Jay Miller, Robert Parker's surrogate taster of Australian wines, has come out with his latest set of reviews after his 2008 visit. The wines are reviewed in Issue # 181 of The Wine Advocate. Miller provides reviews of 1072 wines, which I believe is the largest number reviewed so far by The Wine Advocate. But its his introduction, titled Australia 2009: Into the Abyss that will see Parker’s followers, and quite a few others, nodding their heads in sober agreement. Whether they will agree that much of the blame can be laid at Parker's feet is another matter. Miler certainly does not.
"In my tastings for this report, many, if not most, of the importers with whom I sat down have trimmed their portfolios and/or begun to diversify into what they perceive as more fertile ground, particularly Spain and Argentina. In not much more than a decade the market has gone from boom to bust and to an unsettled future." –Jay Miller, The Wine Advocate
Mike
The Wine Advocate Does Australia
Re: The Wine Advocate Does Australia
KMP wrote:Jay Miller, Robert Parker's surrogate taster of Australian wines, has come out with his latest set of reviews after his 2008 visit. The wines are reviewed in Issue # 181 of The Wine Advocate. Miller provides reviews of 1072 wines, which I believe is the largest number reviewed so far by The Wine Advocate. But its his introduction, titled Australia 2009: Into the Abyss that will see Parker’s followers, and quite a few others, nodding their heads in sober agreement. Whether they will agree that much of the blame can be laid at Parker's feet is another matter. Miler certainly does not.
"In my tastings for this report, many, if not most, of the importers with whom I sat down have trimmed their portfolios and/or begun to diversify into what they perceive as more fertile ground, particularly Spain and Argentina. In not much more than a decade the market has gone from boom to bust and to an unsettled future." –Jay Miller, The Wine Advocate
Mike
The day I start taking notice of the Dark Lord is the day I'll start drinking delicious Yellowtail Chardonnay
F**K him, his name comes from a stupid, oversized coat anyway. You could however, put the target on the back
The Dog of Wine
? Funnily enough Penfolds swings to mind straight away…………….
-
Mike Hawkins
- Posts: 2747
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:39 am
I can't imagine anything other than price falls in Australia for SA shiraz. As I've said in other posts, it just doesn't sell here like it used to. I think Miller understated the situation rather than overstated it.
I'm not sure where demand will come from at existing supply levels, so one would think it'll push prices down when tons of unsold bottles are looking for a home.
Cheers
PS - 6 or 7 100 point wines at least shows Miller still likes our booze..
I'm not sure where demand will come from at existing supply levels, so one would think it'll push prices down when tons of unsold bottles are looking for a home.
Cheers
PS - 6 or 7 100 point wines at least shows Miller still likes our booze..
Wine Advocate...Yawn!
Frankly anyone who describes himself as worlds most influental ANYTHING deserves to be laughed at...a lot!Especially when they taste with labels on display and winemakers/importers present and piddling in their ear about how good the stuff is.
RPJ and the Advocate have done immeasurable harm to the Aussie Industry.
Apart from making a few people with the right importers wealthy.
home of the mega-red
Well, Parker both created the boom in Oz wines and then destroyed it. Both actions were accomplished by giving 95+ to too many wines, most of which were the Barossa/McLaren ooze monsters. Miller seems to be continuing this trend, although at least he acknowledges that life exists outside of the Barossa/McLaren.
People were attracted like moths to a flame by the high marks, and then were pissed when they felt many wines didn't match their expectations. They felt burned, and have stopped buying. Greed from many Oz producers in raising prices and creating wines that would score highly also helped create the current sell-off.
I know it's 'de rigeur' to hate Parker and/or Miller, but you have to remember consumers are ultimately resposible for their own decisions. But it always amazes me as to how wine consumers have such a pack-like mentality. I think the Internet has had a large part in this herd behaviour - wine fads come and go with such incredible speed now. This globalization process has had such an impact on wine production and consumption...
People were attracted like moths to a flame by the high marks, and then were pissed when they felt many wines didn't match their expectations. They felt burned, and have stopped buying. Greed from many Oz producers in raising prices and creating wines that would score highly also helped create the current sell-off.
I know it's 'de rigeur' to hate Parker and/or Miller, but you have to remember consumers are ultimately resposible for their own decisions. But it always amazes me as to how wine consumers have such a pack-like mentality. I think the Internet has had a large part in this herd behaviour - wine fads come and go with such incredible speed now. This globalization process has had such an impact on wine production and consumption...
-
Daryl Douglas
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 7:23 pm
- Location: Nth Qld
JDSJDS says
I agree with everything you have said but this one point. I've said this too many times lately but it keeps cropping up. Consent amongst consumers can and often is manufactured.
Is that the consumers' fault or the manufacturers'? Well that depends on where you stand on the matter of existential responsibility.
Maybe they are both jointly responsible for the fault? As they are often jointly responsible for the good things.
Just some more food for thought...
I know it's 'de rigeur' to hate Parker and/or Miller, but you have to remember consumers are ultimately resposible for their own decisions.
