Category Archives: Red

Villa Maria Private Bin Pinot Noir 2006

Posted on by
2

I really don’t know what to say about this wine. It smells like Pinot Noir, more or less… and I’m at a loss for descriptors past that point. There seems to be some kind of weird spritziness on the tongue, and I find myself wondering if there’s been a small refermentation in bottle as well; there’s an odd, yeasty note that’s unattractive and it mostly tastes of pizza dough that someone dropped in a wax cup of strawberry Kool-Aid at the end of a children’s birthday party.Fifteen minutes after pouring, there’s kind of a foamy, frothy ring around the wine as it sits in my glass. It’s not very attractive. Here’s a snapshot:With additional time and air, this wine is about as far from good pinot noir as it gets. It’s medium bodied, atypically so for Pinot. The wine is heavy, dull, flabby, and overripe. There is no finish. There is no excuse for shipping this wine overseas; it should have been consumed as sangria, preferably in Nelson.Thankfully, our street’s recyclables are being picked up by the city overnight. I don’t want to have to look at this bottle in the morning and be reminded of my mistake.Villa MariaPrice: US $17.99Closure: StelvinDate tasted: April 2008

Mike Press Wines Pinot Noir 2004

Posted on by
1

It’s not often I leave a sub-$10 wine overnight, and overnight again, to see how it evolves. But this wine has prompted me to do so, with most pleasing results.I’ve had this one a few times with, I admit, mixed impressions at first. My first bottle seemed a little murky, structurally, lacking the purity I often associate with Pinot Noir, especially New World styles. It was also showing a heavy, oak-driven flavour profile. Whilst this wine is not, and will never be, a bright cherry fruit bomb, time will help to clarify its flavour components and structure.So what does it smell and taste like? At first, a whole mix of flavours, not terribly well delineated, generous, a little “dark.” After a day, it was as if a veil had lifted, revealing clean and somewhat brighter (though still deep) fruit flavour, along with definite earthiness, some musk, and perhaps a little lift. The entry is pleasantly lively, with some acid tingling the tip of the tongue as flavour introduces itself towards the mid-palate. Fruit flavour is mostly dark berry in character, and is accompanied by more earth and sous-bois. Oak is relegated to a supporting role now, and it’s astonishing how much this aspect of the wine has stepped back over the last six months. Mouthfeel is quite lovely, mixing the aforementioned acidic freshness with fine, powdery tannins of the mouth coating variety. It’s definitely tending towards a “dry red” style but, if you’re open to this, will be a pleasing wine in its own right. The after-palate and finish show good line and persistence.At just over $A8 per bottle, I’m astonished this wine is drinkable, let alone stylish and expressive of personality. Mike Press WinesPrice: $A8.34 ($100/dozen)Closure: StelvinDate tasted: April 2008

Skillogalee Shiraz 2004

Posted on by
Reply

Skillogalee does a good line in approachable, generous red wines, so I thought this one would be a good way to unwind after a busy weekend. For some reason, I’ve lost the use of one nostril just in time for this tasting. Let’s hope the wine gives up its secrets easily.A big hit of blackberry jam on the nose, along with some nutty vanilla and what is either a vegetal note or somewhat raw oak. The fruit is ripe and clearly of good quality.  Entry is bright with flavour and shows lots of dark berry fruit in the context of an attractive, powdery texture. The mid-palate presents more blackberry jam, quite intense and full in body, with oak increasing its influence as the wine moves to its climax. It’s all very flavoursome for sure, but a little clumsy also, as if the elements are all “oversized” and paying insufficient attention to each other. The wine’s line is consistent through the after palate, and sweet berry fruit sings through the finish. I’m not sure about this one. The fruit is good, but the oak treatment strikes me as obvious and heavyhanded. The wine also lacks a clear sense of structure. Still, it’s a lot of quality flavour for a reasonable price. Try this one with spicy Asian food (the fruit weight and lack of tannins work well in this context).SkillogaleePrice: $25.50Closure: StelvinDate tasted: March 2008

