Oy What Gives

Ever read a tasting note by your favourite wine writer, gone out and purchased a bottle, tried it and thought that the writer must have been smoking dope at the time he wrote the tasting note? It happens all the time and for a myriad of reasons.

A great illustration of how many experienced tasters can see the same wine so differently is the recent spate of disparate tasting notes on the 2002 Dead Arm Shiraz. Some months ago, there were a few tasting notes on US internet forums giving positive, but not remarkable comments to the wine. When the wine was released in Australia, there were a few positive comments and then it seemed the world went nuts, everyone was canning the wine with an outpouring of negative comments. The following thoughts were pretty typical.

“I had the 2002 Dead Arm the other day, and found it undrinkable. In fact, at least half the bottle was left, everyone thought it terrible. Sulphur, monolithic, rasping tannins, subtle green streak- too much of everything. This may settle down in a few years, but I for one won't be taking the gamble.” - Aussie Johns

And

“Slightly stinky, earthy & dusty nose at first with some rich chocolate and sweet plum/confection aromas with breathing. The palate features a subdued entry of black olive and blackberry, and a flush of rich blackberry fruit and integrated tannins following. The finish lets the wine down, with those hefty green tannins sticking out with lingering, hot alcohol. In illustrious company this wine wasn’t as classy as in the d’Arenberg new releases last month.” Ian (N4Sir)

In an endeavour to get to the bottom of why there was this disparate feeling, I opened a bottle to see for myself. To put this into perspective, in some vintages I have rated the wine very highly, but in others I have positively caned it, so it’s not like I am a one-eyed Dead Arm supporter.

After tasting the wine a number of times over an eight hour period, (the full tasting note can be found here) the reasons for the much of the disparity became obvious, putting aside the fact there will always be personal likes and dislikes of a particular wine.

A number of tasters who found the wine wanting did taste it from a bottle that was freshly opened and I can understand why they did not like it. When I first opened it, the wine was not pleasant or easy to drink.

A number of other tasters who were critical about the wine judged it alongside others in a big line up. They have been justifiably disappointed, especially without significant decant time. The Dead Arm, in comparison, would not show well at this stage against other wines, which no doubt would be more attractive and easier to drink in their youth. However, after eight hours, the wine had changed considerably and was completely different to when it was first opened; it was far better and rated as Excellent.

Are those people who canned the wine wrong in their criticism? No! They accurately portrayed what they found in the glass at that point in time. But even then, it’s not that simple as the next example shows by further complicating the issue.

A mate of mine in Perth by the name of David Pearson has been drinking wine for almost as long as I have and has an experienced, balanced, palate.  He recently went to the annual Peel Premium Shiraz tasting. Here are Davo’s impressions of the event which make good reading.

“As usual twenty different six year old shiraz, that’s the 1998 vintage for the poor mathematicians, were presented blind, offered in flights of 5 wines with a break for bread and cheese and a discussion about the flight. The identity of the wines is only revealed after all twenty had been tasted. Although attendees are presented with a list of the twenty wines to be tasted prior to the tasting, they had no idea as to the order of the tasting.  As usual there are plenty of oohs and aaahs when the wines were unmasked.