The Auswine Forum

This is purely an FYI post. I've never tasted a Mt Mary and so I have no opinion, but I do know that there are forum members who favor the wine so I thought I'd share some of RP's comments. He noted that the maker of the Mt Mary Quintet has never wished Parker to review the wine (I don't know if that is true or not) but Parker was able to get several vintages. Part of what he said is In addition to the 2001 Quintet, I was able to taste the 1998, 1997, 1995, and 1994. For my taste, only the 2001 merited a score higher than 80 points. Then at the end of his comments he noted It is difficult to understand what merit these wines possess.. The comments are from TWA #161 that was just released in both print and online forms.

Mike

Suits me, will keep the price down (not that it's not already 'up') and keeps the wine in Australia where we do understand and appreciate the style.

I don't normally dip into the high end but on the one occassion I had the Mount Mary I found it to be a bit boring - just not my style I guess :S

Absolutely predictable that RPJ would not like the style of wine - and John Middleton rarely provides wines to any critic - certainly not to RPJ as a matter of style.

Second issue : if you know the wines they really only blossom from about age 15: so the 1990 & 1991 are coming into their own. the 1986 (when it was still called cabernets as opposed to quintet) is a delight.

there were a few less than stellar Mt mary cabernet-based wines in the 1990s and 1994 & 1997 both are amongst the weakest of the decade). The 1998 will be very good albeit 2000 better, but both are very young and far more elegant and subtle than RPJ tends to favour.

Given the climate and conditions of what are really single vineyard wines (yes I know each of the varieties is in a different vineyard), you have to expect considerable variation from vintage to vintage in the Yarra.


Really it is a question of knowing the critic and knowing the wine: RPJ's palate for reds is incredibly consistent, and I know where he is coming from - and can even accept most of his recommendations/tasting notes for Bordeaux but we differ radically on much of Oz shiraz and almost diametrically when he looks at Oz Cabernet as he is looking for something completely different to that which I like in the style.

Jeremy Oliver has received a lot of poor press but his notes are pretty good and you would be surprised how often conclusions are similar: I can calibrate my palate to Jeremy's - and recently did so at a function we both attended.

Some of Jeremy's poor press is for remarking and being honest: in most instances he tastes the wine once and assuming no TCA or absolutely obvious fault which indicates it is not a true representation of the wine, he gives his notes and points based on that bottle.

No one will agree with anyone 100% - your palate is your own, and we all have prejudices and different preferences.

I guess that predisposes JO in favour of wines which he has tasted previously: if he receives one with random oxidisation he is more likely to pick it up if he is familiar with the wine than if not, BUT THEN HE IS BEING STRICTLY HONEST BY RATING THE WINE HE TASTES - AND IF ON TASTING ANOTHER BOTTLE IN A FEW YEARS IT APPEARS DIFFERENT HE WILL RATE IT AS IT STANDS THEN.

Anyone producing wine annuals simply cannot taste multiple bottles of every wine for consistency - just the sheer volume would be defeating (and even that does not guarantee they are tasting the "real" wine as the seals may all have been defective- screw or cork etc).

You pays your money - you takes your chances.

RPJ has one of the most consistent palates of any critic I have encountered: and that is remarkably useful once you factor in how the critic's preferences align with your own, but as has been all too often remarked: to glance at the score alone is almost meaningless, and regard for a critic's preferences on Bordeaux should only marginally make him him more an authority on Oz wines than a footballer of any code recommending say airconditioning units or superannuation funds!

Nonetheless the status and recognition factor in each case count for an awful lot (as sales show).

Just no need to negate your own taste buds - but if your preferences are those of RPJ for Oz wine, good for you (but as in matters of taste do not claim knowledge or divine right for any but your own palate or those similarly addicted!).

Also remember that what you like and what others like is fine: but short of wine faults, everyone has different preferences:

sweet, savoury, drink now, ageworthy,fruit up front, secondary flavours etc- and there are even people who believe that drinking wine WITHOUT food is the ultimate preferred experience (the number of people on various Boards who write "this wine is too good to have with food" - a view which is anathema to others like me).