I agree with everything you have said but this one point. I've said this too many times lately but it keeps cropping up. Consent amongst consumers can and often is manufactured.
Is that the consumers' fault or the manufacturers'? Well that depends on where you stand on the matter of existential responsibility.
Maybe they are both jointly responsible for the fault? As they are often jointly responsible for the good things.
Just some more food for thought...
As always, IMVHO. And Cheers
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
Sorry, but should have added that I think this very fact plays a part in the pack mentality you refer too JDSJDS.
As always, IMVHO. And Cheers
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
The biography of Parker, "The Emperor of Wine" is pretty interesting reading.
I don't know enough about his tasting notes or the wines that he drinks to be able to pass judgement on his supposedly obvious preference for large, alcoholic, jammy wines, but I do respect;
1.) His incredible work ethic; he tastes a phenomenal amount of wine.
2.) His role (along with others) in developing the modern language of tasting notes which we all take for granted, which allows anyone who spends a bit of time considering it to discuss with others what they smell and taste, by way of analogy with the taste of other things (ie, fruits, spices, etc, etc).
3.) The consistency of his palate and his taste memory.
It is really not his fault that his tireless promotion of his rag and his adoption of the 100 point marking system have given him an unreasonable sway over the opinion of the wine-drinking public, particularly American.
To be overly critical of him, and dismissive of his (or his protege's) view of Australian wine is to be unnecessarily defensive, and is really a form of cultural cringe.
I don't know enough about his tasting notes or the wines that he drinks to be able to pass judgement on his supposedly obvious preference for large, alcoholic, jammy wines, but I do respect;
1.) His incredible work ethic; he tastes a phenomenal amount of wine.
2.) His role (along with others) in developing the modern language of tasting notes which we all take for granted, which allows anyone who spends a bit of time considering it to discuss with others what they smell and taste, by way of analogy with the taste of other things (ie, fruits, spices, etc, etc).
3.) The consistency of his palate and his taste memory.
It is really not his fault that his tireless promotion of his rag and his adoption of the 100 point marking system have given him an unreasonable sway over the opinion of the wine-drinking public, particularly American.
To be overly critical of him, and dismissive of his (or his protege's) view of Australian wine is to be unnecessarily defensive, and is really a form of cultural cringe.
Once again, wonderful and insightful thoughts here from orpheus...but (I can hear people grinding their teeth) as far as point Number 2- " His role (along with others) in developing the modern language of tasting notes which we all take for granted, which allows anyone who spends a bit of time considering it to discuss with others what they smell and taste, by way of analogy with the taste of other things (ie, fruits, spices, etc, etc)"...well Proustian associatons as a way of exploring wines and other things can't, to my mind, be credited in any significant way to Parker. Long, long and important history of that.
Cheers
jeremy
Cheers
jeremy
As always, IMVHO. And Cheers
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
The comment that RPJ "made and then destroyed " Aussie red is particularly good.
He created the hype..the 100 point nonsense...and the wines didn't live up to it...especially as his liking was for soft reds with either not enough acid or too much Grenache or both.
You can't expect wines like that to live.
Add some greedy importers and the poor US customer who blindly followed the WA at huge expense must have felt ripped off.
As a simple producer I would want the long term reputation for good gear of a consistant style at a reasonable price...not the mania that came with the RPJ phenomenom.
It was too crazed, too unsustainable too many expectations not met.
Ultimately bad for everyone. The "I used to buy Aussie red ..good ones...but they were all crap" syndrome.
But then again, I'm not a marketers backside.
Must get back to pumping over the reds.
Cheers
Smithy
home of the mega-red
jeremy wrote:Once again, wonderful and insightful thoughts here from orpheus...but (I can hear people grinding their teeth) as far as point Number 2- " His role (along with others) in developing the modern language of tasting notes which we all take for granted, which allows anyone who spends a bit of time considering it to discuss with others what they smell and taste, by way of analogy with the taste of other things (ie, fruits, spices, etc, etc)"...well Proustian associatons as a way of exploring wines and other things can't, to my mind, be credited in any significant way to Parker. Long, long and important history of that.
Cheers
jeremy
Fair point, Jeremy, I simply took the biographer's word on that question (it was an inference from their assertion that when Parker started to write tasting notes, most other tasting notes would be rather esoteric, along these lines - "a blushing young maiden of a wine", or "a shy, but knowing wine").
As for Proust, and "Remembrance of times past", I've read about half of it and simply do not currently have the stamina to complete it. I don't think anyone else could spend 50 pages on a single dinner party with no mention of food or wine.
Easy to mistake detail for depth. Off topic, I know, but if it's depth you want, go for the Russians, and Tolstoy in particular.
Hi orpheus
Proust is but a concept to me, albeit useful. You got further than me as far as "Rememberance..."
And I'm weak on the Russians!!
Back to Parker, yeah, what you mention with regards to the esoteric poetics of wine TNs could well be correct. I'm too new to the game to know. (I am pretty suspicious of the claims and Parker though, that's my bias).
