The Auswine Forum

I recently travelled down to Margaret River and the first place we went to happened to be Howard Park. We tried most of the range and then came to what I personally thought to be outstanding quality wines. These were the 2002 Cab Sav and Best Barrels Merlot. I thoroughly enjoyed the Cab Sav in particular and had a very different experience to Red B who didn’t think much of them at all (saying they were green edged, overly acidic and the price a joke) I’m very interested to here other opinions to compare our experiences (actually I did agree the CD price wasn’t the best). James H rated the 2001 96 and 2002 95 so he didn’t think they were too far off the mark.

wish I had tasted them - will have a look around, but 02 was not a great year in MR - to cool and ripening was a challenge. Everyone has differnet views and I have been abused for enjoying the Leconfield style which can be regarded as having similar characteristics....enjoy what you enjoy mate, realising that cellar door tastings inevitable are more favourable than a blind line up and assess tasting.

I think JH is getting a bit generous in his old age, some of the ratings in his 2006 edition are pretty hard to correlate to my experiences. I know a few other posters here and on other forums agree on that opinion.

On the HP Cabernet 2002, here is the JO TN: "Sweet aromas of cassis and plums are supported by slightly varnishy and cedary oak, with distinctly green bean-like undertones. It’s long, fine-grained and tightly focused, but presents rather an angular cut of acidity, with a sappy, taut and metallic aspect about its tannins. The palate offers some pleasingly vibrant flavours of cassis and plum, but a slightly disconcerting level of green and herbaceous influence. (Great Southern, Margaret River, $70 retail, approx., 16.4/88, drink 2007-2010+)"

Hey, it's what you experienced from those bottles on that day, nobody is necessarily wrong here, I had different bottles on a different day, as did JO and JH.

And Jo in my opinion is, as time goes by, is the more consistent critic....

Last time I looked at them I was very dissappointed, I have to throw my hat into the green and acidic ring on this one. A shame really, because I really want to like their wines - do they still have the gorgeous black and white photo of a lady with a cello on the way to the toilets, that was *my* winery highlight

I tried both at CD back in January.

The Best Barrels Merlot looked pretty smart on it's own, and I certainly enjoyed it. Against the Cab Merlot it was shown up - and in hindsight was a little one dimensional - at $75 I would not consider it.

I thought the 02 Cab Merlot was a great wine. A touch of green bean, but certainly not underipe, and was the equal to any MR Cab I tried throughout my visit.

LL

I am on the unimpressed side of the fence.

Here are my TN's.

Howard Park 2002 Best Barrels Merlot WAFeb06 retails for $75 at cellar door. The wine shows nice plummy fruit with loads of coffee oak but it needs time. Dusty, drying tannins provide a firm consistency and solid backbone and whilst the complexity is agreeable, the piquant acid sticks out. Rated as Recommended with * for value.

Howard Park 2002 Cabernet Sauvignon Merlot WAFeb06 sells for $75 at cellar door. The bouquet shows some cigar box, leafy notes and lots of dark charred coffee (varnished) oak. Fine, drying tannins and pure fruit combined to form a muscular-weight wine with a firm consistency, solid structure and agreeable complexity. Sweet fruit on the uptake with coffee/char oak and cigar box; the herbaceous characters and the acid are both far too noticeable. Rated as Recommended with * for value.

Red wrote

Hey, it's what you experienced from those bottles on that day, nobody is necessarily wrong here, I had different bottles on a different day, as did JO and JH.

Yeah, I definitely agree with that Red (roughreds experiance same as mine). Of course there is no wrong or right but was very curious all the same. I did enjoy the Voyager cab/m and others the previous day but seemed to deem this the stand out. Bottle variation was a thought at first but seems like most people agree with your interpretation of greenness. I think maybe I had an older open bottle so it may have opened up a bit. Who knows? Oh well, I will let you know what I thought of the 2001 version. Definitely doubt I will hate it . Cheers

I've drank a lot of wines come highly recommended by either highly regarded Critics or by other experienced wine drinkers on the forums - and I can tell u the ratio with which I disagree with is around 30-50%.

