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?'


Monday, January 17, 2011

CLONAKILLA O'RIADA SHIRAZ 2009

- Canberra District
- $40-$50
- Screwcap
- 14.5%alc

After the disappointing 2009 Jack Reidy failed to quench my thirst for a genuine Clonakilla-styled Shiraz Viognier, I rushed out and compulsively bought the next cheapest option. Enter the O'Riada Shiraz, a wine which in years like 2007 (94pts) beautifully illustrates what makes the precise touch of Tim Kirk so special.

Although containing a measly 1% less viognier than the 2009 Jack Reidy (5% here), the O'Riada integrates it significantly better. Lifted by musky qualities and underlined by deep, dark shiraz fruit, its perfume runs a slick balance of ripe blackberries and meat alongside spicy, stalk-like suggestions of clove and ground pepper, with a wafer-like scent of vanilla/cedar oak thrown in as well. It's darker than some might expect from Clonakilla but it's definitely Clonakilla, and this point drives home in the mouth courtesy of a very supple, almost fluffy and barely medium-bodied palate backed by tight structural elements and a spicy aftertaste. In fact, its soft, meaty and sour-edged dark red/dark fruits are assertively wound up by a tight line of grainy, gritty tannins and drying acids, so the wise among us might sit the 2009 O'Riada aside for a few more years, allowing it to unfold and blossom into a superior drink.

ü Perhaps riper and darker from the warm vintage yet in no way more forward or ready to drink, the 2009 O'Riada is a tight-fisted, dark and rustic Clonakilla in need of a decent spell in the cellar or a good decant. Aaaah, that's better; at least my Clonakilla craving has been met now, which nearly gifted this wine an extra point (but it hasn't). Drink 2016-2021.
92 points


CLONAKILLA JACK REIDY SHIRAZ 2009

- Canberra District
- $29-$36
- Screwcap
- 14.0%alc

Clonakilla's typically floral, spicy, musky, perfumed and absolutely delicious take on Canberra District Shiraz Viognier stands as one of my most treasured interpretations of Australian wine. In that, I'm surely not alone.

In something of a rarity for Clonakilla, the 2009 Jack Reidy shows a rather obvious touch of viognier (6%) expressed via warm, heady scents of apricot and blueberry. Aside from that it also seems a shade riper than I expected (although it might just be the viognier), by presenting an underlying, rounded, generously fruited fragrance of juicy dark plums, cherries and perhaps even licorice backed by smooth, seasoned oak. Fortunately, the maker's trademark floral/spice notes make a statement through a suggestion of cinnamon stick, but it's certainly more reserved and far from defining. Throughout the relatively straight forward, medium-fullish palate it's all very smooth and quaffable, revealing silky, ripe but not over-ripe and sour-edged flavours of juicy dark/purple fruits that initially conceal its viognier quite well, but the white grape makes its presence felt stronger through the back palate in the way of baked apricot-like tones. As its viognier influence extends it finishes too soft, tart and simple, without the tannin/acid structures that typify Clonakilla's best.

O Clonakilla's smooth, pretty and very quaffable 2009 Jack Reidy should provide pleasant enough drinking over the short term, but only if you can handle the taste of viognier in your shiraz. For $35 it isn't exactly an accurate look into what the Clonakilla style is all about. Drink to 2014.
89 points


Sunday, January 16, 2011

ANGOVE NINE VINES GRENACHE SHIRAZ ROSÉ 2010

- South Australia
- $8-$17
- Screwcap
- 12.5%alc

If the (pale-pink) rosé revolution has begun, then someone forgot to tell Adelaide's larger retail chains. A luminescent selection of hot pink and vivid red styles was all I could find in the fridge section of Australia's best known retailer recently. So when forced to choose, my inner pink drinker swayed towards the generally reliable, fairly priced Angove Nine Vines.

Simultaneously predictable and surprising, yet simple and appealing, Angove's very popular Nine Vines Rosé shows the expected aromas of glacé cherries and sweet raspberry with a less anticipated yet more welcomed touch of spice; perhaps white pepper and clove. Its consumer friendly appearance and aromatic suggestions lead into a smooth, ripe strawberries and cream palate that is bound by some candied aspects, but it's held together by enough genuinely slurpable, mid-weighted textures and a soft, limey acid wash to make for a good quaff. Initially, when pulled straight out of the fridge and drunk with haste, it ends a bit dirty, but some air, slight warmth and a little time in the glass see the finish clarify and smooth out somewhat, making the experience that much better.

ü The better vintages of Angove's Nine Vines remind me of a scaled down version 0f Charles Melton's excellent Rose of Virginia, and the 2010 has done just that. For $12, I wouldn't ask for much more. Drink now.
87 points


Friday, January 14, 2011

BAY OF FIRES PINOT NOIR 2009

- Derwent River Valley/Coal River Valley/East Coast Tasmania, TAS
- $33-$43
- Screwcap
- 13.5%alc

In its early days I wasn't terribly enthused by Bay of Fires Pinot Noir, but the last 3 vintages (since 2007) have conclusively changed my mind, leading me to now consider it among Tasmania's best. Fran Austin's cross-state blend incorporates fruit from Tasmania's south (Derwent River Valley and Coal River Valley) and east in 2009.