Thanks for the reply and clarification. It is interesting to see where people stand with regards to Parker and the Advocate these days. If I try and be objective I end up sitting on the fence, and being male, that really hurts
Cheers
jeremy
Proust is but a concept to me, albeit useful. You got further than me as far as "Rememberance..."
And I'm weak on the Russians!!
Back to Parker, yeah, what you mention with regards to the esoteric poetics of wine TNs could well be correct. I'm too new to the game to know. (I am pretty suspicious of the claims and Parker though, that's my bias).
Thanks for the reply and clarification. It is interesting to see where people stand with regards to Parker and the Advocate these days. If I try and be objective I end up sitting on the fence, and being male, that really hurts
Cheers
jeremy
As always, IMVHO. And Cheers
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
-
Mahmoud Ali
- Posts: 2954
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:00 pm
- Location: Edmonton, Canada
Parker should have been just another wine critic, yes, a hard-working conscientious one, but one of many whose opinion a consumer could consult. But the lemming-like adherence to his opinion, and more particularly, his point score, has resulted in his overwhelming influence in the American market. Unfortunately his influence in a market as large as the United States has had its impact among producers around the world as they try to produce the kind of wines he likes.
I recall seeing an Italian wine that the store keeper said would no longer be imported. He said that the winery had gone out of business because the winemaker wouldn't change his wine-making style to the 'international style'. That was all I needed to hear. I bought the wine.
Cheers.................Mahmoud.
I recall seeing an Italian wine that the store keeper said would no longer be imported. He said that the winery had gone out of business because the winemaker wouldn't change his wine-making style to the 'international style'. That was all I needed to hear. I bought the wine.
Cheers.................Mahmoud.
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
There is no doubt that Parker has had huge impact on the Aussie wine industry. But he came quite late to the party in terms of the history of wine in Oz. I think he put out his first Aussie reviews in 1998, so he has a little over a decade of experience. And in some respects his claim to fame points to “discovering†Shiraz based wines as the wines that identify Australia. In other words it was pretty predictable that the wines of the Barossa and McLaren Vale would be the ones that he would identify as “Australianâ€Â. It was not going to be cooler climate wines or Hunter Semillon, or anything else limited in production or that could be viewed as an example of French, German or American etc. That focus also explains why he has consistently given Muscats and Tokays big scores.
The problem was that the focus not only did a disservice to the whole wine industry but it set up a style of wine that could be identified and thus made by winemakers seeking to satisfy the American market (i.e. Parker’s palate). Now the Parkerization of wine is something that Parker does not believe happens but I think that is a very naïve attitude to have. Either that or he has no idea of his influence, and I don’t believe the latter is true. What Parker’s idea of Australian Shiraz did was to allow the overproduction of wines that were all very similar in style and price and which in a lot of cases were not that good. And because Parker’s definition of Shiraz resulted in sky rocketing prices for the big scoring wines there was a vacuum in the midprice range that was filled by these wines that all tasted the same and were not worth the money. That essentially drove the market to other areas of better value.
It seems to me that the problem with Miller now recognizing more regions as worthy is that there is still an attitude in the rest of the world (and still promoted by Miller) that the Barossa and McLaren Vale (and probably Shiraz in general) are overblown wines with loads of fruit, alcohol, oak, and little ability to age. It going to take some big changes to re-establish Australian Shiraz in the rest of the world.
Mike
The problem was that the focus not only did a disservice to the whole wine industry but it set up a style of wine that could be identified and thus made by winemakers seeking to satisfy the American market (i.e. Parker’s palate). Now the Parkerization of wine is something that Parker does not believe happens but I think that is a very naïve attitude to have. Either that or he has no idea of his influence, and I don’t believe the latter is true. What Parker’s idea of Australian Shiraz did was to allow the overproduction of wines that were all very similar in style and price and which in a lot of cases were not that good. And because Parker’s definition of Shiraz resulted in sky rocketing prices for the big scoring wines there was a vacuum in the midprice range that was filled by these wines that all tasted the same and were not worth the money. That essentially drove the market to other areas of better value.
It seems to me that the problem with Miller now recognizing more regions as worthy is that there is still an attitude in the rest of the world (and still promoted by Miller) that the Barossa and McLaren Vale (and probably Shiraz in general) are overblown wines with loads of fruit, alcohol, oak, and little ability to age. It going to take some big changes to re-establish Australian Shiraz in the rest of the world.
Mike
KMP wrote:
It seems to me that the problem with Miller now recognizing more regions as worthy is that there is still an attitude in the rest of the world (and still promoted by Miller) that the Barossa and McLaren Vale (and probably Shiraz in general) are overblown wines with loads of fruit, alcohol, oak, and little ability to age. It going to take some big changes to re-establish Australian Shiraz in the rest of the world.
Mike
Which allows a tidy segue into an earlier blog on the syrah/shiraz question.
One way to tell the international community that Australia makes a different style of wine is to use a different name.
On some other issues you raise, Mike;
1.) Parker's influence in Australia has not been as great as in many places. Australians probably had a preference for the bold-style shiraz anyway, and it is hard to prove that Parker had much to do with a tendency to produce wine in that style.