No one is right - except perhaps about prognostication of ageworthiness, and if someone prefers a style different to your tipple, merely note it and do not cast pearls before swine!

So long as each of us can find something we like at a remotely reasonable price we have no reason to complain (but as you well know you cannot be happy if you have nothing ot complain about!!)

fred

not the first time ive seen it perform poorly in tastings however hardly a surprise noting its style vs what robbie rates as great

make way for the lemmings

I've never enjoyed Mt Mary and that includes the 86 and 90. I've not tried the 91 though. It seems to my palate to be based on hype - there is definitely no 'wow' factor that I would expect in a wine at that price point.

Just my two bob's worth, and as Fred alluded to, we all have our own taste preferences.

Mike

I wonder how many people have ever tasted Mt Mary. It seems to be one of those CB wines that the (Aus) critics rave about.
If you have tasted Mt Mary (apart those those above who have already told us they have) put up your hand and tell us what you thought.

PS CB = cant buy.

SueNZ wrote:I wonder how many people have ever tasted Mt Mary. It seems to be one of those CB wines that the (Aus) critics rave about.
If you have tasted Mt Mary (apart those those above who have already told us they have) put up your hand and tell us what you thought.

PS CB = cant buy.

Sue,

An interesting question, perhaps pose it as a seperate topic as a POLL.

I have had nearly every vintage of the Quintet from 1980-1998 (many recently) including the fabulous 1977, and on the whole I believe the wine is grossly over-rated. I still have over a 10 cases of Mount Mary too! Only two vintages have really impressed - 1977 and 1986 (two of the greatest cabernets ever made in Australia) - while highly regarded others like 1981, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996 have disappointed to my palate and come nowhere near the 77 and 86. The 1979, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1997, 1995 are seriously mediocre. It doesn't help that the late 90s has not been a great success for Mount Mary (which John Middleton admits). Living on past glories/reputation? I think so. Over-rated? Yes. Good wines? Only in certain years, but wildly inconsistent. I have no problem with Parker rubbishing MM - he's entitled to his opinion. So where's the problem? I get the feeling that MM lovers expect everyone to "understand" the nuances and style of the wine. Some people dont like the wine. That's the nature of wine tasting/drinking (stylistic preferences/subjecivity etc). Get over it! I'd also like to see others who have tasted several vintages of wine to put their thoughts to paper (excepting fred who has already done so and I know he has has alot of experinece with the wine). There seems to be many "I have tasted it once or twice and love the wine" -type thoughts/sentiments floating around previous posts (similar). I don't consider that valid to justify a vast generalisation re: overall MM quality. Of course, my thoughts are no more valid than anyone else's but at least I have tried many vintages, frequently! Interesting that only Oliver has published TNs and scores on MM wines - as far as I am aware, Halliday et al havent updated their reviews on MM for years. My 2c worth.

Baby Chickpea wrote:I have had nearly every vintage of the Quintet from 1980-1998 (many recently) including the fabulous 1977, and on the whole I believe the wine is grossly over-rated. I still have over a 10 cases of Mount Mary too! Only two vintages have really impressed - 1977 and 1986 (two of the greatest cabernets ever made in Australia) - while highly regarded others like 1981, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996 have disappointed to my palate and come nowhere near the 77 and 86. The 1979, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1997, 1995 are seriously mediocre. It doesn't help that the late 90s has not been a great success for Mount Mary (which John Middleton admits). Living on past glories/reputation? I think so. Over-rated? Yes. Good wines? Only in certain years, but wildly inconsistent. I have no problem with Parker rubbishing MM - he's entitled to his opinion. So where's the problem? I get the feeling that MM lovers expect everyone to "understand" the nuances and style of the wine. Some people dont like the wine. That's the nature of wine tasting/drinking (stylistic preferences/subjecivity etc). Get over it! I'd also like to see others who have tasted several vintages of wine to put their thoughts to paper (excepting fred who has already done so and I know he has has alot of experinece with the wine). There seems to be many "I have tasted it once or twice and love the wine" -type thoughts/sentiments floating around previous posts (similar). I don't consider that valid to justify a vast generalisation re: overall MM quality. Of course, my thoughts are no more valid than anyone else's but at least I have tried many vintages, frequently! Interesting that only Oliver has published TNs and scores on MM wines - as far as I am aware, Halliday et al havent updated their reviews on MM for years. My 2c worth.

