So it has been forever since I've posted...so much going on right now....Part of my problem is the lack of Australian wine I've had lately....but I'd like to cover a few I've mentioned in the past...
CRFT Budenberg Pinot 2014.
I've liked most of the stuff from this producer in the past...but I was actually a bit disappointed with this...
It did have decent acidity, it did have a medium body...but it tasted too Australian..a bit riper than normal..had this overextracted flavor I get from many Aussie Pinots...It wasn't bad..but I guess my expectations were higher. Still a good wine just getting a bit more towards what I don't want rather than what I do..
Byrne Sunbury Chardonnay 2014
Generally I've liked this producer but I've never tried this particular wine...and I have to say, pretty disappointed. Acid is good and texture is good..but just too much oak for the fruit and it just completely overpowered it..it is weird because it doesn't have a huge amount of oak but it still tasted very oaky..maybe this just needs time? I don't know...
Kumeu River Hunting Hill 2010..
Last 3 or so Kumeu's I've had I would've guessed Burgundy...the fruit is slightly brighter and riper but the texture and a lot of the nose is very Burg like....Great stuff..good acidity, great overall texture, fruit is has good intensity...Lovely Chard...
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Jura for Noobs
Met up with a bunch of friends, some of which have never had Jura before..and yes, I know this is supposed to be about Australian wine *shruG*
I think the general consensus is most people, when exposed to Jura for the first time, will dislike it...so to my surprise and almost disappointment, all of our friends that were new to the Jura ENJOYED it...
How can that be? I'm not sure...there are a couple of theories we've come up with..
First is, in the context of all Jura, they don't seem all that weird. When you contrast with what you consider normal, they just feel way out there.
Second is, when people around you are enjoying the wine, you tend to look for positives as well...We've seen group think impact the impression of wines on a given table or even different ends of a table....
What do I think? I think it is combination of the two....I think in a context of a normal wine and Jura, it will just be too far out there regardless of what others might think about it around you. I think if you tried some Jura for the first time on your own, you might not really understand it as easily or it just might be too weird.
Of course, the evening was helped by the fact that we started off with some relatively tame Jura, including some Ganevat which is more mainstream appealing (but they were still fabulous).
Not that I want anyone to be buying Jura...I'm perfectly happy where it is right now in the $ spectrum...
I think the general consensus is most people, when exposed to Jura for the first time, will dislike it...so to my surprise and almost disappointment, all of our friends that were new to the Jura ENJOYED it...
How can that be? I'm not sure...there are a couple of theories we've come up with..
First is, in the context of all Jura, they don't seem all that weird. When you contrast with what you consider normal, they just feel way out there.
Second is, when people around you are enjoying the wine, you tend to look for positives as well...We've seen group think impact the impression of wines on a given table or even different ends of a table....
What do I think? I think it is combination of the two....I think in a context of a normal wine and Jura, it will just be too far out there regardless of what others might think about it around you. I think if you tried some Jura for the first time on your own, you might not really understand it as easily or it just might be too weird.
Of course, the evening was helped by the fact that we started off with some relatively tame Jura, including some Ganevat which is more mainstream appealing (but they were still fabulous).
Not that I want anyone to be buying Jura...I'm perfectly happy where it is right now in the $ spectrum...
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Cricket vs. Baseball [NWR]
I really enjoy cricket....and in a lot of ways I enjoy it more than baseball. They're very similar in the skillset and the general idea of how to play....
Cricketers call it a slog...They say, Baseball players just slog it..no skill...First off, they're not all swinging for the fences..you have some players that do and that is their thing..and you have some that don't and hit for an average...relative to cricket they're swinging harder though..why? Because hitting into a field of 90 degrees where you have 8 players is just like hitting into a field where every fielder is on the offside and you've hit it that way....EXCEPT
So why can't you just not swing at balls unless you're going to hit it? Well, generally that is the case...In baseball there is an area that if the ball pass home plate within that area, it is a strike. 3 strikes and you're out which means, if you haven't hit the ball by 3 strikes, you'll be out..If the pitcher throws 4 "bad" balls before 3 good ones, you get a free base (not a run, you get to first base). There is, of course, always a mind game between pitcher and batter because a swing and a miss is also considered a strike...vs. cricket a swing and a miss means almost nothing unless the ball hits the wickets (or it is just a wasted ball like in T20 where this is significant). Essentially, swinging at a ball in the strike zone is the same as making sure you're hitting the ball when it is going to hit your wicket...except the cost of missing that in cricket means you're out..the cost of hitting in in baseball without a good strike means you're probably out.
