2008 Glaetzer Bishop

A couple of posts ago I reviewed the '07 Bishop. That was a year ago, and I've barely updated my blog since. A lot of tasting notes have gone up on cellartracker/grapestories under "AndrewJ" since then, but I've neglected this blog. So on to the review...

2008 Glaetzer Bishop

It's not a food wine, it's a meal in itself! Failing that, a thick rare steak would be in order. It's already faring much better than the first bottle that I had upon release, approximately 6 months ago. 90% French oak, 10% American, of 2-3 years age. A small portion of the wine was barrel-fermented.

Intense mega-purpe rim, otherwise opaque. Unctuous dark berries and a certain nuttiness, concentrated ripe shiraz fruit wrapped around a long, tight, acidic spine. The nuttiness adds a nice savory dimension to offset the ripeness on the front-palate. Blueberry becomes apparent on the mid-palate, leading to a dry acidic finish. It's big on tannin, but that's in keeping with the rest of the wine. That said, it's still a bit disjointed and angular at present, and is in desperate need of bottle age, although it softens well with time in the glass. A good decant would do it justice. There is a degree of vibrancy on the after-palate that, like an evil voice inside your head, speaks to your sub-conscience saying "drink me, drink me"... like one needs an excuse. Screwcap. 14.5%. $30

Rating: 91+/100

Why You Want This Wine: Because you're here to enjoy yourself, so partake in the delights.

2004: Moss Wood v Voyager

Whilst I was buying the '04 Voyager Cabernet Merlot at Dan Murphy's, and after the wine had been bagged, the manager came over and had a look at the wine, and said "good choice".

"When are you planning to drink it?" he asked.

"Well, tonight," I said, knowing full well that it ought be cellared.

The manager, "How would you like a second bottle of Margaret River cabernet to drink with it?"

Me, Somewhat confused, "Let's see what it is..."

"Don't worry", whispered the girl at the checkout, "It's free"

The manager returned holding up a bottle. "Oh, Woodlands :)." I looked closer. WTF? "MOSS WOOD!!!"

I had just been gifted half of a full bottle of Moss Wood cabernet, the producer's top wine. And it's the 2004. I stood there with equal measures of shock and graciousness

The bottle had been opened earlier for staff tastings. In-bottle decanted for half a day, the manager (a true samaritan) found a good home for the remainder, telling me that the staff weren't allowed to take home due to company policy.

With that, I had myself an '04 Margaret River horizontal on my hands, North v South.

2004 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon (North MR):

Silky, velvety mouthfeel, darkfruit, very soft fine-grained dusty tannins. A lingering mid-pallate, gravelly perfect margaret river. One of the best wines I've tasted all year.

96 points, effortlessly.

2004 Voyager Estate Cabernet Sauvignon (South MR):

Less expressive nose, aroma of ground-nut. Less velvety, less seamless between front and back palette. Courser tannin. Eucalyptus influence. Perhaps a bit closed as only just opened, but tried again after opened for a similar amount of time as was the Moss Wood, and it was still not as good. This review may sound negative, but it is not. It is merely a comparison to the Moss Wood. The Voyager is still a very good wine, and reasonably priced at half that of the Moss Wood.

94-95+.

Two great wines. The '05 Moss wood is out now, with a new label design (a gross error of judgement in my opinion - A beautiful, classic, iconic label has been replaced by a fugly one). Apparently the contents of the '05 bottle is better though, so it's one to seek out. It will be interesting to see what the '05 Voyager is like. Indeed, it will be even more interesting to see how voyager fares in future, now that their gun chief winemaker Cliff Royale has left the business. There are still a few of his vintages to be release though.

Why you want th(ese) wine(s): Whilst Coonawara produces the most honest cabernet in Australia, Margaret River produces the most delicious. Voyager may be a future contender to the contender to the throne, but it isn't there yet. The Kings of margaret river are of course Moss Wood and Cullen, but Moss Wood and Voyager seem the most authentic. They are both on the '04, moving to '05 release, whereas Cullen have released the '07. And I don't think the '07 Cullen is that good - A great vintage in MR, that they seem to have stuffed it up.

WYWTW

2007 Glaetzer Bishop, Barossa Valley Shiraz

My first Glaetzer wine was the 04 Amon-Ra on release, and I thouroughly enjoyed it. Since then, I've always had a soft spot for them, but over the past couple of years haven't drank much of their wine. I think i've bought a bottle of each release of Amon-Ra and Godolphin (Annaperena from '06 vintage), and there was a vintage of bishop (either '04 or '05) that I really enjoyed, and bought quite a few bottles of.

I was dissapointed however by the '06 vintage Bishop - bought 1 bottle of it, didn't enjoy it, and it dropped off my radar. I also decreased my consumption of Barossa Shiraz in general over the past 2 years. I put that down to changing tastes, and advancing age, as I have been drinking more elegant wines - Victorian pinot, Margaret River cabernet and chardonnay, champagne. Whilst these wines aren't always 'elegant', they are not in the bruising mould of weighty Barossa shiraz.

But on drinking the '07 Bishop, the nostalgia flows back. A brooding, tannic, meaty wine, ripe - but not over-ripe.