This is my 20th year on the mailing list and notwithstanding my loyalty affinities I honestly rate the Quintets as one of the great wines of Australia. The chardonnay is compelling and for a long time MM pinot was a lone beacon of quality. It is now off the pace in the second rank.

I have tasted every vintage since 1980 together with 1978 of the 70's.

Only 1989 of the mature wines is a weak link. Although I agree 1994 is underwhelming at the moment. You must leave them for at least 10 years. They are fleshy and sumptuous and deliciously simple/complex on first release. By that I mean it drinks so easily that one does not see the gravitas underneath. Then they go to sleep and slowly build.

Currently the 1986, 1988, 1990 and 1991 are tasting brilliantly. The 1992 which I always had doubts about drank beautifully on Derby day last week. The same with the 1984: it was overpowering on release, going nowhere after 10-15 years and it is only now rewarding patience.

When the French thought it was bon to play bombs in the South Pacific, I upped my MM allocation at the expense of Bordeaux. I have been stunned over the years how well MM has performed against the Las Cases, Margaux, Haut Brion, Pichon-Lalandes etc of similar vintage and provenance.

MM can be deceptively simple and elegant, but with time and food there is a core of cedar, cloves and sweet fruit. It is a wine of great finesse, length and elegance. It is rarely clumsy as Moss Wood and Cullen can sometimes be. MM does not scream Yarra Valley like Wantirna Estate and Yeringberg. It hints of it, but sometimes suggests an otherwordliness: as if it has been blended with a supple superb St Emilion.

Few wines in this country or elsewhere for that matter can claim such consistency over the long haul. John Middleton has accomplished a great wine.

I have ordered, paid and have had my Visa card debited for the full complement this current release. Such is my faith. Newsletter went out last week.

Last year I was too late, (no soup for me) and secured only 2 bottles. Mind you 2002 was an atypically unpromising wine, so I was not too disappointed. I am absolutely thrilled that RPJ does not like MM. I hope he detests Giaconda, Bass Phillip, Moss Wood, Cullen, Savaterre, Bindi, Craiglee, Yerinberg, Dalwhinnie, Jasper Hills, St Peters, Mt Langhi Ghiran, Plantagenet et al.
And leave Clonakilla SV, Australia's best shiraz style wine, alone Mr RPJ! I am happy for him to keep trawling in McLarenvale and Barossa and he should help out the Rutherglen region, but leave Beechworth alone.

My frilled lizard copper coin.
Neville K

Neville What is on the list allocation and price wise?

Has anyone else on the list not received theirs yet?

reds are $85 max 12 bottles Quintets; 6 bottles pinot
whites I think were $50

Neville,

I have been drinking/tasting Mount mary since they were first made - and to a fair degree i agree with you:-

- the chardonnay requires 10 years rule of thumb to be seen as it should (but then I like mature white burgundy and chablis so that is my preference - not to mention John Middleton's). Very different from other Oz chardonnay but certainly in my top 4 (LEAS, Cullen, Giaconda round it out with the next tier being Pierro, Tyrrells vat 47, Petaluma, Yattarna, Penfolds bin insert vintage A, and a few others)

- the pinot was at the forefront of Oz pinots for the first 15 years or so, but others have overtaken it;

- the triolet is well made - just not my thing at all;

- the cabernets/quintet is a very different style from other Oz in that it does not hit you over the head (and I don't mean even fruitbomb mentality) but rather creeps up on you in that it s very smooth with well-integrated tanins so you could just drink it but would have to think to determine its components. As remarked earlier they take 15 years to hit their straps and typically should do another decade if well-cellared (hence the 1977 - and for that matter the last 1975 -I tasted was in good nick). They DO go through cabernet hibernation/sleep where nothing seems to be going on - and I cannot help but wonder how many people have opened them during that period (as "older wines" of say 7-10/11) and thought there is nothing here with disappointment. The style will always be aberrant to those who favour big bold styles to the exclusion of much else ("taste buds were shot off in the war") and foood of similar ilk: Indian Asian/TexMex and lots of chilli/spice.....but it is avery good food wine which is the way I see all wine : a beverage to accompany a meal which stretches on and on...

