The Auswine Forum

There is simply no doubt about it, Campbell Mattinson is the most creative and informative wine writer on the planet. I’ve just finished reading his article on Sarah and Sparky Marquis of Mollydooker wines, and if you think you know about Sarah and Sparky, their high octane wines, and Robert Parker Jr’s love affair with them. Well, think again. Campbell uncovers the real reason why wines made by the Marquis’s, including Shirvington, Parson's Flat, Henry's Drive, Marquis-Philips, and Mollydooker, have such intensity. Its not because they try to make wines with rich flavors of blackcurrant or even the subtly of rose petals, its not a desire for complexity, or elegance, or to be different, or even interesting; although I’m not too sure about the last two. Its……., well you have to read the article to find out. (Yes, you need to subscribe. So you’ll miss out on two bottles of wine this year. They will have been corked anyway.)

There is one paragraph of the article that I do want to quote, and I hope Campbell will forgive me, but its mostly a quote from Sparky. It concersn the longevity of Mollydooker wines.

"People are always asking me, When should I drink this wine? How long should I cellar it?" he says. And I don't doubt him for a second - his wines are blisteringly fruity and whacky with alcohol, and a lot of people are bound to wonder whether time will mellow the fruit, leaving only ... "And you know what I say to them? I'm making another one next year! When should you drink it? How long will it take you to find a corkscrew?!! Or now that we're going screwcaps, How long will it take you to get a glass?!!"

I don’t know about you, but that seems like a pretty good explanation as to why someone would make wines the way that Sarah and Sparky Marquis do, year after year.

Mike

KMP wrote: (Yes, you need to subscribe. So you’ll miss out on two bottles of wine this year. They will have been corked anyway.)

Or just one slightly better bottle under stelvin. Absolutely worth the money for the articles let alone the tasting notes, although he's turning into a bit of a Hunter-phile, which is a real worry.

Red Bigot wrote: ... although he's turning into a bit of a Hunter-phile, which is a real worry.

Brian, some learn faster than others!

cheers,
Graeme

GraemeG wrote:

Red Bigot wrote: ... although he's turning into a bit of a Hunter-phile, which is a real worry.

Brian, some learn faster than others!

cheers,
Graeme

Are you saying Campbell is a slow learner?

Each to his own, but I found I didn't like most Hunter reds way back in the early 80's. I try some every year, based on other's rave reviews, buy occasionally and usually end up selling them at auction when I don't like them years later.

Good call Mike, f@%*ing fantastic article both for the Campbell Mattinson writing style that is so loved and the expose on Sparky, Sarah and all the wines they've had a hand in.

This article alone is worth the years subscription to Winefront Monthly, if you don't subscribe you're a mug!

KMP wrote:

Mattineye wrote:"... his wines are blisteringly fruity and whacky with alcohol ..."

Thanks for the warning!

Lincoln wrote:

KMP wrote:"... his wines are blisteringly fruity and whacky with alcohol ..."

Thanks for the warning!

Uhmm where it says KMP wrote, it should be really be Campbell wrote because the quote is from Campbell's article. Just wanted to make that clear, although I agree with the quote and I'm not entirely sure that its a warning. But it is intense!

Mike

KMP wrote:

Lincoln wrote:

KMP wrote:"... his wines are blisteringly fruity and whacky with alcohol ..."

Thanks for the warning!

Uhmm where it says KMP wrote, it should be really be Campbell wrote because the quote is from Campbell's article. Just wanted to make that clear, although I agree with the quote and I'm not entirely sure that its a warning. But it is intense!

Mike

I will fix

I read the mattinson article and I seriously thought it was trite and written by someone who had an axe to grind. Campbell missed the point entirely. The point Sparky woul dhave been making was that he has broken with convention about how to grow grapes and is breaking ground such that the old beliefs that old vine was something special. So Special in fact the French pull vines out when they reach 'old age".

The spiel given by wine writers today is such that we end with homogeneous wines formula wines. Once you have someone like Sparky who breaks from what is defined as "normal" or what is accepted to be "Normal" then they get lampooned.

