines, when it comes to expressing a view. One thing that restricts the wine collector from keeping a dramatically wide selection is the number of choices. I try to focus on 30 or so wineries across most regions and my biggest restriction is the budget needed to do that.

The thing with parker is that he only looks at a few regions in Australia and does little to almost no tasting of many of Australias better regions - Margaret River being one. Our bulk wines are obviously made to a market and there are plenty of wineries making 'special' US wines because to do otherwise would be a marketing disaster. Additionally, the great bulk of bottled wine brands don't actually get to the US and would not sell well if they did.

JohnP

Davo wrote:I would think eucalyptus, perhaps tinged with a hint of singed marsupial fur.

Good one Davo!

Singed marsupial fur of the midday roadkill kind, or deliberately lit bushfire???

Davo wrote:I would think eucalyptus, perhaps tinged with a hint of singed marsupial fur.

rooview wrote:What defines the Australian palette? Industrial quantities of over acidified, aldehydey and unbalanced wine?

As odd as it may sound these answers may actually be close to the mark! Certainly industrialized and over acidified have been used as general descriptors of Australian wines. And eucalyptus, if correctly identified as a descriptor (as opposed to mint), would be more likely to occur in Australian wine than elsewhere. While singed marsupial fur, often mistaken as terroir by many is, of course, just the result of an unfortunate possum overcome by the fumes of a violent and over-heated fermentation. Although I believe some do use the term to describe a wine that has been both cooked and corked.

So if forum member don't want to go out on a ledge and give an answer, what alternative groups might be expected to provide a definition of the Australian wine palate? Should the definition be left to:-

1) Wine drinkers, especially critics, outside Australia whose supposedly limited access to Australian wine may also limit their understanding of what the (serious) Australian wine drinker actually prefers? Afterall some of these individuals taste a greater number of Australian wines than the vast majority of Australians.

2) Home grown Australian wine critics? Probably not. No one would believe them anyway!

3) The majority of Australian wine drinkers whose ability to accurately describe wine beyond "Its a good drop" or "I like it" is suspect. Seem to have the inside running at the moment.

or

4) Langton's? Would be good for business.


Mike

KMP wrote:Certainly industrialized and over acidified have been used as general descriptors of Australian wines.

Mike, by who? And by what percentage of wine drinkers?

This sounds like a case of either "Oz wine bashing" or I don't like the style scenario. In either case, the comments are at best a gross generalistion or at worst a load of useless rubbish.

Yes, we do make a lot of indutrialised wine, but the majority of the people who buy the millions of cases of it are buying it ahead of the French and Italian wines at the same price point. So how bad can it be?

And eucalyptus, if correctly identified as a descriptor (as opposed to mint), would be more likely to occur in Australian wine than elsewhere.

If it was in a French wine, it would be called terroir and people would say it was an attribute!

While singed marsupial fur, often mistaken as terroir by many is, of course, just the result of an unfortunate possum overcome by the fumes of a violent and over-heated fermentation. Although I believe some do use the term to describe a wine that has been both cooked and corked.

If you been smoking funny unfiltered green cigarettes?

How do you get terroir out of wine that may be a product of Sout East Oz? Are you seriously suggesting that a lot of Oz wine has gone through poor/overheated fermantation?

So if forum member don't want to go out on a ledge and give an answer, what alternative groups might be expected to provide a definition of the Australian wine palate? Should the definition be left to:-

Now given the fact that we produce such a broad cross section of wine, is there such a thing as "an Australian wine palate and if there is one do we need a defintion?

Sorry Mike, I just don't understand what you are trying to get to with this thread.

TORB wrote:

KMP wrote:Certainly industrialized and over acidified have been used as general descriptors of Australian wines.

Mike, by who? And by what percentage of wine drinkers?

This sounds like a case of either "Oz wine bashing" or I don't like the style scenario. In either case, the comments are at best a gross generalistion or at worst a load of useless rubbish.

