TN: 2002 Shirvington Shiraz (Australia, South Australia, Fleurieu, McLaren Vale)

andy_velebil · September 5, 2010, 4:19pm

2002 Shirvington Shiraz - Australia, South Australia, Fleurieu, McLaren Vale (9/5/2010)
I don’t care what Parker has said about this, this was not very good at all. Simple candied fruit up front that quickly dropped off mid-palate leaving nothing but oak on a very clipped finish. Although there was some nice tannins and acidity, the clipped fruit left nothing but these things and some prominent alcohol. After being open for 5 hours it didn’t get any better. I’ve heard accounts of this falling apart and based on this bottle (bought on release), I’d agree. This thing was a mess.
81 (very generous) points. (81 pts.)

andy_velebil · September 5, 2010, 4:22pm

I opened this for Cris and Leslie last night to see what all the hub-bub was about. OMG, I don’t know what Parker is thinking, but heree is what he said in the latest HG

The one Australian wine, the 2002 Shirvington Shiraz, was one of the top wines of the day. While it is a poster child for modern Australian wine that is often maligned by narrow-minded tasters, this 2002 has not fallen apart. It exhibits great purity along with loads of blackberry and blueberry fruit intermingled with camphor and meat notes. It has another 10-15 years of life ahead of it. Readers are advised to ignore all the doomsday anti-Australian critics who have so rabidly and irresponsibly maligned so many great wines from South Australia. If you like the way these wines taste, be happy; if not, avoid them – seems easy enough.

I have nothing personal against Parker or Aussie wines…but a poorly made wine is a poorly made wine. I call it like I see it and this wasn’t good. Maybe Parker got the “special” bottle the rest of us didn’t.

Cris_Whetstone · September 5, 2010, 5:05pm

I see you found the HG note Andy.

When popped this smelled like boysenberry/blackberry jam and candy to me. The palate was very short being nothing more than a dollop of intense ripe fruit. After some time and a revisit there seemed to be some rubber coming out in the nose and the palate started to taste like a tarmac adding some jet fuel qualities and rubber. This never had anything resembling a finish. This could pass for a $10 fruit bomb maybe but there was nothing in the way of a great palate feel, concentration or complexity that would make it rise above a cheap bottle for the grocery store shelves.

I remain “narrow minded”.

Steve_Saxon · September 5, 2010, 6:07pm

Obviously you guys have no palate…do you really expect us to take your word on this wine or should we go by a recent note from Parker?

Just kidding, you probably had an off bottle.

Cris_Whetstone · September 5, 2010, 6:08pm

’
Maybe it just needs more age.

Patrick_C · September 5, 2010, 6:08pm

That is nice for a change. Usually as soon as one of you guys don’t like a wine that Parker rates highly it must be total crap (that no one in the world could possibly like) and the guy a total fraud. Looks like in the last year some wine lovers have enjoyed this wine according to CT.

Mark_C_Johnson · September 5, 2010, 6:52pm

I had a 2001 in the past three months and it was a VA mess. Sure, OTT fruit I but couldn’t get past the nail polish remover.

andy_velebil · September 5, 2010, 7:22pm

There was some left, ok a lot left, so I figured I’d check in right now to see how it may or may not have changed on day 2. The acidity has significantly dropped, still very tannic, but the candied fruit is simple and very clipped. It starts off for a second then just drops out and this wall of oak and alcohol protrudes and stays there. No real finish to speak of. My opinion of this wine remains the same.

andy_velebil · September 5, 2010, 7:28pm

I’m not saying someone out there may like this, heck people buy supermarket wines all day, but for any critic to wax that poetically about this bottle…wow, is all I can say.