Monday, January 31, 2011

TRENTHAM PINOT NOIR 2009

- Big Rivers Zone, NSW
- $11-$18
- Screwcap
- 13.5%alc

Reliable performers among Australia's mass produced, sub-$15 pinot class are so thin on the ground you could count them on one hand. In fact, here we go; De Bortoli's Windy Peak and Trentham Estate's. If anyone has any suggestions for my remaining fingers I'd be very grateful.

Unsurprisingly Trentham's 2009 Pinot Noir smells ripe, with dark cherry and blackberry fruits graced by a meaty edge, but there's also a herbal, sappy and perhaps spicy note that is keenly varietal. The palate drinks fractionally warm and as a result is nothing if not straight forward by pinot noir standards, but that's it - it actually fits within pinot noir standards. Its warm climate fruit has imparted a body that's relatively medium-full for the variety, yet it's beautifully soft in its progression, unravelling true flavours of dark cherries, meats and light spice in the white pepper/cinnamon spectrum. As one should expect its refreshing, acid-based structure won't see this wine into the cellar, but there's definitely a backbone; it's clean in nature, devoid of harshness, with an ease of gentle accessibility that's bound to see streetwise quaffers aching for more.

ü+ A wonderful summertime quaffing red. Smooth, soft, silky and varietal; I continue to be amazed by what Trentham Estate can achieve with a $13, warm climate pinot. Drink now.
89 points


Sunday, January 30, 2011

COLDSTREAM HILLS PINOT NOIR CHARDONNAY 2004

- Yarra Valley, VIC
- $29-$35
- Cork
- 12.0%alc

If Tasmania's my first port of call for Australian sparklings (which it is), then the Yarra Valley would go pretty close to being my second. The Yarra delivered a trio of top class fizzers from 2004, under the labels of Yarrabank (93pts), Coldstream Hills (92pts from Feb '09) and the late release Yarra Burn Blanc de Blancs (93pts).

Still a youthful looking pale-straw colour, Coldstream Hills' 2004 presents a fresh nose scented with gently honeyed citrus fruits, white nectarines, nougat and creamed nuts in an evenly balanced fashion. Its aroma is fresh and invigorating - sheer delight really. Very creamy and rather sumptuous on entry, yet distinctly medium in weight, its palate pushes through a clean and clear mouthful of mineral and brine flavours with a soft, foamy finish framed by a surprisingly stringy cut of grapefruit-like acids. It could use a bit more effervescent tightness really, as its finish seems fractionally loose and fades away somewhat in structural intensity, but its good length of creamy, texture driven flavour remains a plus.

O Coldstream Hills' 2004 still blooms with the sexy fragrant qualities that made me fall in love with it 2 years ago, but it is starting to look a little loose through the back palate now, so I'd drink up. Drink now.
90 points


Friday, January 28, 2011

TYRRELL'S SINGLE VINEYARD HVD SEMILLON 2005

- Lower Hunter Valley, NSW
- $20-$35
- Screwcap
- 11.5%alc

Much like the single vineyard Steven's and Belford Semillons, Tyrrell's HVD (vines planted 1908) is a tireless over performer (especially at 20 bucks!), whether the requirements call for something to drink now or something to cellar with confidence. Strangely, it seems like only yesterday the HVD carried a retail tag closer to $50....

Almost looking like it was bottled yesterday, the 2005 HVD initially reveals a nose seemingly stuck in a bad place between youthful vitality and bottle aged complexity, but with a few deep breaths it opens up like a spring flower, shooting forth lemon/lime citrus and apple charged (and I mean charged) aromas laced with a pleasingly herbal, tobacco-like expression of its melon fruit. The palate introduces itself as rather round and smooth but its penetrative extension is perfectly pitched and completely up to task. Its simultaneously powerful, soft and fluffy impression of pure and vibrant, somewhat primary Hunter fruit pushes on with the drive of a sports car, moving to a truly long finish with a chalky, glistening extract of mouth puckering acids that make for an assertive and edgy, yet charming driver. There may be a hint of straw or even toast evident at the climax, but it's pretty hard to look past the HVD's texture, acid structure and persistence; all expressed in the classical style that's only possible in the Hunter.