Yes, we do make a lot of indutrialised wine, but the majority of the people who buy the millions of cases of it are buying it ahead of the French and Italian wines at the same price point. So how bad can it be?

Ric

I can't find the link to the criticsm that was leveled by a British critic, but the most vocal comment by another said too many Aussie wines have too much American oak, are chemistry-class wines with so much added acidity they are undrinkable, and industrial manufactured wines of no depth, character, or soul. Its described in detail in archived notes here. Also here and here. Say what you will about the particular critic involved, his pronouncements influence the wine industry and wine drinkers in more than his own country.

TORB wrote:

KMP wrote:And eucalyptus, if correctly identified as a descriptor (as opposed to mint), would be more likely to occur in Australian wine than elsewhere.

If it was in a French wine, it would be called terroir and people would say it was an attribute!

Correct as long as the descriptor is of eucalytus and not mint. I try to be very careful about the distinction. And have used eucalyptus as an example of terroir. But its not common, mint is and not just in Oz.

TORB wrote:

KMP wrote:While singed marsupial fur, often mistaken as terroir by many is, of course, just the result of an unfortunate possum overcome by the fumes of a violent and over-heated fermentation. Although I believe some do use the term to describe a wine that has been both cooked and corked.

If you been smoking funny unfiltered green cigarettes?

How do you get terroir out of wine that may be a product of Sout East Oz? Are you seriously suggesting that a lot of Oz wine has gone through poor/overheated fermantation?

Hmm, this was an attempt at humor. Appears not to have worked.

TORB wrote:

KMP wrote:So if forum member don't want to go out on a ledge and give an answer, what alternative groups might be expected to provide a definition of the Australian wine palate? Should the definition be left to:-

Now given the fact that we produce such a broad cross section of wine, is there such a thing as "an Australian wine palate and if there is one do we need a defintion?

Sorry Mike, I just don't understand what you are trying to get to with this thread.

No we don't need a definition. The world will not end if we don't arrive at one, at least I hope not. But its obvious to me that a definition has been attempted, a several different levels, and by people whose influence may affect the future of wine in Australia far more than the average wine drinker. The bottom line comes down to who do you want defining Aussie wine.

Mike

Hi Mike,

If you want to post a link to page on Torbwine, because I use "frames" - right click on the link to it and open the article in a new window. Then copy the new address and that way it will go straight to the right page and not to my home page.

The guy who designed it thought he was saving work; he may have been for himself but itÂ’s a bugger for me to maintain. (DonÂ’t tell Brian, but its on his retirement list to fix.)

Back to the topic. Sorry I wasnÂ’t sure if that possum bit was an attempt at humour or if it was seriosu with a joke thrown in.

I remember that Parker comment well but rightly or wrongly, the man may understand big SA Shiraz (to a point) and have a fantastic palate, but IMO he does not understand the complete Australian category at all well. Influential he may be, and as much as a lot of people listen to him, he is not God, even if many of his followers do.

People are buying "fashion" from Parker; what ever he thinks in "in" is what they will go after. Building your brand, or even the Oz wine industry trying to build their long term brand on Parkers blessing is building a house of cards.

Sure you will have critics bashing the Oz industry up all the time, but as long as on balance, the majority of the publicity is favourable, and the tasting notes encourage consumers to buy, the industry will be ok.

KMP wrote:No we don't need a definition. The world will not end if we don't arrive at one, at least I hope not. But its obvious to me that a definition has been attempted, a several different levels, and by people whose influence may affect the future of wine in Australia far more than the average wine drinker. The bottom line comes down to who do you want defining Aussie wine.
Mike

I think the answer to the bold type above is that we (wine drinkers) do not individually determine what winemakers will make, but as a group we definitely do - because we then we become 'the market' and that is what/who the winemakers and marketing gurus make/sell wine for/to at the end of the day. Individual winemakers and companies will chase those markets where they see the best margins and/or easiest sales at reasonable margins - that is; typically the biggest markets; and for some the US and UK are very attractive markets indeed.