2.) I have followed what I think is probably not an unusual Australian wine lover's path, starting with those big, bold, McLaren Vale and Barossa shiraz, then developing a taste for the lovely, spicey, cooler climate shiraz, particularly from Victoria. I have always had a soft spot for the Hunter as well.
But no-one who has really experienced them could deny that a great McLaren Vale or Barossa shiraz is a wonderful thing, nor, if they have tasted them when aged, would they doubt their capacity to age.
Try the Chapel Hill "The Vicar" 2006. It will bring a smile to your face.
Did I mention that I think this is a really valuable thread?
Diverse but thought provoking opinion from all ("all" being a diverse lot) IMHO.
Cheers
Diverse but thought provoking opinion from all ("all" being a diverse lot) IMHO.
Cheers
As always, IMVHO. And Cheers
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
orpheus,
I still prefer Shiraz to Syrah in terms of a name.
And you are definitely correct in saying that Barossa and McLaren Vales wines existed as big, bold wines before Parker came on the scene - but it was his promotion of those wines that led to what is now a sea of wines that are less typical of those regions and more typical of what Parker sees as the prototypical Aussie Shiraz. The problem that I believe the industry now faces is re-establishing the image of Shiraz as more than "fruit bombs", and with the double whammy of the economic downturn that may be more diffiult than it should be because, at least in the US, wine drinkers are trading down to less expensive wines. That may end up being great for [yellow tail] but not for Shiraz.
Mike
I still prefer Shiraz to Syrah in terms of a name.
And you are definitely correct in saying that Barossa and McLaren Vales wines existed as big, bold wines before Parker came on the scene - but it was his promotion of those wines that led to what is now a sea of wines that are less typical of those regions and more typical of what Parker sees as the prototypical Aussie Shiraz. The problem that I believe the industry now faces is re-establishing the image of Shiraz as more than "fruit bombs", and with the double whammy of the economic downturn that may be more diffiult than it should be because, at least in the US, wine drinkers are trading down to less expensive wines. That may end up being great for [yellow tail] but not for Shiraz.
Mike
will be interesting to see how the nz wine scene changes now that parker has nz on the regular review list. Martin just visited for the second time. Will be interesting to see.
1. How he rates the new batch of wines
2. How Producers and retailers hype the good reviews for their gain
3. How mature drinkers are, how buying behaviours/ opinions/ pecking order change as a result. How much weight they place on a fly in/ fly out critic over the many NZ based critics/ shows/ opinion.
1. How he rates the new batch of wines
2. How Producers and retailers hype the good reviews for their gain
3. How mature drinkers are, how buying behaviours/ opinions/ pecking order change as a result. How much weight they place on a fly in/ fly out critic over the many NZ based critics/ shows/ opinion.
Follow me on Vivino for tasting notes Craig Thomson
-
Mahmoud Ali
- Posts: 2954
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:00 pm
- Location: Edmonton, Canada
I think we have to keep in mind that in the early days of Australian wine making, when Australian taste for wines started to bud, the emphasis was on Cabernet, not Shiraz. I recognize that there were plenty of Shiraz grapes but winemakers were trying to emulate Bordeaux. I can vouch for the fact that most of the Australian wines in the market here in Canada were either Cabernet (Taltarni, Tahbilk, Reynella, Rosemount, etc), Cabernet/Shiraz (Yellow Label), and 'Burgundy' (Lindemans Auburn). Even the Grange in the early 80's were called Grange 'Hermitage'. Shiraz was hardly seen on a label.
Even Parker, in his 1989-90 buying guide refers to "the Aussie's present day infatuation with Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, and Pinot Noir." He goes on to say "The problem is that there is an enormous amount of it in Australia and only a handful of producers treat Shiraz (Syrah) with the respect and care that is accorded Cabernet." So Parker was convinced early on that Shiraz had potential. Orpheus is probably right when he says that "Australians probably had a preference for the bold-style shiraz anyway" in that some producers developed the style and were then richly rewarded by high Parker points leading to export sales and higher prices.
I'd say that while some Australians liked the full-blown style of wines, it was Parker's promotion that pushed things over the edge. I'm sure many Australians were quite content to drink other styles of wine but as the impetus behind the "Parker-style" continued to grow, so did Australians exposure to this style. I feel certain that if Parker, and the Wine Spectator, rewarded other styles of wine with accolades they would have developed an equally important fan base.
This might explain why today Tahbilk hardly generates any press on this side of the Pacific. In Parker's 1989-90 guide he had this to say about it: "Tahbilk is renowned for its full-bodied, rustic, very rich, and age-worthy red wines, which are among the longest-lived red wines of Australia." Yet I haven't seen any Tahbilk reds since the 1987 Cabernet or a Marsanne since the 1998 vintage, nor any references to their wines. I know from having had the 2002 Cabernet and the 2005 Marsanne in Australia, and Auswine Forum posts, that Tahbilk still makes excellent wines. I'm sure there are many other examples of good wine-making going relatively unrewarded in the international market.