Mount Pleasant Mount Henry Pinot Shiraz 2002

Posted on by
2

Pinot Noir and Shiraz. A little odd, you might say, yet not without precedent. As the back label explains, some of wine legend Maurice O’Shea’s most renowned wines were blends of these two varieties. So, Mount Henry is a tribute of sorts to these iconic wines. It’s pure Hunter Valley, of course, wrapped in a heavy, somewhat monumental bottle of chunky proportions. First impressions are marred somewhat by a big whiff of brett that never quites dissipates as the bottle empties. It’s not, however, beyond tolerance, at least for my palate. Rather, it’s a metallic sheen over deliciously earthy red fruits, quite sweet really, a bit of custardy oak and some funkiness. It smells of Hunter Shiraz but shows a marked divergence at the same time, with some bright complexity pushing it away from the straight Shiraz style. On entry, the wine smacks the lips and tongue with generous flavour almost immediately. It’s got good presence, this wine. The mid-palate shows good fruit weight and a fine, powdery texture, and tastes of raspberry liqueur poured on a dusty dirt road. Characterful, if not hugely complex. The after palate and finish are quite textural, thanks to chewy tannins.There’s a slight lack of focus to this wine’s progression through the palate, but why quibble over something so tasty? Parallels between Hunter “Burgundy” and Pinot Noir have a lot of history to draw on, if only at the level of nomenclature and general “style.” But there are synergies there, as O’Shea and this wine show. It’s a wonder more producers in the Hunter don’t experiment with this blend. I’m led to believe some Hunter enthusiasts are taking matters into their own hands.McWilliams Mount PleasantPrice: $A30Closure: CorkDate tasted: March 2008

Collector Marked Tree Red 2005

Posted on by
4

I bought some of this wine on a whim after reading that it had won some awards. That’s me, a sucker for a few medals stuck on a bottle. Actually, I’m a fan of Canberra District Shiraz for its often elegant, medium weight style, so usually jump at the chance to acquire a new example. A bright, expressive nose that presents dried flowers, peppery spice and clean red fruit in equal measure. A bit of funk in there too. It’s got good complexity (more so as it sits in glass) and, to me, is extremely attractive. To digress for a moment, wines like this make me acutely feel the inadequacy of using flavour comparisons when describing wine. I suppose, at a molecular level, there’s some validity to describing wine through flavour analogues, but good wines, such as this one, defy such descriptions because they are seamless, they taste of themselves, and all I can hope to do in saying “spice and red fruit” is roughly approximate the impression of this, or any other, wine. With that over and done with (much to everyone’s relief, I’m sure), I will continue with the wine’s entry, which is lightfooted and slippery, maybe more textural than flavoursome at first, but quickly building brightly fruited flavour as it moves towards the mid-palate. It’s medium bodied and characterful by way of red, sappy fruit and edges of spice. Mouthfeel is supple and soft, but there’s also some subtle acidity contributing flow and structure to the wine. Balance is very “drink now,” though. The after palate gets spicier and trails to a finish that shows some attractive, lingering sweetness. Overall, it could do with a notch more intensity, but it’s a lovely Shiraz style (in my view) that places elegance before power. It reminds me of a more subtle version of Gimblett Gravels Syrah. Good value.Collector WinesPrice:  $A26Closure: StelvinDate tasted: March 2008

Skillogalee Basket Pressed Cabernet Sauvignon Cabernet Franc Malbec 2004

Posted on by
Reply

With a name this long, it had better be good. I don’t know about you but, in my experience, a wine’s label can bear little resemblance to the liquid in bottle. Mercifully, here’s one that shows a bit of truth in advertising. The label says: “soft and full with sweet, leafy fruit flavours, rich vanillin oak and fine tannins…” Basically, yeah.An acceptably expressive nose that shows rich, full fruit of the red and black type, with an edge of “dried fruit” character. There’s a good dose of dusty leaf that is pleasingly varietal. The palate is where this wine truly shines, though. Bright, rich fruit flavour strikes the tongue  quite early and builds as it moves to the mid-palate. The fruit is not monumental in scale, but it is tasty and really quite ripe. Mulberry leaf and well balanced oak also contribute. This is a wine of generosity and soft, full fruit flavour, counterbalanced by a firm acid framework. It is not a simple or industrial wine, and remains characterful despite its easygoing style. Good consistency through to the after palate, with sweet, ripe tannins that sing through the decent finish.Sometimes, you just want a nice, giving red wine that gushes with personality and flavour. Give this one a go if you’re in such a mood. It’s not overly structured, but is full of good fruit and will be killer with juicy rump steak.SkillogaleePrice: $A25.50Closure: StelvinDate tasted: March 2008