I have tasted Sparky Marquis Wines since the mid nineties and I recently had a 96 and 98 Fox creek resreve wiht the 2001 marquis Philips 9 Shiraz and I guarantee you his wines age better than most. The issue that Sparky makes about "drink it now" is in fact meant to be taken like this... Drink them now because you will love them so much you will want more and he can sell more. Drink them now because they are so good why wait. drink them now because it is only wankery that has us believing that bad wine gets better. the only benefit in the cellar is that good wine will change. better is a subjective view whereas different is accurate. Whether you cellar wine or not is a personnal choice and I can guarantee that every wine made by Sparky I have had has aged exceptionally well.

I seriously do not think that Campbell could in his wildest dreams think that mollydooker Boxer Shiraz 2005 woudl only last a year or so... The article made for an interesting read but incredibly misleading.

I reckon your own axe is pretty sharp now.

Thanks Sparky......

roughred wrote:Thanks Sparky......

Just came back from a lunch with the Mollydookers, thanks Sarah and Sparky.

Really nice folks, very interesting and enthusiastic, and I enjoyed the wines too.

Big, exotic, challenging even, and not for the franco files

but not the over the top excessive messes that (some) critics and drinkers describe them as.

For those that like the style, really individual and enjoyable wines!

A more detailed look tonight!

roughred wrote:Thanks Sparky......

My 1st thought exactly

Davo wrote:

roughred wrote:Thanks Sparky......

My 1st thought exactly

??? Why would you think that, I thought the article on balance was reasonably positive and SL's post seems to take a different view of it to many people who have read it.

"Drink them now because you will love them so much you will want more and he can sell more." and that's exactly how I interpreted what Campbell reported Sparky as saying. But I couldn't understand this bit "Drink them now because they are so good why wait. drink them now because it is only wankery that has us believing that bad wine gets better." True, but is this implying the Mollydooker wines are bad?

Or "the only benefit in the cellar is that good wine will change. better is a subjective view whereas different is accurate." not long after (subjectively) praising the 10 year aging performance for Sparky's wines... I guess he didn't say the 96 and 98 had actually improved though.

sampled the 2005 Mollydooker "The Boxer" and 2005 Mollydooker "Carnival of Love" felt initially both had very high alcohol on palate and nose but the Carnival of Love was the better wine, not as intense and nice balance of fruit flavours but still hammerd by the alcohol 16.5%
am sampling the Boxer over several nights
Tuesday - intense muddy fruit with a whack of alcohol headache material
Wednesday - softened a lot and after 1/2 glass a headache
more to come

I'd agree with Brian that Campbell's piece did a good job of allowing what is unique about the Marquis wines, people and brand to come through. A lot (including the quotes from the interviewees) read as tongue-in-cheek to me. What I thought was most praise-worthy was that Campbell had enough of a writerly sense to not editorialise off the back of his personal wine preferences to the point of obscuring what is a distinct and engaging story.

While I quite like these styles at times, I did finish reading the piece recalling Randall Grahm's pithy statement that "valuing wine for intensity is like judging music on how loud it is."

Red Bigot wrote:

Davo wrote:

roughred wrote:Thanks Sparky......

My 1st thought exactly

??? Why would you think that,

My 1st thought was that SL was Sparky, and I thought that was what Roughred was also implying

SL joined today and 1st post being waht it is and all

What everyone else said...
As for this:

shiraz lover wrote: The point Sparky woul dhave been making was that he has broken with convention about how to grow grapes and is breaking ground such that the old beliefs that old vine was something special. So Special in fact the French pull vines out when they reach 'old age".

I wouldn't argue that the grape-growing technique is far from the mainstream. But that's nothing to do with the value of old vines. Everything I've ever read tells me the uprooting of old French vines is done purely for economic reasons - yields drop so far that they become 'uneconomic'. If you can afford to leave vines in the ground after 40 years of age good on you. Are you suggesting Stephen Henschke would make a better wine if he uprooted Hill of Grace? He might make a lot more of it, sure...

The spiel given by wine writers today is such that we end with homogeneous wines formula wines. Once you have someone like Sparky who breaks from what is defined as "normal" or what is accepted to be "Normal" then they get lampooned.