I know Parker isn't ignoring other styles of wine-making so there must be other reasons why the full-blown style has taken off. I think it's two-fold. First, Parkers is more effusive in his descriptions of the bold, sweet, rich Shirazes. His likes wines such as the Yalumba Signature and Wynns Riddoch but they don't get the same scores as the bolder Shirazes though my guess is that the former will, in time, be better wines. Secondly, it just may be that many people prefer to drink their wines young and either aren't familiar with aged reds or don't (or can't) cellar wines. The bold, rich, sweeter-styled shiraz is just what they may be looking for. The problem is that when they develop a taste for some of the old world wines (like many of my collector friends here in Edmonton) they stop buying all Australian wines.
Parker has a lot to answer for but we can't take the consumer entirely out of the equation. The problem is that so many think that Parker has all the answers (he doesn't) and rely entirely on his opinion. Despite my respect for Parker as a wine critic I've always liked the old-fashion Australian reds and to this day don't have any of the high-flying "Parker wines" in my cellar: Torbreck, Two Hands, Molly Dooker, Henry's Drive, Marquis Phillips (tasted one of them once and found it awful), Fox Creek Reserve, etc. etc.
Cheers.......................Mahmoud
Even Parker, in his 1989-90 buying guide refers to "the Aussie's present day infatuation with Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, and Pinot Noir." He goes on to say "The problem is that there is an enormous amount of it in Australia and only a handful of producers treat Shiraz (Syrah) with the respect and care that is accorded Cabernet." So Parker was convinced early on that Shiraz had potential. Orpheus is probably right when he says that "Australians probably had a preference for the bold-style shiraz anyway" in that some producers developed the style and were then richly rewarded by high Parker points leading to export sales and higher prices.
I'd say that while some Australians liked the full-blown style of wines, it was Parker's promotion that pushed things over the edge. I'm sure many Australians were quite content to drink other styles of wine but as the impetus behind the "Parker-style" continued to grow, so did Australians exposure to this style. I feel certain that if Parker, and the Wine Spectator, rewarded other styles of wine with accolades they would have developed an equally important fan base.
This might explain why today Tahbilk hardly generates any press on this side of the Pacific. In Parker's 1989-90 guide he had this to say about it: "Tahbilk is renowned for its full-bodied, rustic, very rich, and age-worthy red wines, which are among the longest-lived red wines of Australia." Yet I haven't seen any Tahbilk reds since the 1987 Cabernet or a Marsanne since the 1998 vintage, nor any references to their wines. I know from having had the 2002 Cabernet and the 2005 Marsanne in Australia, and Auswine Forum posts, that Tahbilk still makes excellent wines. I'm sure there are many other examples of good wine-making going relatively unrewarded in the international market.
I know Parker isn't ignoring other styles of wine-making so there must be other reasons why the full-blown style has taken off. I think it's two-fold. First, Parkers is more effusive in his descriptions of the bold, sweet, rich Shirazes. His likes wines such as the Yalumba Signature and Wynns Riddoch but they don't get the same scores as the bolder Shirazes though my guess is that the former will, in time, be better wines. Secondly, it just may be that many people prefer to drink their wines young and either aren't familiar with aged reds or don't (or can't) cellar wines. The bold, rich, sweeter-styled shiraz is just what they may be looking for. The problem is that when they develop a taste for some of the old world wines (like many of my collector friends here in Edmonton) they stop buying all Australian wines.
Parker has a lot to answer for but we can't take the consumer entirely out of the equation. The problem is that so many think that Parker has all the answers (he doesn't) and rely entirely on his opinion. Despite my respect for Parker as a wine critic I've always liked the old-fashion Australian reds and to this day don't have any of the high-flying "Parker wines" in my cellar: Torbreck, Two Hands, Molly Dooker, Henry's Drive, Marquis Phillips (tasted one of them once and found it awful), Fox Creek Reserve, etc. etc.
Cheers.......................Mahmoud
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
I’m not sure that those of us who started a serious interest in Australian wine before Parker were unaware of Shiraz. It may have been called something else, anything from Claret to Burgundy and very often blended, but many of us can remember when Shiraz was so unpopular that it ended up being put into everything but wine (Shiraz muffin, anyone?) and the vine pull of the 1980s. Even so, the country has been making wine from Shiraz grapes probably since the 1830s (George Wyndham started planting his vineyard at his property "Dalwood" in 1831) and certainly the 1840s in South Australia at Langmeil and Turkey Flat (Tanunda Creek) areas. The vines used to make Hill of Grace are supposed to be approaching 150 years of age. Commercial vintages of Grange go back to 1952. And a wine called Redman’s Claret which was probably predominantly Shiraz won the 1936 Empire Wine Show in London (1932 Redmans Claret).