ü+ Brilliant. For $20 (check Melbourne Street Fine Wine) the 2005 HVD is an absolute steal. In this Summer of Riesling, all of a sudden I feel like making a change to my own personal Summer of Semillon.... Drink to 2019.
94 points


Wednesday, January 26, 2011

STEFANO LUBIANA BRUT

- Southern Tasmania
- $29-$40
- Cork (Diam)
- 12.5%alc

Although his range now includes some of Tasmania's finest pinot noir, chardonnay and sauvignon blanc, it was with sparkling wine production that Steve Lubiana first cut his teeth on the island state. The Stefano Lubiana Brut remains one of Australia's best non-vintage styles.

An attractive note of white chocolate coated almonds announce the aromatic arrival of Stefano Lubiana's Brut, which is quite lively and fresh in its aperitif-style make-up, thanks to further suggestions of zingy citrus sherbet and light butter adding fragrant, cocktail party-esque appeal. Its very tight, crisp palate reveals a salty lick of oyster shell and granny smith apple flavour with grapefruit-like acids, driven along by a pulsating, mineral thread which makes its presence felt strongest through a zippy, drying finish marked additionally by a sly note of white cheese/leesy complexity. The only downside is the palate's a touch lean, especially through the middle section, where a fraction more richness and textural interest would've aided its fine structural elements immeasurably.

ü There's so much to like here as an aperitif style Tasmanian fizzer, but, call me boring, because 9 times out of 10 I'd prefer the ever reliable Jansz for $10 less. Drink now.
90 points


A TERRIFIC TASTING PLATE FOR A TIGHT, EFFERVESCENT TASMANIAN SPARKLING

(From left to right)
Natural oyster with lime juice, cracked pepper, sliver of avocado , Roma tomato mince and fresh coriander
Natural oyster with lemon juice, cracked pepper, salmon roe and freshly cut chives
Barbecued potato slice with cream cheese, smoked salmon, chives and dill
Lobster tail meat in a white truffle butter sauce


Tuesday, January 25, 2011

TAMAR RIDGE KAYENA VINEYARD BOTRYTIS RIESLING 2007

- Tamar Valley, TAS
- $22-$25
- Screwcap
- 9.0%alc

Last year's welcomed news of Brown Brothers purchasing Tamar Ridge from Gunns Ltd cast blue skies over what was previously considered a grey cloud on Tasmanian wine. I love Tasmanian wine and I like the move by Brown Brothers, so I wish them all the best with their future endeavours on the Apple Isle.

There's quite a striking, deep golden colour to Tamar Ridge's 2007 Botrytis Riesling, which translates into a nose beset with some real botrytis influence. It's funky and almost rubbery, with an aroma of ultra-ripe stonefruits touched by hints of light honey, fig, faint citrus and something resembling burnt brown sugar/caramel. Any indication of riesling's primary lemon/lime citrus fruits have certainly been modified and developed here. On the palate it pumps a rich and luscious length of flavour, as its mouth-coating, even flow of orange/citrus marmalade characters morph into sticky toffee and apricot-like tones, which cumulatively display a near perfect, essential balance of rich sweetness and refreshing acidity throughout. Despite its substantial richness and impact, the whole package just seems so smooth, effortless and seamless, making it a dessert wine I'm more than happy to go back to after the first glass.

ü+ Made in a rich and ultimately satisfying style, the 2007 Kayena Vineyard is among the best Australian dessert rieslings I've had. It's actually surprised me. For all the hatred, Tamar Ridge certainly made some good wine while under the control of Gunns Limited.... Drink to 2013.
92 points


Sunday, January 23, 2011

ROSEMOUNT MOUNTAIN BLUE SHIRAZ CABERNET SAUVIGNON 2006

- Mudgee, NSW
- $37-$53
- Screwcap
- 14.0%alc

It's such a shame that what could be the Mudgee region's flag bearing wine, Rosemount Mountain Blue, lies in a tangled mess of corporate ownership within one of Australia's least fashionable wine brands. I couldn't help but smile recently when an independent retailer told me; "I get all these guys coming in with black Wynns shirts but if I stock Rosemount they'd hit me in the face with it." Looking beyond these points, the Mountain Blue is actually capable of a standard equal to the very best shiraz cabernet sauvignons.

Brought to life by a complex unison of gravelly earth and boot polish aromas, the 2006 Mountain Blue seems so classically Australian in its old fashioned shiraz cabernet nose. With shiraz clearly in the driver's seat it puts up a bright, evenly ripened yet proudly meaty fragrance of dark currant fruits tickled by light, airy spices; with oak playing a heady yet smoothly courteous role, possibly more suggestive of American wood than French. These aromatic features transfer almost perfectly into its flavour profile, which courses along a very smooth, utterly seamless medium-bodied palate coated by rich chocolate oak and completed with lingering, sour-edged meaty aspects and a surprisingly lithe, fair structure that speaks more of zippy acids than coarse tannin.