KMP wrote:The bottom line comes down to who do you want defining Aussie wine.
Mike

Now I'm getting confused, this thread started of as a "what" and now has come around to "who"?

My simplistic view of how the major pieces interact is a bit like this:

The bulk of Aussie wine is made to suit the "market". The market has a wide variety of tastes within and across country/ethnic boundaries, hence some wines (possibly the minority) sell in all markets and some wines are tailor-made to suit the bulk of the drinking population in a particular country. The difference may be as little as a name and label change or as great as special wine-making techniques to make wine to suit the perceived palate of the target population.

There are various people who try to influence what the market should buy and hence what winemakers should produce. These include "marketing people" per se whose job it is to identify the palate, influence the winemaking team and sell the product at the greatest volume and highest price possible. Then there are the wine judges and wine-writers who try their best to define what is a meritorious and quality wine in various styles and at various price-points and convince the buying public that they are right.

Since the bulk of the drinking population are very price sensitive (more so than "quality" sensitive) the bulk of wine made is to a formula and price, hence a lot of it has a sameness and "industrial" feel, but as long as it continues to sell there will be lakes and oceans of the cheap stuff made. lets just hope the producers can adjust quickly enough if a major O/S market changes tack suddenly.

At the higher end there are periodic exhortations by the likes of Brian Croser for Aussie winemakers to lift their game at the top end of the quality tree, to avoid be labelled as a producer of simple industrial, bottled-sunshine wine.

So, on what basis do you begin to define Aussie wine (or the Aussie palate as this thread started out, the question seems to have morphed a bit)? By volume? By premium-level QPR? By super-premium level quality in relation to "international standards"?

As I said in another thread, my wine preferences havent changed that much in the last 20 years and I have no problems at any time during that period in finding wines to suit my red-oriented tastes. The thing that has changed is that I'm now buying far less wine from the major companies and much more from the small producers who are making so many interesting wines and not just in Parker styles either.

So, maybe the best thing we can hope for is that these small makers prosper and continue to turn out desirable wines that speak uniquely for Australia.

First and foremost I think its relatively futile trying to define an Australian palate. Whilst one may draw some conclusions by looking at historical consumption statistics, current trends etc, the idea that a country of some 2000 odd wineries, producing a huge variations in variety and style, across hundreds of regions, and thousands more micro and meso climates, can be succintly defined is ludicrous.

The industry that the top 8-10 largest companies work in is nothing like the environment that remaining 1990 odd wineries operate in, and trying to draw conclusions that in some way apply to all of them is tedious at best. So if one is looking to define a national palate what factors does one weigh more heavily. The big guys who produce vastly greater quantities, or the relatively thin edge of the wedge that represents the greatest number of producers, and regions?

How heavily do we rely on the opinion of wine critics. It is mentioned that Halliday, Hooke et al score some of the bigger riper styles well. IMO the leaner more structured styles generally fare better. Parker is a defferent animal again, who obviously has a soft spot for big Aussie reds. But his opinion on Burgundy and Bordeaux is more eagerly sought, especially on a global scale. The Australian industry has copped a few knocks from the British wine press of late, but when our wines are so omni present in the UK, there are bound to be detractors. I dont think any common threads exist between the assorted wine media that help us to in any way define a national palate.

This topic could go on for a long time, with a lot of good points made, but there is no definitive answer. There is nothing less Australian about a Hunter Semillon than there is about a Rutherglen Muscat. Same could be said for Barossa Shiraz, Tassie Riesling, or for that matter Coolabah casks.

Its taken me four paragraphs to realsie that this topic is utter crap. However things have been a bit quiet lately so any topic that stirs a bit of interest is alright in my book.

LL

roughred wrote:Its taken me four paragraphs to realsie that this topic is utter crap. However things have been a bit quiet lately so any topic that stirs a bit of interest is alright in my book.

LL

Re crap topic.

Actually, I think the old forum has been a bit more lively recently than it has been for a while, keep up the good work folks.