I would not defend every vintage of MtM as the Yarra has had its problems over the last 15 years, but I am happy with my 1990/1 and will back the 2000 very happily as being the pick of that period (with a few others destined to be very good indeed).

1975, 1977, 1986 are classics with 1984 and 1988 not too far behind (never could work out why the 1976 was so highly rated other than it was a great year in SA!!!!) but you have to accept that the Yarra will have considerable variation.

As a style, some will like it - and some won't. I won't try to convert you - just don't commit vinfanticide on these wines or believe that merely decnating them for extended periods is a substitution for proper extended cellaring.

Hey, I like good aged Grange; I drink decade old Pirramimma reserve shiraz but also like MtM, Valli, DRC, Seppelts shiraz, Moss Wood CS, cullen cab-merlot and have liked these styles for three decades (admission: valli has only been going half a decade in its current guise) ......and was an early admirer of Giaconda Cabernet!! (as well as chardonnay & pinot). Different wines for different moods and foods.

I return to the original point: RP jnr is very true to his own palate but also has huge blindspots - to which he also remains true!


Not Neville (or Danny either for that matter):
It is one thing to contribute to a wineboard but after you have shown how wonderful your own palate is, wanked sufficiently (and perhaps garnered some information from others) just what is the point of trying to convert others to something which is or should relate to someone's personal tastebuds: if they like their wine mixed with coca Cola - and they choose RC to mix it, I envy them their money if not their tastebuds : for all I know that may be the only way to make the mixture palatable!!

Danny & Neville: you both tend to prefer subtler wines with some considerable age on them and the secondary characteristics whch are the "fruit" of good cellaring. Although not necessarily among the elder or eldest posters, I would suggest that the 3 of us are fortunate to have had access to more old wine over a longer period than almost any others here - and probably a longer history of winedrinking/tasting. That does not make us right - it simply increases the likelihood that our palates will have some alignment.

Let us not discourage those who would say that the empress has no clothes, for their vision it may be true but as the song from Cabaret goes "if they could only see her with my eyes....."

fred on a friday

All bow to the F-N-D...

You ruined a good post by tacking on the arrogance at the end...conjeurs up images of stuffy wanky wine geeks looking down their nose on others without as subtle palates.

So Adam you are making up quickly for the intervening decades- but the funny thing was my point that whoever is wanking on, and the desire to put oneself in print is a contributing factor for many never fear - the perspective of some wil be the same for various reasons.

If you are not on the same plane( or planet) it is not that you are wrong or I am wrong, simply that we agree to differ.

Adam, what I know of your palate is not so different from mine - with the only major differences in taste being MtM and craiglee: note that particularly Craiglee shows huge variation as you might expect from vintage to vintage in Sunbury. I don't know your exposure to much older wines (ie 2-3+decades) or preferences thereon.

Your exposure to expensive European wines (both Bordeaux and Burgundy - not to mention sparkling) of the last decade would probably exceed others (of whom I have only met Danny, and his job entails at least the opportunity for considerable exposure).

that gives you a different perspective together with youth (a naturally superior palate if you haven't abused it ) and you are catching up on "palate memory".

You are still not "coming from " the same place as the other 2 I mentioned in terms of the Oz (& probably European) wines that we grew up with so unsurprisingly your bias will be a little different.

There was no thought of objective superiority (oh alright maybe to get back at all those who prefer the big in your face styles ) but why would you take it personally except to object to exclusion?

You make your bed and you lie on it in terms of preferences and Winepals.... I am sure we could find common cause albeit of a different generation.

It is not "all bow": it is just

Does Mt Mary have a web site or cellar door, or does anyone have anything that might provide more information on Dr John Middleton and his wines?