Some of the wines, of which I drink only the most raved about vintages and I make sure I get this right, which have disappointed me might include Rockford Basket Press (1 dimensional), D'Arenberg The Dead Arm (quite good actually just not mind blowing) or certain Laughing Magpies (apricotty and ripe), Clarendon Hills Australis (hmmmm... waste of money), Granges (oak..), Tyrrell's Vat 1 Semillons, Bass Philips Pinot Noir (balance problems), Paringa Estate Pinot Noirs (too new world?), some apparently good vintages of Leeuwin Art Series Chardonnay that just doesn't do it for me but others are just awesome, Giarconda Chardonnays (not for my palate, but agree it could be debatably good), Fox Creek Reserve Shiraz (really bland but not French so), Yalumba The Octavius, Brown Bros Patricia Shiraz (quite good in fact but so acidic my tooth gum hurts) and Patricia Cab Sauv (not integrated), E&E Pepper Shiraz (disappointing nose, non existent. Palate quite good however), Majellas (again, too 1 dimensional), Saltram No.1 (like drinking grape juice) etc, just to name a few.

Some of these I was so highly disappointed even if I began with very neutral expectations. Some like Godolphin 2004 I had a bad bottle and then a good one to correct my initial hesitation with it.

Due to these variations with others' preferences as well as bottle variations, I have decided to hold back on spending and trying wines like Torbreck Run Rig or Cullen Diane Madeleines, Hill of Graces, etc. Rather spend it on some quaffers which can entertain my friends and family without anyone complaining that - HUH? YOU PAID HOW MUCH FOR THIS AGAIN?....

Omotesando wrote:I've drank a lot of wines come highly recommended by either highly regarded Critics or by other experienced wine drinkers on the forums - and I can tell u the ratio with which I disagree with is around 30-50%.

Only 30-50%? It depends who you pick, there are a wide variety of style/taste preferences on the forums and amongst the wine writers. Although I do have quite a few differences of opinion, I think I can generally tell from Jeremy Oliver's notes/scores whether I will like a wine or not, he is pretty consistent technically and has less obvious biases than some other writers.

Omotesando, were these opinions based on recommended vintages or just overall? I know you did clarify this on some but I’m interested because you’ve hammered quite a few “classics” that I haven’t tried yet myself. I’ve bought a couple of Saltram No1 1998 and 96 recently. Have you tried these for example and if so are they really "just grape juice" IYO?

I would agree with the Dead Arm and Fox Creek that I have tried (don't remember vintages).

Had 98 No. 1 Saturday night & alongside 98 Old Block and 02 Chook Block, it stood up well - developing some aged characteristics, still fruit forward, oak present and prominent not dominant and to me and those I shared it with, a very enjoyable drink.

Ref. Godolphin - there is some wide variation and cork apparently is to blame - contact the winery, they are likely to replace it.

Yep I most recently opened the 1998 Saltram No.1 as well. Also have had others during dinner before.

It has a lot of 'very' vanilla oak and too fruity almost. It had a good balance, but I thought it was too confectionary to be a wine. Look to be honest I think I enjoyed drinking it. I liked it a lot infact, but probably didn't think in terms of a a wine for some reason.

Most of the bottles I listed above, I actually enjoyed them except for a few that were downright disappointing (2002 E&E Pepper Shiraz, Fox Creek Reserve Shiraz, 1999 plus some older Rockford Basket Press, a few of the reds and various years from Majella come to mind). Its just that even if I enjoyed them, I didn't find some of them as intriguing as some people did, whereas some such as the Saltram No.1 I just wasn't aligned with its style. Also I guess that some wines needed lots more time to show, or its possible they're in the 'sleeping' period during the time of consumption.

I don't remember the years sometimes, because I only drink half amateurishly and has been too lazy - but these days I try to write everything down. However before I purchase the bottles I do my research and make sure its a good vintage. If its an older one I'm looking for I go to a more expensive bottleshop with the right vintages.

I'm sure there are myriads of reasons why we like or don't like something. For example I don't enjoy Krispy Kreme glazed doughnuts (I just ate it 'fresh' again today), its way too sweet for me by the order of around 50%. But look how well that is selling... I waited about an hour for my allocation. Hmm.

Omotesando, seems like the story of taste doesn't it? Beyond a wine being technically sound, decent fruit, sensitive and competent winemaking, and not destroyed by over-intervention in the wine making process - it comes down to personal preference.

For example, I am one of those Plebs who finds it very hard to like Pinot and doesn't want to spend a small fortune buying the best to see if I really like it! Bannockburn Serre 99 I enjoyed & Barratt Reserve 02 had enough body to please, but these are exceptions rather than the rule for me (I wish it were differrent). That's what makes the world of wine so interesting to discuss?

Do you enjoy Kalleske wines? I find complexity in the Grenache (Old Vine) and Greenock Shiraz. Also La Plaide from Heathcote - Laughton and Chapoutier partnership is worth getting hold of if you can...04 out now.