According to Wine Australia Shiraz was virtually the only wine grape grown in Coonawarra between 1900 and 1950 and the production of dry table wine was due mainly to the Redman family whose original vineyards were bought in 1965 by Lindemans and called Rouge Homme. But the Redman label was re-established the next year by Owen Redman which was a good thing because Redman’s Claret (a Shiraz wine) was one of the first wines I bought from year to year. Its true that Cabernet established itself in places like Coonawarra, although some of us (by the lat 70’s and early 80’s) were looking toward WA and places like Moss Wood for quality Cabernet. Its also true that a love affair began with white wines particularly Chardonnay around that time. So I’m not sure we need to give Parker credit for discovering the modern era of Aussie wine or Shiraz as Australia’s wine grape because before Parker began his reviews (late 1990s) the resurgence of interest in dry wines was well under way in Australia. What is true is that when I first came to the US (in1982) there were very few Australian wines to be found here. In fact I never found a good and reliable source until very late in the 1980s. Its also true that when I began to collect US wines I had a hard time finding wines I wanted because I found them insipid and watery to my Aussie palate!
Has Parker shown a broad understanding of Aussie wine? With some 10 years of experience its hard to call him an real expert when you think of Halliday or the late Len Evans. Back in 2005 I looked at the Australian wines Parker has recommended (in general that means a tasting note is put in the Wine Advocate and a score of greater than 84). At that time he had recommended more than 34,000 French wines, almost 16,000 US wines and 3,331 Australian wines. The 3,331 recommended wines includes South Australia (2,468 wines) Victoria (396 wines) Western Australia (218 wines) Southeast Australia (99 wines) New South Wales (87 wines) Unclassified (49 wines) and Tasmania (14 wines). So he clearly favors South Australia. But the big problem with establishing Parker’s experience with Australia (or anywhere) is that we never know how many wines he actually tastes; it terms of Australia its possible that he only recommends 30% of the wines he tastes –according to an email enquiry to eBob.
Of the recommended wines from South Australia 993 were Shiraz, 493 Proprietary Blends, 316 Cabernet Sauvignon, 143 Grenache, 125 Chardonnay, 93 Riesling, Merlot 71, Semillon 46, Sauvignon Blanc 39, Viognier 24, Pinot Noir 20, Zinfandel 17, Mourvedre 11, Port 10 , and another 17 varieties had less that 10 with 8 having one wine. Thirteen wines are unclassified. So while the focus is on Shiraz, Parker bestowed his recommendations on a broad range of Australian varietals, but I bet few of those have the high scores that Shiraz gets.
The 2002 vintage is classed by some as one of the best in recent memory. How did Parker divide his laurels? In the search I did of recommended wines in 2005 the 2002 vintage had Shiraz 209, Propriety Blend 107, Cabernet Sauvignon 61, Chardonnay 38, Grenache 26, Riesling 23, Merlot 14, Pinot Noir 13, and Semillon 12. And the remaining 14 varietals have less than 10 with 6 being for 1 wine only. So there is that predilection for Shiraz again, but also there is appreciation of a great variety of wine styles.
By location 2002 breaks down into Barossa Valley 176, McLaren Vale 111, Clare Valley 34, Langhorne Creek 21, Adelaide Hills 20, Heathcote 17, Eden Valley 15, Margaret River 14, Yarra Valley 13, and Coonawarra 11. The remaining 18 regions have less than 10 (Hunter Valley has with 11 having just 1. Seventy wines are unclassified as to region.
So its pretty clear that by the 2002 vintage Parker had a clear favorite region (South Australia) and grape (Shiraz), and he’d only been seriously reviewing Australian wines for less than half a decade.
Mike
According to Wine Australia Shiraz was virtually the only wine grape grown in Coonawarra between 1900 and 1950 and the production of dry table wine was due mainly to the Redman family whose original vineyards were bought in 1965 by Lindemans and called Rouge Homme. But the Redman label was re-established the next year by Owen Redman which was a good thing because Redman’s Claret (a Shiraz wine) was one of the first wines I bought from year to year. Its true that Cabernet established itself in places like Coonawarra, although some of us (by the lat 70’s and early 80’s) were looking toward WA and places like Moss Wood for quality Cabernet. Its also true that a love affair began with white wines particularly Chardonnay around that time. So I’m not sure we need to give Parker credit for discovering the modern era of Aussie wine or Shiraz as Australia’s wine grape because before Parker began his reviews (late 1990s) the resurgence of interest in dry wines was well under way in Australia. What is true is that when I first came to the US (in1982) there were very few Australian wines to be found here. In fact I never found a good and reliable source until very late in the 1980s. Its also true that when I began to collect US wines I had a hard time finding wines I wanted because I found them insipid and watery to my Aussie palate!
Has Parker shown a broad understanding of Aussie wine? With some 10 years of experience its hard to call him an real expert when you think of Halliday or the late Len Evans. Back in 2005 I looked at the Australian wines Parker has recommended (in general that means a tasting note is put in the Wine Advocate and a score of greater than 84). At that time he had recommended more than 34,000 French wines, almost 16,000 US wines and 3,331 Australian wines. The 3,331 recommended wines includes South Australia (2,468 wines) Victoria (396 wines) Western Australia (218 wines) Southeast Australia (99 wines) New South Wales (87 wines) Unclassified (49 wines) and Tasmania (14 wines). So he clearly favors South Australia. But the big problem with establishing Parker’s experience with Australia (or anywhere) is that we never know how many wines he actually tastes; it terms of Australia its possible that he only recommends 30% of the wines he tastes –according to an email enquiry to eBob.