(or maybe it just seems that way because I'm going stir-crazy with the broken leg and I'm posting more 'cos I can't get out to work in the garden and make the most of the wonderful spring weather. )

Red Bigot wrote:

KMP wrote:The bottom line comes down to who do you want defining Aussie wine.
Mike

Now I'm getting confused, this thread started of as a "what" and now has come around to "who"?

My simplistic view of how the major pieces interact is a bit like this:

The bulk of Aussie wine is made to suit the "market". The market has a wide variety of tastes within and across country/ethnic boundaries, hence some wines (possibly the minority) sell in all markets and some wines are tailor-made to suit the bulk of the drinking population in a particular country. The difference may be as little as a name and label change or as great as special wine-making techniques to make wine to suit the perceived palate of the target population.

There are various people who try to influence what the market should buy and hence what winemakers should produce. These include "marketing people" per se whose job it is to identify the palate, influence the winemaking team and sell the product at the greatest volume and highest price possible. Then there are the wine judges and wine-writers who try their best to define what is a meritorious and quality wine in various styles and at various price-points and convince the buying public that they are right.

Since the bulk of the drinking population are very price sensitive (more so than "quality" sensitive) the bulk of wine made is to a formula and price, hence a lot of it has a sameness and "industrial" feel, but as long as it continues to sell there will be lakes and oceans of the cheap stuff made. lets just hope the producers can adjust quickly enough if a major O/S market changes tack suddenly.

At the higher end there are periodic exhortations by the likes of Brian Croser for Aussie winemakers to lift their game at the top end of the quality tree, to avoid be labelled as a producer of simple industrial, bottled-sunshine wine.

So, on what basis do you begin to define Aussie wine (or the Aussie palate as this thread started out, the question seems to have morphed a bit)? By volume? By premium-level QPR? By super-premium level quality in relation to "international standards"?

As I said in another thread, my wine preferences havent changed that much in the last 20 years and I have no problems at any time during that period in finding wines to suit my red-oriented tastes. The thing that has changed is that I'm now buying far less wine from the major companies and much more from the small producers who are making so many interesting wines and not just in Parker styles either.

So, maybe the best thing we can hope for is that these small makers prosper and continue to turn out desirable wines that speak uniquely for Australia.

Brian

Perhaps the title should have been "Defining the Australian Palate" as my initial post comments not only on how my palate has perceived a change in Australian wine (and I don't think this reflects export only wines) but also ends with a para on "who".

Mike

I wonder how parker would rate vegemite? If he gave it a 96 would it sell out in a week. What defines the Australian pallet??? probably diet?
I don't eat the ' normal' sliced bread here it is so sweet I can not eat it. That's not an exageration. Pies here are all sweet (no meat pies anyway, I make my own). The sausages are sweet! I would testify to that (in comparison) Australians and Kiwis are far more of a savory pallet than sweet as the american pallet seems to be. I have had some great American wines and some pretty poor ones but the equivalent can be said for Australian wines while I was last in Australia. In most instances you get what you pay for, not always the case but typically true in my opinion. Australian wines over $20.00 US have to be impressive, there is a big sellection here, US, Spain, France, NZ, Chilly, Italy... South Africa (hailed as the 'new' Australia of wine by the way) and all in abundance, so this market is a real test for the average consumer. So why do I drink 99% Australian reds? Because I am from there and I am biaist, besides, Australian wines are the best dollar for dollar available but that could very well be changing
What do you all think about the US wines? Overly oaked, overly sweet, not enough fruit ... every coin has two sides (or more). I'm sitting here drinking a fruit bomb but a little overly sweet Zinfandel and it's just great. How does Parker rate it? Who cares. I like it, and I bought it, and I'm going to finish it.
Working for an Australian company in the US I constantly here how great the Australian wines are (from Americans). Most coments are there is no bad Australian (red) wine. Yellow tail is a phenomenon. Shame on all the Australian producers for producing wines that are popular in America, what are they trying to do run a business? make some money?
Have you ever given an American a taste of vegemite? Priceless! My wife is Finnish and she actually asked a friend to bring some over, I didn't realise it tasted awful bad until I saw someone who never tasted it before taste it. Why do Aussies like it so much?
The other point I'd make is what do you like to drink with McDonalds instead of steak, Barbeque and lamb. Diet is definitely different here, much sweeter and milder food is my final answer, is Australia following Americas diet pattern???
Just some food for thought (excuse the pun)

Parker interest is wanning. Despite of the 98points awarded to Octavius 2001, it's still languising on the shelf.