Well, Sparky's wines certainly sound like formula wines to me. It may be a formula that no-one else is using, but it's way more formulaic than Bailey Carrodus looking out over unirrigated Yarra vines and thinking 'gee this year's season is reminding me of 1977...'

Graeme

Let me start by saying I'm a bit of a fan of both Sparky's style and Campbells work , so it was great to see them both together.

The article did explain really well Spark's approach, and explained through the use of Reverse Osmosis, why these wines are so rich concentrated and alcoholic.

The concentration occurs from relatively conventionally made wines, so that they can show balanced red fruit charachters rather than risking the dead fruit of megaripe Shiraz. It also shows why they can have some more herbal tones at higher alc's...something we don't do.

Seriously, to bag this article,( which I found one of Campbells best!) is to not understand the writing the wines and the people.

Do yourself a favour and re-read it. If you don't like the wines, thats fine,don't criticize an inciteful and very interesesting artricle
Smithy

what did he rate them?

c

Christo wrote:what did he rate them?

c

The scores (and the article) are in the December 2006 issue of The Wine Front. All the wines tasted get between 90-94 points, and the drinking windows are very generous - more generous than I would give. So he really bagged them, ........and then took 'em home!

The tasting notes are pure Mattinson, you won't confuse a Mollydooker wine with anything else once you read them......not even Pamela Anderson!

Mike

Obviously I am not Sparky and I have read and re-read the Mattinson article and I think it is smug and I cannot get a handle on what point mattinson is trying to make other than to ridicule innovation. campbell is better than that and am genuinely disappointed in the article.

I loved the mollydooker wines and have added them to my other collection of Marquis made wines. I did an interesting tasting of the Boxer versus Amon Ra. $25 versus $80 wine.... Amon Ra was fantastic for sure but the Boxer got the nod. Image if I had thrown in the carnival of Love??

Congratulations Sparky.

Shiraz Lover,

I have read the article twice and I just don't get what you are on about, nothing in it suggests to me that Campbell doesn't like the wines or is poking fun at the method. Both of which work given the sales figures. Not everyone has to like the wines or the style which is also true.

I also have some of Sparky and Sarah's wines in my cellar.

Glen

GRB wrote:Shiraz Lover,

I have read the article twice and I just don't get what you are on about, nothing in it suggests to me that Campbell doesn't like the wines or is poking fun at the method. Both of which work given the sales figures. Not everyone has to like the wines or the style which is also true.

I also have some of Sparky and Sarah's wines in my cellar.

Glen

I'm with you, I think Campbell liked the wines, liked Sparky et al, and enjoyed their 'difference' if you like.

FWIW I like the Boxer, prefer the Two Left Feet, and think the Enchanted Path is very good, and the Carnival of Love great.

Boxer vs Amon Ra though, to me (personal opinion only) no contest, Amon Ra by a large margin.

But hey, its all wine, and its all opinions after all.

n4sir wrote:I may strike like a pissed off Taipan at times,...

Warning - This is one of those times.

shiraz lover wrote:Obviously I am not Sparky and I have read and re-read the Mattinson article and I think it is smug and I cannot get a handle on what point mattinson is trying to make other than to ridicule innovation. campbell is better than that and am genuinely disappointed in the article.

I loved the mollydooker wines and have added them to my other collection of Marquis made wines. I did an interesting tasting of the Boxer versus Amon Ra. $25 versus $80 wine.... Amon Ra was fantastic for sure but the Boxer got the nod. Image if I had thrown in the carnival of Love??

Congratulations Sparky.

No shiraz lover, you're not Sparky - one of his many friends, Dan Philips maybe, someone at that infamous US importer GP, or possibly one of Parker's many thousands of Lemmings. Not that it matters.

As much as I believe everyone has a different palate and equally have the right to voice their opinion, you have drawn a very long and dangerous bow to have the nerve to suggest Campbell had "an axe to grind" in your first post on the forum, and follow it up with more of this kind of garbage in your second post.

As you're basically an anonymous poster (no country of origin, interests, no previous tasting notes, etc) I should point out you have a serious lack of what Campbell has - credibility as a very well respected reviewer and a proven track record.