Of the recommended wines from South Australia 993 were Shiraz, 493 Proprietary Blends, 316 Cabernet Sauvignon, 143 Grenache, 125 Chardonnay, 93 Riesling, Merlot 71, Semillon 46, Sauvignon Blanc 39, Viognier 24, Pinot Noir 20, Zinfandel 17, Mourvedre 11, Port 10 , and another 17 varieties had less that 10 with 8 having one wine. Thirteen wines are unclassified. So while the focus is on Shiraz, Parker bestowed his recommendations on a broad range of Australian varietals, but I bet few of those have the high scores that Shiraz gets.
The 2002 vintage is classed by some as one of the best in recent memory. How did Parker divide his laurels? In the search I did of recommended wines in 2005 the 2002 vintage had Shiraz 209, Propriety Blend 107, Cabernet Sauvignon 61, Chardonnay 38, Grenache 26, Riesling 23, Merlot 14, Pinot Noir 13, and Semillon 12. And the remaining 14 varietals have less than 10 with 6 being for 1 wine only. So there is that predilection for Shiraz again, but also there is appreciation of a great variety of wine styles.
By location 2002 breaks down into Barossa Valley 176, McLaren Vale 111, Clare Valley 34, Langhorne Creek 21, Adelaide Hills 20, Heathcote 17, Eden Valley 15, Margaret River 14, Yarra Valley 13, and Coonawarra 11. The remaining 18 regions have less than 10 (Hunter Valley has
with 11 having just 1. Seventy wines are unclassified as to region.
So its pretty clear that by the 2002 vintage Parker had a clear favorite region (South Australia) and grape (Shiraz), and he’d only been seriously reviewing Australian wines for less than half a decade.
Mike
Very interesting set of statistics, Mike, you've done a fair bit of research there.
The predominance of South Australian shiraz in RP's recommendations is perhaps not surprising considering that South Australia is by far the largest producer of wine in AUstralia, and the volume of shiraz produced is also by far the largest red varietal.
The predominance of South Australian shiraz in RP's recommendations is perhaps not surprising considering that South Australia is by far the largest producer of wine in AUstralia, and the volume of shiraz produced is also by far the largest red varietal.
Any Parker Surprises?
Even though Parker lives in the next state over, I've never subscribed to his publication and take his recommendations outside of Bordeaux with a grain (or sometimes a block) of salt. Were there any surprises good or bad in his recommendations this year?
Very interesting discussion people - also refreshing that a Parker-inspired discussion has not degenerated into Parker bashing, that so many other discussions on other fora have done.
For mine, looking at the wine history of Australia over many years (and gazing into a crystal ball and looking to the future), Parker's effect on Aussie wine will be a mere blip on the graph.
The wines he has loved and elevated to great heights are such a small percentage of the overall wines produced in this country it is not funny. Further, the styles of wines produced here are far more diverse than those that he seems to favour.
I think the one negative is, and this has been mentioned plenty of times, that Parker has been so widely respected his promotion of his favoured Aussie style, big sweet etc, has led to a world wide belief that this is all Australia produces. Clearly this wasn't his intention but it is all anyone ever heard about. It irks me that Australian wine is being bad-mouthed the world over at present as all "fruit bomb", but at the same time I like the fact that nobody else knows about all of the magnificent diversity of our wine regions and wine styles. Surely the most diverse the world over? Better that they don't find out I reckon.
Matt.
For mine, looking at the wine history of Australia over many years (and gazing into a crystal ball and looking to the future), Parker's effect on Aussie wine will be a mere blip on the graph.
The wines he has loved and elevated to great heights are such a small percentage of the overall wines produced in this country it is not funny. Further, the styles of wines produced here are far more diverse than those that he seems to favour.
I think the one negative is, and this has been mentioned plenty of times, that Parker has been so widely respected his promotion of his favoured Aussie style, big sweet etc, has led to a world wide belief that this is all Australia produces. Clearly this wasn't his intention but it is all anyone ever heard about. It irks me that Australian wine is being bad-mouthed the world over at present as all "fruit bomb", but at the same time I like the fact that nobody else knows about all of the magnificent diversity of our wine regions and wine styles. Surely the most diverse the world over? Better that they don't find out I reckon.
Matt.
Big, big continent. I'm not suggesting only drinking Australian wines, but if you had to pick a country and wanted diverse regional expression, this large Island wouldn't be your worst choice.
As always, IMVHO. And Cheers
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
jeremy- http://winewilleatitself.blogspot.com/
-
Daryl Douglas
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 7:23 pm
- Location: Nth Qld
-
Mahmoud Ali
- Posts: 2954
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:00 pm
- Location: Edmonton, Canada
I don't know when Parker started to review Australian wines but it probably coincides with the appearance of Australian wines in the United States. He was definitely reviewing Australian wines in the late 80's as attested by the 50+ pages in his 1989-90 wine buyers guide. So he has been reviewing Australian wines for at least 20 years.