Woho! Bay of Fires' 2009 Pinot Noir jumps out with an intensely aromatic, strongly varietal nose that has nothing to hide. A bright, vividly ripened fragrance of dark cherries and blackberry form the base of an aroma that's enriched by an array of meaty, floral, herbal and lightly spiced suggestions, with a smooth measure of clove-like vanilla oak honed in with real class. Extended aeration reveals a charming note of caramel as well. For all its aromatic intensity it's surprisingly supple on the palate, yet in no way short of flavour; as it slides into the mouth with a pleasingly composed, medium-bodied expression of dark forest fruits, cedar/ground coffee-like oak and herbs, all graced by a touch of animal hide to excite. It finishes with true grip, dryness and finesse, as an ideally tuned backbone of fine-grained, dusty tannins and tight acid draws everything into place alongside persisting notes of herb and spice, which become progressively drier as its tannic song plays out.

ü+ Big company ownership, cross-regional blending within one state, larger-scale production, ample distribution, true winemaking polish, genuinely undervalued and becoming consistently brilliant. Do Bay of Fires stand to become the Penfolds of Australian pinot noir? Drink to 2016.
94 points


Thursday, January 13, 2011

A SNEAKY SNACK FOR A LIGHTLY SPICED, SUPPLE TASMANIAN PINOT NOIR

Pâté, or more specifically, The Goods 'Fleurieu Fine Foods' Grand Marnier Pâté (my apologies for the product endorsement!)

Ever since I first discovered this smooth, rich, peppery and downright opulent pâté at Minko's Willunga cellar door early last year, I've been hooked, downing bottle after bottle of pinot noir by its side. Some of this pâté's most honourable attributes are no added preservatives and all natural ingredients; a couple of fine production practices which differ from South Australia's 'other', higher profile pâté producer.


Wednesday, January 12, 2011

CAPE MENTELLE SAUVIGNON BLANC SEMILLON 2010

- Margaret River, WA
- $18-$29
- Screwcap
- 13.0%alc

Okay, it seems everyone's had their say on Cape Mentelle's new labels, so here's my two cents worth; I liked the old labels. I always liked the old labels, but the new labels, which can look surprisingly sophisticated in person, are starting to grow on me. That's it. Now onto the wine.

Cape Mentelle's 2010 SBS (54/46) immediately unloads a strong aroma loaded with ample character and definition, but its most pleasing attribute may be a vivid sense of distinct regionality. Its pungent scents of green pea, guava and lemon/lime citrus rise from the glass in expressive fashion, while funked-up hints of sweat and light, airy smoke string the nose together to form a fragrance with as much character as any Cape Mentelle SBS I can recall. A well controlled punch of juicy fruit announces the palate, which moves forward with a wonderfully smooth, even flow of sweaty tropical fruit flavour that is just so devilishly Western Australian. The sweaty, more savoury aspects push on with touches of smoky and mineral complexity, carrying the wine to a cleansing, classically brisk finish helped along by a balancing framework of lively acids.

ü+ For me, Cape Mentelle's 2010 is right on the style button. It beautifully expresses elements of sauvignon blanc, semillon and desirable barrel ferment notes (15%) in a harmonised, truly regional and character laden manner. Well worth the twenty. Drink to 2013.
92 points


Tuesday, January 11, 2011

PARACOMBE SAUVIGNON BLANC 2010

- Adelaide Hills, SA
- $16-$24
- Screwcap
- 13.0%alc

Having become something of a guilty pleasure of mine, the deliciously fruity Paracombe is one Adelaide Hills sauvignon blanc I'm always happy to recommend. In its two previous incarnations (2008-91pts, 2009-92pts) I picked up gloriously tropical scents of banana and passionfruit, two notes which just seem so right to me for this style of wine.

Sitting right on the style cue for Paracombe, the 2010 unashamedly flaunts a fragrance of passionfruit and light grass with a dollop of banana custard for softness and a zap of mineral infused citrus to cut and refine. It's far from complex or savoury but the aromatic balance works. Its palate is hallmarked by great length (for the style), creamy texture and a zingy, citric, faintly bitter-edged and chalky acid structure which is much more assertive and defined than most from the Hills. These features combine to drive its bright, smoothly textured and pure tropical fruit/gooseberry flavours into a long, more citrus infused climax overrun by a fine combination of refreshing softness and tight acids.

ü+ Yet again Paracombe's Sauvignon Blanc has me singing its praises. There's nothing otherworldly or unexpected here, but as I said before, it's right on the money for a consumer friendly Adelaide Hills sauvignon blanc. Drink to 2012.
91 points


Saturday, January 8, 2011