Sure, there are elements of Sparky's wines that Campbell just doesn't get (as many others don't I might add) and probably never will, but he equally highlighted in the article just what Sparky actually achieves to make the wine special to the ones who love them. I've gone back over and read the article a few times since your initial response, and while there are a lot of tongue in cheek remarks I really can't see how that amounts to the ridicule you've said.

You're obviously a big fan of Sparky's work from Fox Creek through to Mollydooker and that's fair enough, but attacking Campbell the way you have in your first posts is very, very poor form. Rant over.

Cheers,
Ian

Ps. When you tried the Boxer against the Amon Ra was it a blind tasting? (I didn't think so )

I had that Carnival of Love wine. It is certainly something and I can appreciate the quality (and that people would love it) but the only food it would go with is pancakes - and on them at that! If you want cynical though look no further than the packaging/marketing on those wines with all that drink with great white shark, dingos cobblers, roo stew sort of rubbish.

GW

shiraz lover wrote:I read the mattinson article and I seriously thought it was trite and written by someone who had an axe to grind. Campbell missed the point entirely. The point Sparky woul dhave been making was that he has broken with convention about how to grow grapes and is breaking ground such that the old beliefs that old vine was something special.

Mate, you've been drinking too much Mollydooker if you think this.

I've now read Campbell's article for a fourth time to see what you're on about.

It is yet another great article from Campbell, it in no way derides Sparky and Sarah, in fact he uses the word genius to describe what they're doing and says Sparky is "one very smart dude" and also says "they are the best at what they do"

How in any way is that smug, trite or grinding an axe?

The Marquis are an interesting couple who have done some extraordinary things in wine and Campbell's article says that in a brilliant way, the way only he can do.

As for the wines, Campbell likes them but they won't be to everyone's taste.

I'm putting most of them in suitable Blacktongues blind line ups over the next couple of months so we'll see how they fare for a range of palates there.

Shiraz Lover, if you love the Marquis wines keep on buying them, just don't try and tell the rest of us that we're wrong, what we think of wine is only an opinion not a fact!

AND from their own website..look at the food matches...Wallaby milk cheese...*sigh*

http://www.mollydookerwines.com.au/file ... f_love.pdf

..and optimum drinking - now to 4 years. Which is very honest. Having tasted it I would agree. The wine is all about fruit and power. Why would you then want to cellar it?

GW

I wonder how many people make their mind up about Campbell's article from the WHOLE article or from the teaser paragraph that he has up on Winefront? If you read only the teaser you might think he is having a go at Sarah and Sparky. You really do have to read the whole thing to get any idea of what Campbell is onto.

As far as the wines are concerned, its pretty obvious that they are not going to suit all comers. There is no doubt that they are crowd pleasers over here in the US. It sometimes occurs to me that Parker may have been pushing this wine style to the fore in the hope that it would come to typify the rich, ripe wines he thinks Australia should be known for. But I think that people like Sarah and Sparky are a little to smart to fall into that mold. But they do realize that there are a LOT of people out there that want wines with plenty of flavor and appeal that they can drink now.

I for one like the labeling. They are marketing a product, and if a little bit of imagination helps them do that, then I say go for it. They are trying to make a living.

Mike

FWIW ( $2.00 in bargain basement bin) here is my TN of the aforesaid mollydooker- "enjoyed" alongside 1986 St Henri's & John Riddoch with GW & CM amongst others ( namedropper that I am)

2005 Mollydooker Carnival of Love
It’s wine Scotty but not as we know it. We’re not in Coonawarra anymore Toto. Before anyone jumps up and down- I did not know anything about this wine before I tried it- I did not know that some Baltimore based attorney had given this 99 points, I did not know that this was 17% alcohol, I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Serioulsy folks- you have got to be kidding. C’mon Buzz say something positive- OK- I could sniff this wine all night! – It is possessed of an expressive nose in the sweet fruit spectrum.- Aniseed, stewed plums, rasins, blackcurrants, cloves.
The alcohol heat however, simply kills the palate rendering the wine hot and short- appropriately this was served with desert.


Haven't had the Amon Ra, but the '05 Godolphin ( for my tastes) blows the Mollydooker out of the water- Simply I don't consider the Mollydooker "table wine"