Seems very hard to find any information easily.

Mike

fred wrote:
Danny & Neville: you both tend to prefer subtler wines with some considerable age on them and the secondary characteristics whch are the "fruit" of good cellaring. Although not necessarily among the elder or eldest posters, I would suggest that the 3 of us are fortunate to have had access to more old wine over a longer period than almost any others here - and probably a longer history of winedrinking/tasting. That does not make us right - it simply increases the likelihood that our palates will have some alignment.

Let us not discourage those who would say that the empress has no clothes, for their vision it may be true but as the song from Cabaret goes "if they could only see her with my eyes....."

fred on a friday

Fred, get your hand off it.

That the three of you may have different palate likes to others that post here may be true. The rest is absolute assumptive wank.

For the record:

- I like Mt Mary
- I have consumed a large number of old bordeaux, including a dozen just last week between 1928-1960

Guess Im in the club.

Davo, on your knees...

Neville K wrote:I have ordered, paid and have had my Visa card debited for the full complement this current release. Such is my faith. Newsletter went out last week.

Really No mailer for me!

Never mind; at $80 pb I think I'd rather buy Bordeaux.

I've bought the cabernets since the 95 vintage but have only tried a number of the 95 and 2 of the 97. Loved them all but they were all consumed over dinner rather than at a tasting where I feel they might not have showed as well. Have no problems with the style and will continue to purchase them although I am windign down the volume.

Haven't seen the mailer as yet (when I get home maybe?) but I'll probably only get 3 quintets and 3 chardys this year. Money and space are now becoming a focus and they have gone up over the years. I think the 95s were closer to the $50 mark. There were a couple of big jumps in price over the years but they now seem settled around mid $80 for the reds.

Hoped I was back on the list after an address problem. Oops, better ring the winery and pray...

Only tasted a few vintages of Quintet (at mail-list prices). Enjoyed them very much. Value looks alright compared to new-release-wannabe-Barossa Shiraz at $60 for 3rd vintage.

Justifies the hype? An individual's decision's. I don't really have enough data yet (but have a little of 96,97,98,99,01 in the cellar). Why does it matter?

Rather think that Dr M would score Parker's palate at considerably less than 80 points!

cheers,
Graeme

Sounds like I might have had mine too early - it was a 97 that we drank in 2003 but given that it was my father's bottle I wasn't going to knock it back

Lincoln wrote:

Neville K wrote:I have ordered, paid and have had my Visa card debited for the full complement this current release. Such is my faith. Newsletter went out last week.

Really No mailer for me!

Never mind; at $80 pb I think I'd rather buy Bordeaux.

How does $80 Bordeaux compare for value with similar priced Aus cabs. i.e Moss Wood, Diane Madeline, Jack Mann, 707, etc?

A question from a palate which has not expereinced the sublime pleasures of old Bordeaux! How dare I contribute!!

Does it really make any difference at the end of the day if one person likes the more subtle style of cab, someone else likes fruit bomb shiraz and others like whites ? As I said in my earlier post, we all have our own taste preferences.

Personal superiority / abuse is what I've come to expect from the American wine forums, not the Aussie ones.

Jordan wrote:

Lincoln wrote:

Neville K wrote:I have ordered, paid and have had my Visa card debited for the full complement this current release. Such is my faith. Newsletter went out last week.

Really No mailer for me!

Never mind; at $80 pb I think I'd rather buy Bordeaux.

How does $80 Bordeaux compare for value with similar priced Aus cabs. i.e Moss Wood, Diane Madeline, Jack Mann, 707, etc?

Pretty well I would have thought. From your list, Cullen is the only premium cabernet I still buy. I tried the 02 a few weeks ago and for a "lesser" vintage it certainly looked good. Wrt to Mount Mary, I've found them pretty inconsistent, but the hype surrounding the wine hasn't helped. You always expect a lot and when it isn't delivered you feel let-down. I also prefer to try before I buy, and this is virtually impossible, so nowadays I just have to satisfy myself with something else - there are plenty of other good/great wines out there, and sometimes just trying to find them is part of the fun.

Jordan wrote:

Lincoln wrote:

Neville K wrote:I have ordered, paid and have had my Visa card debited for the full complement this current release. Such is my faith. Newsletter went out last week.

Really No mailer for me!

Never mind; at $80 pb I think I'd rather buy Bordeaux.

How does $80 Bordeaux compare for value with similar priced Aus cabs. i.e Moss Wood, Diane Madeline, Jack Mann, 707, etc?

A question from a palate which has not expereinced the sublime pleasures of old Bordeaux! How dare I contribute!!

I'll dare to reply, even on my limited Bordeaux experience. Bordeaux at the same price can compete. We drank a 00 Chateau Boyd Cantenac last month which I got for $68 - cheaper than any mates rates price can get for Cullen and Moss Wood - and it was fabulous. Du Tertre was the same. here are many oler vintages at auction for lessthan Cullen or Moss Wood if you're patient.

I'm looking forward to 04 Bordeaux in particular - I like the look of the tasting notes. You can get a couple of the 2nd growths for the price of the Moss Wood, and quite a lot of 3rds to 5ths.

I dont have decades of palate memory yet, so I guess I'm off for a wank now.

Oh and FWIW, I've seen Mount Mary a couple of times too, usually blind, and it showed reasonably but not brilliantly. The 2000 was more Bordeaux than some 2000 Bordeaux.

Wizz wrote:Oh and FWIW, I've seen Mount Mary a couple of times too, usually blind, and it showed reasonably but not brilliantly. The 2000 was more Bordeaux than some 2000 Bordeaux.

yes it was.
it's a shame we didn't get a write-up of that tasting - curse that Gary Walsh!

Don’t wish to chime into any what others may like or dislike, and aren’t interested in convincing anyone one way or the other – especially to like it, heavens above, the last thing I want is for more people to like the stuff and push up demand! But for what it’s worth, I adore Mount Mary, not the whites, nope, don’t like the triolet, and have had only the odd good Chardonnay but love the Pinot and Cab.

I too have purchased every vintage for more than 20 years. Yes, I’ve had a few which have been letdowns, but let’s put this into context, it’s an estate wine, as much as you’d love it, you can’t expect a stunning wine every single vintage. Nonetheless, I’m prepared to buy every year knowing I’m going to have some stunning wines 10 – 20 years after release, because in my view that’s what they can be, stunning.

Had an 83 Pinot last year, loved it, thought it was sublime, likewise the 94 is a ripper as will be the 2000. The 84 Cab will still cellar another 10 years and is a great wine. IÂ’m also a big fan of the 94 which others arenÂ’t, it doesnÂ’t matter, itÂ’s what we each prefer. One thing IÂ’m convinced about is that these are food wines, match them with a dish and they can sing.

If some do not like Mount Mary what does it matter, leave it to those who do. I for one do not like Cullen, have always been a fan of Moss Wood, donÂ’t rate St Peters highly, love Yarra Yering and donÂ’t much like Mount Langhi, and the list goes on and on. WeÂ’re all different. No point trying to convince others, itÂ’s just a waste of what we each think is great wine. In fact my own tastes change, IÂ’ve got cases of wine in my cellar which I used to love, but no longer do because my palate has changed. ThatÂ’s just how it is.

Put me down as an unabashed fan of Mount Mary, and I still don’t have my mailer – preference went to those who missed out last year I believe.

As for Parker, he’s human isn’t he? He has his own tastes, I’ve never followed him, much prefer to exercise my own judgement by tasting as much as is practicable, something I suggest many wine critics struggle to do with any degree of consistency. Once I get beyond 20 odd wines my palate is well and truly gone. Even if I did this every day of the week, every week of the year, I could really only review just over 7,000 wines a year. Given the number of wines he tries on an international front, I question how he can do justice to the wines he reviews? Or he’s got a ‘cast iron’ palate.

Cheers
Ian

Collected my Mount Mary on the weekend, and oh, just a final note Mr Parker, it seems the market has spoken. Sold out - again! Seems you have significant influence here

p.s. I should have ordered the Chardonnay

Ian