Sat 13 Jan 2007
What Were They Thinking, No. 2
Posted by Fredric Koeppel under Fer Gawd's Sake! , Cluelessness , wineI’m a great admirer of wine importer and food entrepreneur Dan Philips, whose The Grateful Palate in Oxnard , California — http://www.gratefulpalate.com — is a trove of edible treasures, including the well-known Bacon of the Month Club. Philips is one of the best American importers of Australian wines, specializing in small producers with big aspirations; among several dozen labels he imports are Burge Family, Hazy Blur, Henry’s Drive, Kay Brothers, Lengs & Cooter, Lillypilly, Trevor Jones and The Willows. Philips was also partner with Sparky Marquis in the widely acclaimed Marquis Philips label, an enterprise that broke up last year.
So I was enthusiastic when a clerk in a local retail store recommended the 3 Rings Shiraz 2005 from Australia’s Barossa Valley (about $16 to $20). The label is another Philips partnership, this time with grower David Hickinbotham and
winemaker Chris Ringland. I assumed that this would be a pretty bold expression of the shiraz grape; I didn’t expect a travesty.
Five or six years ago, I was in Los Angeles for a comprehensive tasting of Penfolds Grange — yes, it was an extraordinary event — and before the tasting began, Australian writer and wine-maker James Halliday rose to his feet to say a few words, and the first sentence he uttered has stayed with me: “The three most important elements of wine are balance, balance and balance.” I think this aphorism should be tattooed on the backs of the hands of every wine-maker and producer in the world as well as hung, in the form of embroidered samplers, in every winery, chai and chateau.
Halliday was not calling for well-mannered, wimpy wines, holding little fingers a-curl as they sip milky tea. He was asserting the fact that the greatest wines, at every price range, should reflect harmony and integration in all their components: fruit, acid, tannin, alcohol and — the most dangerous factor — oak. (Well, alcohol level has become a vital issue too.) Even deep, large-framed young wines intended for aging, Bordeaux classified growths, California cult cabernets, Barolos and so on, however tannic they may be in infancy, should display a sense of innate balance and order; the balance may shift and change over the years, but it’s always there.
Which brings us back to the 3 Rings Shiraz 2005.
This opens with a super-ripe, fleshy, meaty bouquet that teems with scents of macerated and roasted blackberries and blueberries as well as a touch of zinfandel-like boysenberry. In the mouth, the wine is exceedingly plush, velvety and voluptuous and, at 15.5 percent alcohol, offers a considerable amount of that high-alcohol raisiny plumminess and jamminess. The wine is starting to taste, in fact, like something you might rather spread on toast than drink with a meal with the other grown-ups. The spicy factors increase as the wine slides over the tongue, becoming not only dominant but strident and austere, and the wine concludes unpleasantly in a welter of incoherence.
My palate was not grateful.
I single this wine out, because of its origins, as a prominent example of what happens when producers value power, intensity and simple-minded texture over wines that balance feeling good and tasting good. It is not, I assure you, the only example.
January 14th, 2007 at 3:32 am
I am a young girl new to wine knowledge but I do have a few wine blogs I dedicatedly read. Yours and Eric Asimov’s. I appreciate your ease with words and your ability to express yourself briefly and yet concisely. I have been reading your blog since you started and this is the first time I have found reason to comment. Sommeliers in restaurants are always asking me what my favorite wine is and I get rather peturbed by this question. I don’t have a favorite. If a wine is intricate, well balanced and unique I will love it. Yeah, I’m partial to Burgundy but mostly because I drink more wine without food than I do with food and Burgundy is complex and earthy without being overly tannic or burly. I love the dustiness and the mustiness that crawls up my nose. But, balance is the only answer. Everything must allign. Everything that rises must converge. Hooray for Balance!
January 14th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Fredric,
Thank you for this post. I have a question for you. Do you think we are nearing the end of the “Parker Period†in production? Mr. Parker seems to love these over done fruit bombs. His scores drive huge prices, as well as sales. This, I think in turn, drives more winemakers to produce these wines. Hopefully, the score shoppers will surely get tired of them soon. Again, great post I wish the producers would pay more attention.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Rebecca, thanks for the kind comments and for responding. I admire your advanced taste in wine for a “young girl;” when I was (presumably) your age, I thought it was a mark of elegance to go from Paisano Red to Chianti in a straw-covered bottle. Sommeliers will ask that question; in a way it’s inevitable — they want to help you order a wine you like — but it fosters the notion that they think you’re simple-minded enough to have one “favorite” wine. It would be like asking if you have one favorite book or painting. The answer, i think, is exactly as you phrased it: “I like wines that are intricate, well-balanced and, if possible, unique, and I’m partial to Burgundy.” That will give the sommelier or waiter an idea of your level of taste and sophistication, which seems, already, higher than most American wine consumers. I’ll have to borrow that sentence (with credit, I promise) when I’m writing about burgundy: “I love the dustiness and the mustiness that crawl up my nose.”
Thanks, Mike. It’s interesting about Parker. After 20 years or so of advocating big, ripe, toasty fruit bombs and using “elegance” as a pejorative term, he’s backing off and beginning to praise more balanced, elegant wines; must be gettin’ old. Still, his immense influence won’t diminish until he retires (or, you know, whatever) and the generation that worships at his rating system starts to fade. The multiple links between his ratings, the producers and the retail stores (and American auction catalogs) is astonishing, but eventually, this too shall pass. And let’s not forget what tremendous good Parker has done for the recognition and acceptance of wine drinking in this country.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Fredric,
Great entry. Could not agree more. At 15.5 percent alcohol, why not just cut some black cherry concentrate with Everclear. What is the point of drinking, and paying handsomely, for a wine so lopsided? Lucky for us fans of balance many of the better wine writers, like you, are hitting this topic.
Had a great time in your town, Fredric. Erling Jensens was amazing.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:44 am
You know, I had a similar experience with one of the Brothers in Arms Shiraz wines from the Grateful Palate. It clocked in at 15% alcohol and it was hard to get past that heat on the nose. (I still enjoy Philips’ wines in general–the S2 ranks as one of the best wines I’ve ever tasted.)
Tom Wark has suggested that wine bloggers and professional writers list alcohol percentages in their reviews:
http://fermentation.typepad.com/fermentation/2006/06/we_need_more_fr.html“>has suggested
I generally only do so if it’s really high or really low–who really notices the difference between a 12.2% and 12.7% wine? On the other hand, a mild 9% wine can be drunk almost like water, and those above the 14% mark require a bit of caution.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:59 am
Sorry, that link got screwed up:
http://fermentation.typepad.com/fermentation/2006/06/we_need_more_fr.html