ü The 2006 Mountain Blue seems a very good, methodically conceived Aussie red; more than perfect for red meat dishes, but it just lacks that something special in the way of structure, length and finesse. Ye olde warm climate Mudgee can definitely pull this style off though. Drink to 2018.
92 points


Saturday, January 22, 2011

Friday, January 21, 2011

BROOKLAND VALLEY VERSE 1 CHARDONNAY 2010

- Margaret River, WA
- $12-$21
- Screwcap
- 13.5%alc

Brookland Valley's Margaret River sourced Verse 1 range would have to sit among the quiet over-achievers of Australia's 'heavily discounted brand champions' (I made that last bit up). The chardonnay in particular can excel, just as it did in 2006 (92pts). With some 50,000 wines in Australia, it spins me out to think someone 2,000km away might be drinking the same wine as you.

There's some fairly sweet and simple, peach and melon fruits evident on the nose of Brookland Valley's 2010 Verse 1, which is also graced by an edge of nuts and vanilla suggesting the human touch. The winemaker influence actually appeases me, because the fruit beneath doesn't exactly smell like the Margaret River's best. Its palate follows through with a soft, rounded dollop of straight forward fruit flavour announced in a suitably clean, bright manner, but its loose structural elements are rather lacking and as a result its length of fruit isn't drawn down the palate with enough emphasis. From nose to finish, it's truly a quaffer.

O For its low-end price (around $12-$13) Brookland Valley's 2010 Verse 1 Chardonnay isn't bad value, but its overly simple, clean fruit and uncomplicated structure force me to liken it as a sauvignon blanc drinker's chardonnay. Drink to 2013.
87 points


Thursday, January 20, 2011

SCORING

Many modern, warm-blooded young males will be familiar with the 'Out of 10' system, yet the perhaps more thorough, astute and less hormonal wine critic typically prefers either a 100 point or 20 point system, or a rating out of 5 stars.

Before this new year gets too old there's just a few points I wanted to raise in regards to wine scoring, in particular how I perceive and relate to it. If it's a personal opinion piece you don't wish to read then read elsewhere.....

To some extent, I score wine because I've always been a numbers and stats man, but I also love having a definitive assessment of wine quality attached to my notes, expressed in a blunt, numerical form which I can look back upon. I guess my love of scoring dates back to the 1980s when I religiously read British video game magazines, who used to break down their game reviews into 5 different criteria for scoring, finalised by the most important score; overall. Even today, when I'm at casual gatherings drinking wine in the most relaxed sense, a numerically scored judgement will subconsciously, or perhaps automatically, enter my mind. This could be a problem!

However, this isn't to say scoring wine is either easy or automatic, as I regularly find designating a score the hardest part of completing a review for Australian Wine Journal. On numerous occasions, long after a 'tasting note' has been completed, I'll find myself going back to a wine, time after time, mouthful after mouthful; racking my brain thinking; 'how good (numerically speaking) is this wine?' In these instances I really understand those who use a scoring range, e.g. 88-91pts or 88/89pts, because this broader style of scoring is starting to make more and more sense to me across a number of wines, even though I've always stuck to a single score evaluation myself.

At present I really respect the approach taken by Wino Sapien, who will issue a single score, a score range or sometimes no score at all, depending on what fits best. I consider it; 'scoring without boundaries'. Personally I continue to issue a single score, largely because I can be a stubborn man stuck in his old ways, but also because I hold concerns a scoring range might confuse or narrow an already confusing and narrow scoring system (almost all my reviews fit within the 85-96 point bracket). Or perhaps it would simplify and widen it...

Additionally, there are also instances where I feel a wine requires no score at all, particularly at the lower end, where I'll often leave a note out altogether. Increasingly, it is the wines I would rate at 84 points or less that I find difficult to pinpoint a single score on. This stems from my lack of experience with sitting down at home evaluating highly unsatisfying wines, which itself is probably a direct result of me buying most of the wines I drink myself. Whether a wine is worth precisely 83, 80 or 77 points can be difficult, or perhaps even pointless to conclude, but the bottom line remains the same; don't buy it again Chris!

Due to my (fortunate) lack of experience with such wines, bottles like Jorgensen Hill's 2008 Shiraz prove as difficult as any for me to score. At time of assessment I quizzed myself; 'should it be 75, 77 or 79 points?', but I also asked; 'at that score range, does anyone; including me, actually care?'
.............

Onto another note. As I see it, there are four types of wine critic who score wine:-
1. Those who overrate wine
2. Those who underrate wine
3. Those whose scores make little sense to me
4. Those whose judgement seems about right (this isn't to say I agree with everything these critics write, it's just that even when I disagree with their scores I can generally see where they're coming from)

Due to the objectivity of wine reviews, almost all critics are capable of traversing 3 of the 4 categories here, but all the same, there are some critics who seem harder to please than others and some who seem easier to please.

I actually appreciate and enjoy reading reviews from critics whom I might consider to be overrating wine (in certain cases of course). The reason being I can almost feel the enjoyment experienced by the writer whilst drinking, and actually enjoying wine is something very important to the root of its consumption. Whether I unanimously agree with these critics or not, on many occasions their unbridled enthusiasm gained through genuine satisfaction of a wine, relayed to me via text, has put a smile on my face. It's pleasing to read positive news from positive people. Most importantly, critics enjoying wine encourages consumers to enjoy wine.

As for those whom I consider to be underrating wine (compared to my tastes of course), I feel they play an important part to the industry, so long as their criticisms or harshness can be justified. If critics went around saying everything was just great and fine all the time, then more producers would be content to rest on their laurels. It is often the critic who puts down, whether fair or not, that stirs up the motivation within us to improve. As humans we have a natural tendency to remember the negative more than the positive. Although I personally draw some form of satisfaction from most of the wines I buy, I have tons of time for the critics who are willing to publish a wine's deficiencies in the face of other's glowing appraisal. So long as it's appropriate and in no way malicious of course.

As much as I try to keep an open mind about all subjective views, I still encounter the occasional assessment which makes little sense to me at all. Generally, these opinions show a collection of results I'd consider to be both under and overrating wine, as well as grouping wines whose quality might be yards apart (in my opinion) under the same score. To be honest, wine rating such as this rarely comes from individual critics. They are usually the results gathered from large tastings where a panel of judges assess hundreds/thousands of wines in just a day or so. I don't for a second believe my inability to comprehend such results relate to a lack of ability by critics (more likely me!). Rather, I believe summarising these tastings reflect the difficulties of not just trying to assess too many wines in too short a time frame, but also the difficulties of merging a group of people's opinions into one.

As for the final category, those who score appropriately, I obviously feel I fall under this category :), as should all proud critics. I imagine most people who read wine reviews would find the writers whose opinions best reflect their own and stick to them. We're quite fortunate in that as many different points of view there are on wine from a consumer side of things, there are almost as many different points of view from the critics themselves. Find whose opinions are right for your tastes and stick with them. Thanks in part to a commonsensical wine scoring system, the team at The Wine Front has done a wonderful job of connecting with Australia's modern wine consumer, with an approach that is at once contemporary, educational and entertaining.

From a blogger point of view, if there's only one critic you believe to be correct, then it has to be yourself. I don't think too many people out there would be knowingly under or overrating wines. If you're constantly disagreeing with your own opinions, then your mind probably isn't too in touch with your senses (or you're the least lucky person in the world when it comes to bottle variation!).

However, the more I read and compare the opinions of experienced critics to my own, the more a little voice tells me I might be on the overrating side of things. I believe there could be two main reasons for this.

Firstly, I personally buy (or pay for) almost all the wines I review on Australian Wine Journal. I've read enough and drunk enough wine over the years now to know what wines I'll probably like (which isn't to say I can tell if I'll like a wine before I drink it) and funnily enough, I tend to buy them. You don't think I'd purposely buy a bad wine do you? It's also fortunate I have fairly broad tastes...

Secondly, although I attempt to begin every note with a blank palate and clear mind, I actually look to extract enjoyment from every bottle of wine I drink, before I drink it. I enjoy drinking wine and sure as hell intend on continuing to enjoy it. This optimism and positivity could sometimes lead to a (slightly?) inflated score, but if I liked it, I liked it, and that's it. If I ever get to a point where the majority of my notes are harshly worded and matched with low scores, then that'll probably mean I'm not enjoying wine, in which case, I would have to ask myself; 'what the hell am I doing?'