Anonymous wrote:Parker interest is wanning. Despite of the 98points awarded to Octavius 2001, it's still languising on the shelf.

The question is "is Parkers interest wanning" or "is interest in the category moving on." IMO it may be more about the latter than the former.

Jersey wrote:... Australian wines over $20.00 US have to be impressive, there is a big sellection here, US, Spain, France, NZ, Chilly, Italy... South Africa (hailed as the 'new' Australia of wine by the way) and all in abundance, so this market is a real test for the average consumer. So why do I drink 99% Australian reds? Because I am from there and I am biaist,

Jersey
I think you've picked up on something that I perceive of the "Australian Palate" in that it's been brought up on 95% (or 99%) Australian wine. Is this a fair perception?
Although my cellar is Aussie dominated (55%) it was my first great interest in wine - but now Italy is up at 18% and growing rapidly and NZ has 11% - in both cases I expect them to grow at the expense of Australia to give me the balance of styles I want. France, Germany, Lebanon, Argentina, USA, Portugal, Spain and South Africa round out the remainder.

What proportion Aussie wines in a "typical" Aussies cellar (or typical bottle shop)?

I'm not saying Aussie wines are all "samey" (far from it, there's excellent variety). It's just that there's other styles out there that Australia doesn't produce. I like them as well.

The one thing that does impress me is when a wine fashion comes along (or goes) and some producers stubbornly refuse to follow it. Without them we might not have Sparking Shiraz, Rutherglen fortifieds, etc.

Maybe, coming back to the original point, there have been general changes, but throughout many producers have just got on with producing the best wine they think they can produce in the style they've always believed in.

Ian

Anonymous wrote:Parker interest is wanning. Despite of the 98points awarded to Octavius 2001, it's still languising on the shelf.

Rather interesting conclusion based on the analysis of one wine! While IÂ’m sure there will be those who disagree Parker (particularly over the last 5 or so years) has had more impact on Australian wine than any other single individual. And I see that influence only continuing to grow. There are several reasons for this.

1) Australia now exports almost 50% of its wine.

2) That export market is needed if the industry is to continue to grow. If exports fail the home market is simply too small to absorb the current growth.

3) The only effective international voice for Australian wines (in general) is Parker. In fact Parker is the only international voice for pretty much all of the significant wine producing countries. Its true that he is cutting back his individual interests and is outsourcing his reign among people like Pierre Rovani (who has responsibility for the Burgundy, Loire, Alsace, New Zealand, and the Pacific Northwest), David Schildknecht (Germany and Austria), and Daniel Thomases (Italy). Again others will disagree but its fortunate that he has kept his favorites like Bordeaux and Australia.

4) Currently the most lucrative market for Australian wine is the USA (England imports more volume but pays less per litre). Its not only a sophisticated market but it continue to be a wealthy market. And itÂ’s a market that listens intently to Parker. If the USA looses interest in Australian wine that will be a significant event.

5) Parker sees the internet as the next arena for wine advocacy. If he assumes the mantle in that area then he (and his group) will have a far greater international influence.

Yes there are downsides to having Parker play such a significant role. It unnerving that a single individual should wield such influence, but for 25 years he has no significant challengers. And certainly none of the Australian critics have anywhere near his influence. The anti-Parkerites can take solace in the fact that he is nearing 60 and so aging is very likely to slow him down and with his taking additional critics into his group that is probably already happening. He probably has 10, maybe 20 years, left as an effective voice. The real question for Australian wine is when Parker is gone who will take his place? Product advertising? Brand identification? Hardly.