I don't think Parker "discovered" Australian Shiraz but he was a foreign critic who recognized it's potential at a time when Australian winemakers were trying to export and promote Cabernet-based wines. Remember, when Max Schubert returned from France he wanted to create an Australian wine that had the structure to age like a Bordeaux. Initially he wanted to make his wine from Cabernet but in the late 40's and early 50's couldn't find good enough Cabernet grapes, so instead he used Shiraz. The rest is history.
Once again, in his 20-year old buying guide Parker says of Shiraz: "It can produce Australia's greatest red wine when left to stand on it's own, as Penfold's Grange Hermitage convincingly proves, or it can offer more dimension and character to a red wine when blended with Cabernet Sauvignon, as Penfolds and Petaluma have proven time and time again."
In a section of his book entitled "The 25 Greatest Red Wines of Recent Years" Parker lists 14 French wines, 8 Californian wines, 2 Italian wines, and one Australian, the 1982 Penfolds Grange Hermitage. [For the section on "The 25 Greatest White Wines of Recent Years" he lists 24 French wines and one Californian].
It is quite natural that Len Evans or James Halliday would have more experience with Australian wines. They live in Australia. Parker lives in the United States and it would be as obvious that he would have more experience with Californian wines.
I agree that Parker probably gives higher marks to Australian Shiraz than he does to other varieties. He also recommends more Shiraz wines than any other but that might be a function of the number of Shiraz wines he tastes which in turn is a function of the number of Shiraz wines available in the market as opposed to other varieties. Importers to the United States have more than enough Cabernet, Merlot and their blends from Bordeaux, Chile, Argentina, and Italy to mention the most obvious, not to mention the locally available California wines. There is plenty of worthy Sangiovese from Italy, Tempranillo from Spain, Grenach from Chateauneuf and Spain, Riesling from Germany and France, and Chardonnay from every nook and cranny in the world.
One last note. Twenty years ago Parker wrote "Whether it is due to the the excessive filtration of wines or to the excessive emulation of wine making styles, the tragedy of modern winemaking is that it has become increasingly difficult to tell a Chardonnay made in Italy from one made in France or California or Australia. When all the corporate winemakers throughout the world begin to make their wines in the same way, designing them to offend the least number of people, wines will doubtless lose their fascinating appeal and individuality."
It is ironic that today Parker is blamed for the internationalization of wine styles and the loss of individuality.
Mahmoud.
I don't think Parker "discovered" Australian Shiraz but he was a foreign critic who recognized it's potential at a time when Australian winemakers were trying to export and promote Cabernet-based wines. Remember, when Max Schubert returned from France he wanted to create an Australian wine that had the structure to age like a Bordeaux. Initially he wanted to make his wine from Cabernet but in the late 40's and early 50's couldn't find good enough Cabernet grapes, so instead he used Shiraz. The rest is history.
Once again, in his 20-year old buying guide Parker says of Shiraz: "It can produce Australia's greatest red wine when left to stand on it's own, as Penfold's Grange Hermitage convincingly proves, or it can offer more dimension and character to a red wine when blended with Cabernet Sauvignon, as Penfolds and Petaluma have proven time and time again."
In a section of his book entitled "The 25 Greatest Red Wines of Recent Years" Parker lists 14 French wines, 8 Californian wines, 2 Italian wines, and one Australian, the 1982 Penfolds Grange Hermitage. [For the section on "The 25 Greatest White Wines of Recent Years" he lists 24 French wines and one Californian].
It is quite natural that Len Evans or James Halliday would have more experience with Australian wines. They live in Australia. Parker lives in the United States and it would be as obvious that he would have more experience with Californian wines.
I agree that Parker probably gives higher marks to Australian Shiraz than he does to other varieties. He also recommends more Shiraz wines than any other but that might be a function of the number of Shiraz wines he tastes which in turn is a function of the number of Shiraz wines available in the market as opposed to other varieties. Importers to the United States have more than enough Cabernet, Merlot and their blends from Bordeaux, Chile, Argentina, and Italy to mention the most obvious, not to mention the locally available California wines. There is plenty of worthy Sangiovese from Italy, Tempranillo from Spain, Grenach from Chateauneuf and Spain, Riesling from Germany and France, and Chardonnay from every nook and cranny in the world.
One last note. Twenty years ago Parker wrote "Whether it is due to the the excessive filtration of wines or to the excessive emulation of wine making styles, the tragedy of modern winemaking is that it has become increasingly difficult to tell a Chardonnay made in Italy from one made in France or California or Australia. When all the corporate winemakers throughout the world begin to make their wines in the same way, designing them to offend the least number of people, wines will doubtless lose their fascinating appeal and individuality."
It is ironic that today Parker is blamed for the internationalization of wine styles and the loss of individuality.
Mahmoud.