Ngeringa J.E. Shiraz 2004

Posted on by
1

McLaren Vale Shiraz that clocks in at 13.5% alcohol? Yes, it does exist, as this wine from Ngeringa proves. I’ve been meaning to try more Ngeringa wines ever since I had a very pleasurable encounter with its Adelaide Hills Chardonnay. This wine shows an equally clear sense of style.Quite an intense, balanced nose that mixes savoury and sweet fruit, stalky brambles, plus some vanilla and spice. Altogether attractive and relatively complex. Entry confirms this wine’s true character as a rather Italianate, savoury wine of medium body and firm acidity. There’s good intensity to the fruit, which has a lovely “candied peel” edge. The wine is quite lightfooted, with flavours that dance on the tongue rather than smother or overwhelm. It’s really quite complex without being overly intellectual. Some green, undergrowth-like notes emerge on the after palate, reinforcing the savoury fruit notes. The finish trails off in intensity but retains good length. This style really appeals to me. Although it’s a quality wine that you could drink analytically, it’s the kind of wine to throw back with friends, marvelling at how delicious it is while you get stuck into dinner. An example of what the McLaren Vale is capable of when it is not pushed too hard. Brilliant value for money.NgeringaPrice: $A20Closure: StelvinDate tasted: March 2008

Le Vieux Mas de Papes Red 2001

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, after a trip to the recyclers’ to rid ourselves of the accumulated shippers and empty cases that built up over the winter, my partner and I headed to downtown San Diego to pick up a dozen or so cases of wine. Having just moved here last July, I’ve been without access to most of my wines until just this month; we finally cleared out enough space in the garage to install a modest refrigerated cabinet, and now it’s time to begin hauling the thirty or so cases in storage back home.There are only twenty cases left in storage at this point: all of the Riesling and most of the Rhône type stuff are now safely home. To celebrate progress, I picked the ugliest bottle I could from the cellar: a generic Châteauneuf-du-Pape that I don’t remember buying (perhaps it was a gift?) with a washed out yellowish label and absolutely nothing interesting on the front of it.I poured a couple of glasses, noticed that the wine looked as washed out as the label, and steeled myself for watery disappointment. Instead, I found myself enjoying one of the best bottles I’ve had in weeks. The nose of the wine eventually reminded me of French sunflower honey, all summer sunlight with notes of hay and dried herbs. Distinctly acidic, the wine offered up smokey gravel, dried Montmorency cherries, dust, dirt, and something like ocean breezes washing across cool ocean meadows and onto hot sand. The smokey note reasserted itself on the finish, with a decidedly sweet (and I mean in the sense of sucrosité, not California super-ripe sweetness) finish trailing off into lazy trails of autumn hay.What an incredible wine, and what a wonderful reminder that restraint often pays incredible dividends. We finished the bottle over a course of several hours, unwilling to put a stop to the experience; at first, the acidity was unsettling, but it settled down with some air. All in all, this was as wonderful as a walk through the redwoods here in California: cool, majestic, quiet.Vignobles BrunierPrice: likely around US $25Closure: CorkDate tasted: March 2008

Mount Pleasant Philip Shiraz 2003

Posted on by
Reply

The 2005 Philip took me by (not entirely pleasant) surprise, its scale and style seeming bigger than the regular Philip and feeling a bit borderline to me in terms of balance. I thought I’d revisit the 2003 version, which I remember enjoying a lot on release, now that I’ve tried the newer wine a few times. I recall the 2003 being a rich wine, full of flavour, but identifiably regional too. The nose is quite dirty/dusty in the regional sense, with savoury red fruits weaving through the earthiness. It is ripe, yet balanced and with no hint of portiness. There’s a fair whack of vanilla too. On the palate, a rich entry that shows soft, concentrated fruit character and medium body. Flavour unfolds onto the middle palate with softness and grace, but things start to go awry a little, with rough, sappy, vanillan oak threatening to unbalance the wine’s flavour profile. The fruit, however, is excellent and full of character, with definite signs of aged complexity. A soft after palate and reasonable length round the wine off.I don’t remember so much oak on this wine; perhaps some bottle variation is happening here. In any case, I like this wine a great deal and might even prefer it to the 2005. Having said that, they are both excellent wines and amazingly good value for money, and the 2005 may be a more appropriate choice to accompany robust food flavours (it went well with some pizza we had the other night). The 2005 has the added advantage of being bottled under screwcap.McWilliams Mount PleasantPrice: $A15Closure: CorkDate tasted: March 2008