Oh you think Parker doesn't influence the lower end of the market and so he's immaterial to the greatest part of Australian exports. Think again. He has recommended the Yellow Tail Shiraz, Cabernet and Chardonnay and the Reserve Shiraz and Chardonnay. His overall comment “It is no surprise to me that consumers are intelligent, and should never be under-estimated. Since there are no remaining stocks of the 2001s, I did not have an opportunity to see how they age, but these 2002s all have merit. In some wine circles it is fashionable to criticize wines of this genre, but, if the truth be known, these are surprisingly well-made offerings.”

My opinion on what, who, when, where the Australian palate is defined? Well the Australian wine industry only survives if its exports continue to grow. And right now the only game in town is Robert Parker, Jr.

Mike

Mike,

In regard to Parker influencing the low end, his comments on Yellow Tail are the exception rather than the rule IMO.

Firstly, Yellow Tail was enormously successful prior to Parker making those comments; from memory by the time those comments were made, it was already the US's biggest seller. Secondly, what other low end wines has he supported or made positive comments about?

He does have a big influence at the premium end of the US market but the vast majority of wine (by volume) imported into the US sells below US $25 a bottle.

I have just checked Issue 155 of the WA (the last Oz edition) and out of the first 236 reds listed only 33 of them , or 13.9% were $25 or below. The average score of the first 10 listed (of those at $25 or below) was 89 points, and I seriously doubt that 89 points is enough to move most Parker followers.

So yes, Parker does move the high end stuff but I would think the likes of Wine Spectator would have a much bigger influence at the lower cost end of things.

TORB wrote:Mike,

In regard to Parker influencing the low end, his comments on Yellow Tail are the exception rather than the rule IMO.

Firstly, Yellow Tail was enormously successful prior to Parker making those comments; from memory by the time those comments were made, it was already the US's biggest seller. Secondly, what other low end wines has he supported or made positive comments about?

He does have a big influence at the premium end of the US market but the vast majority of wine (by volume) imported into the US sells below US $25 a bottle.

I have just checked Issue 155 of the WA (the last Oz edition) and out of the first 236 reds listed only 33 of them , or 13.9% were $25 or below. The average score of the first 10 listed (of those at $25 or below) was 89 points, and I seriously doubt that 89 points is enough to move most Parker followers.

So yes, Parker does move the high end stuff but I would think the likes of Wine Spectator would have a much bigger influence at the lower cost end of things.

Ric

The idea that Parker only moves the high end Aussie wines is, I believe, a serious misconception about his influence. If you go to his on-line site you will find that he has recommended some 3,331 Australian wines. When you break them down by price you see that 184 are less than $10USD, 798 are between $10-20USD and 820 are between $21-30. Only 102 are between $76-100! The less than $20USD group comprises 29.4% of the recommended wines. Parker recommended 541 wines from the 2002 vintage, of those 191 (35.3%) were in the $20USD and below range.

Yes it very true that the vast majority of those wines scored less than 90 points. But both the wine public and retailers are becoming savvier about points. While most probably don’t know that Parker only recommends somewhere between 25-35% of the wines he tastes, many now realize that if you get 85 points or better that’s an indication of good to very good wine. (Remember that the US market has been learning about points (and Parker) for a quarter of a century.) Plus retailers are learning to just put up the Parker notes as his name carries weight by itself. Additionally people realize now that points and price are directly linked. You can’t get a 98 point wine for $10. But what they have learnt is that Australian wine represents value – and Parker has contributed to that viewpoint. And if you read what he says about Yellow Tail there is the impression that he is seeking to congratulate the average drinker on their choice of wine. After all if his sales of the WA are to continue to grow that is one group he must continue to influence. Expect to see more of it!

