Tasting a few from down under

• 2002 Woop Woop Shiraz – Australia (3/31/2004)
  This wine has taken on some weight since I last had it a year ago. Sweeter fruit, rounder, better integrated flavors. Score for me has jumped 5 points to a strong 88. (88 pts.)
• 2002 Marquis Philips Cabernet Sauvignon – Australia, South Eastern (2/9/2004)
  Initial blast of berry aromas, then decanted 3 hours. This bottle is a little more together than my last six months ago. Wave of fruit aromas, backed up by flavors of vanilla cream, cherries, blueberries, and cedar. Oak and tannins are more abrupt and bitter than they should be — they betray this wine’s rather pedestrian heritage and are the unrefined element keeping this wine from being great. Still, it’s not a bad drink at all for 13 bucks. One more point than last time — 87 points.Revisited the remainder of this bottle 24 hours later — only a point or two better perhaps but much more enjoyable. This wine will definitely benefit from 3-4 years in the cellar but the dilemma is whether to dedicate badly needed cellar space to a sub 90 point wine… (87 pts.)
• 2001 Kangarilla Road Shiraz McLaren Vale – Australia, South Australia, Fleurieu, McLaren Vale (11/17/2003)
  No notes. (89 pts.)
• 2002 Marquis Philips Cabernet Sauvignon – Australia, South Eastern (8/28/2003)
  Dark garnet, strong ETOH with fruity aromas that became more defined after about an hour in the decanter. This wine smells like the little syrup bottle racks they have at IHOP — or at least used to — blueberry in particular. Creamy blueberry, vanilla, medicinal, a touch of oak. This wine seems very disjointed to me. It has the right elements but they are not well integrated giving a sort of a haphazard start, middle, and finish to the wine. Youth? Bottling shock?Do I consider it a good value? For drinking right now, there are wines available at the price that I would enjoy more. However, this one seems to have a richness that hints of more potential. Sure would have liked to see this one have more time in oak, but then, that would drive up the price. I’ll try another one in a year and see if it was a good deal or not. 86+ pts.

  Note: after 24 hours served slightly chilled the various components of the wine have melded a bit better to make it more drinkable alone. The first day it was only enjoyable while eating the lamb and did not complement the rest of the meal or by itself. (86 pts.)

• 2002 Woop Woop Shiraz – Australia (5/22/2003)
  Deep crimson color in the middle with lighter edges. Light body. Lovely sweet cherry nose. Initially tasted of tart cherries soaked in alcohol, oak, wet earth and pebbles. After about an hour in an open bottle, the oak calmed a bit, the cherries tasted sweeter, and I picked up a bit of mocha and raisins. I agree that this makes a nice weekday wine. I enjoyed it with spicy Mexican food and the slight sweetness helped it hold its own. 83 pts. Not bad for $10.99 at a local wine store. (83 pts.)
• 1991 Yarra Yering Shiraz Underhill – Australia, Victoria, Port Phillip, Yarra Valley (2/28/2003)
  Almost black. Light bodied with a bizarre stewed tomatoes (Sasha thought it was a fruit) aroma. This oddity carried over on the pallate with an unidentifiable fruit, black pepper, and gamy flavors that flattened out in an unexciting way on the finish. I didn’t finish the bottle, or even my glass. What a waste for $110 dollars on a wine list. I’ll give it an 80 and figure that someone else who knows more about Aussie Shiraz would appreciate it more. (80 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker