I presented the 2005 4 Acres at a dinner with Chris last year, where it promptly stole the limelight from a table full of desirable labels we had both brought to the party, as much for its difference as its objective quality. It was like essence of Hunter Shiraz, quirkily different from “Australian Shiraz” as well as singular in the context of its own regional style. The 2006 is interesting for a number of reasons, not least because it shows a clear relationship with its Vat 9 sibling of the same vintage, perhaps indicating the degree to which vintage conditions shine through with these wines.

A bit of sulfur suppressing significant aroma at first, but lifting after an hour or so to show deep, rich smells of red fruit, eucalyptus and some regional stink. There’s also faint oak influence that adds richness and depth rather than anything especially “primary.” It’s a beguiling aroma, and quite complex.

Entry shows good impact and flavour intensity from the tip of the tongue onwards. There’s a lovely fanning out of flavour with this wine and, by the time the mid-palate arrives, the mouth is awash with intense, quality fruit. More red fruit and dirt here, mostly savoury but with edges of sweetness. As with the Vat 9, there’s a slightly plummy, very ripe fruit note. I think it works better in the context of this wine, though, because overall the 4 Acres is a lighter and more charming wine than the Vat 9, and can carry this idiosyncratic flavour profile more easily. The wine’s structure seems evenly split between prominent yet balanced acidity and velvety, mouth filling tannins. Mouthfeel is correspondingly bright and substantial. Nice, focused line through the after palate and finish.

I really love this wine, and I admit I’m biased towards its style. But it’s an easy wine to fall for and, despite its sophistication, I imagine wine novices would easily recognise the quality of this wine’s fruit, as well as its superb balance. If anything, it’s a more “complete” wine than the 2005, and I’ve a feeling it’s only showing the tip of the iceberg in terms of what it might become in a few years’ time. I’ll be waiting with anticipation.

Tyrrell’s
Price: $A30
Closure: Stelvin
Date tasted: April 2008

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

What with all the Burgundies lately, I thought it might be amusingly ironic to taste what used to be known as Hunter Burgundy — made from Shiraz grapes, of course. Philip is usually a reliable choice in that it generally displays good typicité within the context of the vintage — no mean feat at this price point. 2005 being a good vintage in the Hunter for red wines, I was keen to try this one.And, I must admit, I was rather disappointed at first. Although Hunter character was present, the wine was swamped with a spirity, fortified edge that more or less obliterated any nuance of fruit character, and created an overblown, filling-yet-hollow mouthfeel of little textural interest. I had almost decided not to write it up, but left half the bottle to retaste the following day, just to be sure.It’s remarkably better after a good night’s airing. Although it hasn’t magically transformed into a different wine, it has a sense of balance that was not present on opening. Good Hunter savouriness alongside sweet yet subtle red fruits on the nose. There’s a bit of oak in there too; sweet but not overwhelming. The palate shows the most marked improvement, with a noticeable diminution in portiness, which has the effect of bringing the fruit into focus, and allowing the wine’s delicious, savoury tannins their proper place. It’s Hunter, but on a large scale: medium verging on full bodied, the alcohol still noticeable (though not all-consuming), denser flavours than one might expect. In the end, a good wine and excellent value. Despite the wine’s dimensions, it retains the elegance and softness of good Hunter Shiraz, so should please fans of the style.McWilliams Mount PleasantPrice: $A13Closure: StelvinDate tasted: February 208