And now I'm fan once more of Barossa Shiraz, to an extent that I hadn't been since the '04 vintage. Back then I was drinking a lot of Grant Burge Filsell, St Hallett Blackwell, Gibson, and pretty much any Barossa Shiraz of similar vein that I could lay my hands on. It seems that the Bishop is one of the first '07 Barossa wines released, and I'm not sure of the quality of the vintage in general. I know that it was a bad year for winemakers, with low yields, but that may add to concentration. The '07 St Hallett Blackwell is in stores too, so i'll have to try that and see how it goes (the '06 was great also). I've seen some positive reviews of both wines already.

Score: Probably 93/100, but 95 for present enjoyment. Will have to recalibrate my palate.

Why you want this wine: Because you want to drink it with a large barbequed steak for breakfast, it's that good.

2002 Bay of Fires Arras + dodgy haiku

My favourite Australian Sparkling.

Buy some.

It's delicious.

NV Lanson Black Label Brut

A bargain champagne. Pale straw and a persistent bead. Bought it for $42. Better than Australian sparkling wines at this (very cheap) price. Medium level of acidity.

Looked like a slightly old bottle, and perhaps starting to look a bit tired. Must try to hunt down a newer one to compare.

[Update: found a newer bottle, confirming my suspisions. It has a new label design with the red Lanson cross at the top of the main label (see above). A better wine - 94/100]

Score: 93/100

Why you want this wine: It is classic champagne, and can be bought quite cheaply - Enjoy the benefits of Champagne.

The Comparator: Brown Brothers NV sparkling wine. Methode Traditionalle

This wine was assessed straight after drinking the 1996 Pol Roger. At only $20, it has been considered one of the better Australian sparkling wines at that price point. So how does it compare?

The mousse on the wine is not the slightest bit persistent nor lingering, nor is the bead. Shameful for a wine bottled at least 10 years after the Pol Roger. The bouquet is garage like, or a weak acetone. There is also rancid meat. There is little acid, but a flabby, unsophisticated base wine. A real disappointment for a wine that has had some acclamation.

Granted, I tasted this straight after the Pol Roger. Had I had it on its own, I may have been happier with it. But why bother. Wherever they picked the grapes for this wine in Victoria, it wasn't cold enough. I'm not sure why anyone would attempt to make an Australian sparkling white wine anywhere other than Tasmania, or perhaps the very coldest parts of Victoria.

I am happy to view this as a $20 wine, and thus expectations ought be moderated. The problem is that I purchased a few bottles of the woolworths "reserve NV Chardonnay Pinot Noir ML25" cleanskin sparkling wine. I think that that was a better wine, and only $8 a bottle.

I believe that a good sparkling needs under-ripe fruit, and that any sparkling not coming from Tasmania doesn't stand a chance. It is an ultra-cool climate proposition. You add CO2 to an under-ripe base to perfect it.

Score: 88/100

Why you want this wine: You don't. Buy a tasmanian sparkling instead. Go the Bay of Fires, or their second label 'Tigress'. Or go the woolworths cleanskin.

1996 Pol Roger Brut

Pol Roger was Winston Churchill's favourite champagne. As either a tribute to the great man, or a brilliant marketing exercise, Pol Roger have since named their premier wine "the Winston Churchill". Pol Roger is also by appointment to H.M. Queen Elizabeth II, and it's served at royal functions. That 2 of the 3 most powerful British people in the last 100 years have preferred Pol Roger is high praise indeed. I'm not sure what the other one (Tony Blair) drinks, but one would assume that he is a Moët & Chandon slut.

In its NV incarnation, Pol Roger prices on par with the fashion label champagnes of Moët & Chandon and Veuve Cliquot. Those also both have proud histories. You can buy a book at Borders called "the Widow Cliquot" (widow in french is Veuve) that will tell you how Mrs Cliqout, widowed in 1805, built one of the worlds largest Champagne houses. She is also credited with the invention of the riddling rack, allowing for the commercialisation of sparkling wine by making the degorgement process more efficient.

Both Moët & Chandon and Veuve Cliquot, probably the two most recognised brands of Champagne, are now owned by a fashion conglomerate, LVMH - Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton. Huge amounts are spent on marketing, and the quality must suffer as a result. The profits from the above mentioned book probably go to LVMH, as its cover is a near facsimile of the Veuve Cliquot label, and I would imagine that they take those profits. I would be surprised if they subsidised the quality of the wine.

You will be happy to hear that Pol Roger is still owned and run by the descendants of Pol Roger the man.

Which bring us to our present wine, the 1996 Pol Roger Brut, in all its historical glory. The 1996 vintage is regarded as one of the best in Champagne in the last 100 years, perhaps the best ever. At this stage in its development the wine has a light to medium golden hue. A strong line of acid runs through the wine, and granny-smith apples predominate on the palate. A rich and smoothly complex wine, it is consolidating nicely. It has a bouquet of rare book, or pleasant old house (or perhaps even wads of paper-based [not polymer] currency). I think I may even have smelt a tinge of illicit hemp - sheer brilliance.

Score: 96/100

Why you want this wine: Because it's good, no, great. And it isn't a fashion statement.