Ridge Monte Bello 2005 + Quixote Petite Sirah 2004

Posted on by
1

You’ll have to excuse me, but last night was the last night my parents were in town – they live in London and were visiting San Diego, so I had to whip out some of the awesome ‘cuz my Dad likes a good bottle of wine every bit as much as Julian and I do. Given that I was concentrating more on the company than the wine, I decided not to write about these two wines right away: as a result, what you’re getting isn’t a proper tasting note, but rather further musing on the difference between these two wines.

We began the evening by opening the Monte Bello. This is arguably one of the finest wines produced in California; every once in a while, usually when I’m feeling flush with cash and slightly inebriated, I’ll cave to Ridge’s offer of Monte Bello futures (sadly, they aren’t really doing that any longer; instead, you have to sign up for a subscription program). $400 or so gets you a six pack, or 12 half bottles; then, you have to wait a couple of years until they deliver the bottles to your door. At this point, I’ve got some of the 2000 and 2001… and the 2005 was delivered to my office last week.

Within a few minutes of opening the Monte Bello, I flew off onto one of my usual spiels about how truly excellent wines can almost be diagrammed on staff paper – there should be different things going on in different registers. Perhaps there’s some floral perfume in the treble, and some deep, heavy bass in the sense of wood or roasted coffee; at the very least, there should be a common thread in the midrange that holds the entire wine together.

The 2005 Monte Bello was… very difficult to accurately describe. There was definitely a vanilla perfume above the entire construction, with some classic cabernet sauvignon fruit, with an underpinning of dirty violet perfume (presumably the petit verdot). No matter how many times we smelled that wine, all of its components drifted in and out of focus, perfectly balanced, perfectly harmonious. You had the rich, mulberry (and very, very young!) notes some times; other times, you mostly smelled vanilla, sandalwood, and eventually camphor. It was incredible.

My Dad and I decided it would be interesting to set our glasses aside for a while – we wanted to see what would happen with an hour or two of air – so we did, and went for the other bottle I’d grabbed from the cellar: a Quixote petite sirah. Both of these wines are roughly in the same price range: $33 for a tenth of the Monte Bello, and $60 for the Quixote. Both of these wines are hugely enjoyable. Both of these wines will probably send shivers down your spine with sheer physical delight. And yet, only one of these wines is a great wine.

The Quixote was huge. Heck, my Dad’s teeth went dark purple in a few minutes. It’s a massive, hulking wine: very rich, obviously very expensive, and with an overwhelming sense of espresso towards the finish. It screams California: this isn’t a Rutherglen durif, not even close. It’s ripe – not hyperripe in the Barossa sense – and it’s obviously been raised in the best French barrels money can buy. The tannins are fine, sweet, and delicious.

What’s missing is of course a sense of place. Just as a wine like the Mollydooker Carnival of Points (er, Love) can be huge, intense, delicious, and all of those good things, the Quixote petite sirah is huge, intense, delicious, and a visceral thrill. I kept thinking of Robert Musil, though: this is a wine without qualities. That is, it doesn’t appear to come from anywhere: this is what happens when you take a plant, apply the most awesome growing technology (canopy management, microirrigation, whatever) imaginable, stick it in the most expensive barrels you can find, and then bottle it in bottles with exquisite labels. By the time we finished the bottle, we had gotten over the initial thrill of it, and began to wonder… is that all there is?

We then went back to the Monte Bello. Two hours’ time had caused the wine to soften appreciably; my Dad described it as “sensuous,” and I wouldn’t disagree. Unusually for so-called New World wines, the Ridge seemed carefully designed and constructed to express beauty, not power: more importantly, it tastes like itself and not like any other wine out there. The 2000 and 2001 both had the same, impossible to describe feeling to them… a feeling that what you’re drinking couldn’t possibly be duplicated anywhere else on Earth. Just as with a Hunter semillon or a good Burgundy, you just knew that you were drinking an incredible wine from a place like no other on Earth.

This is the difference between the excellent and the great: complexity, harmony, balance, and fidelity to place.

Ridge + Quixote
Price: US $33 (375 mL; futures price) + US $60
Closure: Cork + Stelvin
Date tasted: March 2008