The Wine Spectator (WS) certainly has influence. Their greatest contribution was to make the 1990 Grange Wine of the Year in 1995. That was one of the biggest defining moments for Australian wine in the USA. After that interest and prices took off. It was also the year that Parker recommended more than 100 Aussie wines, and he continues to recommend more and more wines with each vintage (IÂ’m excluding 2003 and 2004 because he probably hasnÂ’t seen all those wines yet.) The problem with WS is that they donÂ’t seem to carry any weight with the general public. IÂ’ll bet that the average wine drinker that comes into a wine shop or supermarket to buy some wine knows the name Parker better than the name Wine Spectator.

Mike

Mike,

A few thoughts for consideration.

Firstly, we have no idea how many people subscribe to RP's site or indeed the demographics of those people, but from what I have seen on Squires Forum, the majority of posters there are after the hard copy WA.

Are there a heap more wines on his site that don't make the WA? I don't know.

Back to the demographics; my gut feel tells me that the percentage of people who subscribe to his site that buy at the low end would not be high. By definition, those who buy at the low cost end normally have less interest in the technicalities and are less likely to subscribe.

Also, of those lower priced wines you referenced, I bet two things. Firstly, a fair number of them are whites and secondly that in many cases the prices are for back vintages and now out of date.

Wine Spectators audited circulation was 347,000 in June 2002 and was reported as by far the largest wine publication in the US. From what I have seen of it, the magazine, it is pointed at a lower level than Parker so to me, it says that it would have a bigger influence at the lower end of the market than Parker.

I am not saying RP has no influence in the lower priced wines, I just "think" that WS would be greater. It would be interesting to see the numbers on the last 12 months worth of reds.

To Parker or not to Parker.
Well I certainly have to admit he has had some influence on my buying, if I'm undecided on two or three Australian wines and he has one marked 93-94 and the other two at 89-90 I'll accept his experience and pallet as one worth listening to. This would probably not be true if the persons on this site were highly recomending one of the wines in the 89-90 range. I have been shocked at some of the reviews I've read but have had the same wine a month apart and fell over backward raving on the first tasting yet left tottaly absent the second time around. One great thing I've learnt from you all is that is not uncommon. Parker gives his honest opinion (IMO) that dosn't make it right or wrong. Is the US and Australian wine paelet different? That was the point of my earlier post, it sure is (IMO). Even many Australians complain about the 'mass market' wines made for the US. They don't need to Australia would have to have the most consistant quality of any red wine producing country in the world bar none. So the odds of getting a good drop or an excellent Q/P when picking up an Australian wine is very high. My Australian cellar is about 95%. I am not against other red wine and infact agree with comments of broadening my horizons. My experience was it's hard to source international selections in Australia.
Mick.

Ric

Parker's influence extends way beyond his subscribers and/or his online site. His name (or rather the Wine Advocate) covers wine shelves everywhere. He is interviewed on TV, in magazines etc. I think you have to visit a few wine shops/supermarkets here in the USA to appreciate his presence.

Yes WS is in there as well and yes it has influence. I get it every month but that does not mean I pour over the ratings. I do read the occasional article, and of course look at the pictures.

I don't pour over the WA ratings either because I don't get the hardcopy version except for the Aussie issue, and to be completely honest I have not taken notice of Parker until I started to blog about wine some 1.5 - 2 years ago. I ignored him (and the WS ratings for that matter) for pretty much 20 years. So I'm not speaking as a devotee here, I'm just doing the numbers as dispassionately as I can. And I'm finding them as hard to believe as you are but there they are just the same.

As regards your comment "I bet two things. Firstly, a fair number of them are whites and secondly that in many cases the prices are for back vintages and now out of date."

That is why I gave the numbers for the 2002 vintage, probably the most recent complete vintage. If you break down the 191 wines below $20USD in the 90-95 point group there are 45 wines of which 10 are white and one rose. In the 80-89 point group there are 146 wines of which three got 84 and the rest 85 or above. Of those 64 are white. But as you well know whites are going to be cheaper anyway. Still he is recommending over 50% reds in the less than $20 group. (The biggest problem with Parker's ratings is that we have no idea of the breakdown in terms of the total wine spectrum tasted, only those recommended.) BTW the spectum of Australian wines he recommends was, for me, surprising.

Mike