What I do find very interesting is there are plenty of articles comparing the two and nearly all of them are from the standpoint of someone that plays cricket but really has no idea about baseball...you hear stories about how a cricket player tried baseball and basically hit home runs every ball which frankly, is a tall tall tall tale...
So here is MY opinion about the differences of the two sports...
Batting - A cricket bat has probably 3-4 times the effective hitting area of a baseball bat. Now, you might say, a baseball bad is 2.61 inches in width (Diameter) and a cricket bat is 4.25 inches in width..but the difference is a baseball bat is ROUND which means the actual effective hitting area is much smaller...a bit either way of center means you're not going to hit an effective strike which means you're likely to have just gotten out. A baseball bat also tapers..
The effective field you can hit into is 90 degrees...although you can still get out if you hit it outside of that area...you can't redirect a ball, you can't miss hit it and get runs, you need a solid hit...a slight re-direct means you're out..bunting the ball means you're likely out.
Cricketers call it a slog...They say, Baseball players just slog it..no skill...First off, they're not all swinging for the fences..you have some players that do and that is their thing..and you have some that don't and hit for an average...relative to cricket they're swinging harder though..why? Because hitting into a field of 90 degrees where you have 8 players is just like hitting into a field where every fielder is on the offside and you've hit it that way....EXCEPT
You have to run in baseball...If you make contact w/ the ball and it is within that 90 degrees of the field, you MUST run. In cricket, you don't have to run, if you hit a ball straight to the fielder, you can just stay.
So why can't you just not swing at balls unless you're going to hit it? Well, generally that is the case...In baseball there is an area that if the ball pass home plate within that area, it is a strike. 3 strikes and you're out which means, if you haven't hit the ball by 3 strikes, you'll be out..If the pitcher throws 4 "bad" balls before 3 good ones, you get a free base (not a run, you get to first base). There is, of course, always a mind game between pitcher and batter because a swing and a miss is also considered a strike...vs. cricket a swing and a miss means almost nothing unless the ball hits the wickets (or it is just a wasted ball like in T20 where this is significant). Essentially, swinging at a ball in the strike zone is the same as making sure you're hitting the ball when it is going to hit your wicket...except the cost of missing that in cricket means you're out..the cost of hitting in in baseball without a good strike means you're probably out.
So what is the difference in how a ball is bowled and pitched? The distance is nearly the same where the bowler releases the ball to where the batter sits and the pitching mound vs. home plate...But in baseball, the ball gets to home plate on the full...and a cricketer thinks..that's easy!! Well yes and no...A pitcher actually releases the ball much closer to home plate than a bowler would..which makes the ball come out faster...they also get to throw the ball which gives them additional velocity...it also lets them put spin in different ways on the ball which gives the ball a LOT of movement in the air...at high speed...so that combined with the relatively small hitting area of a baseball bat makes it much more difficult to hit make contact with the ball than it does for a cricketer hitting the ball on the full in cricket...there is no comparison.
On the flipside, hitting a ball after it bounces IS something very difficult to do and you have to adjust for so many variations off the ground as a result..the field can impact how the ball comes off the ground,..the seam on the ball...the spin of the ball...and all of that can vary in length...It is most definitely a VERY difficult thing to master...
So what do we have here? On one hand, we have a situation where you can be out in a single ball where you miss it..but you have a bat that effectively is much bigger than in baseball...you can nick the ball and be out or you can nick the ball and score 4 runs...you don't have to run if you hit it....you have to negotiate a ball that can do so many different things off the ground but at the same time, the ball is moving slightly slower and moves around in the air significantly less....On the other way have a much smaller hitting area, much smaller area you're allowed to hit the ball into....many more fielders to get to it but you can get a base for free and really, your team scoring 4 runs in a baseball game where you have 27 outs is good...Whereas in cricket, with 20 outs you might get 600-800 total runs (but divide that by 4 a base is not a run in baseball) which is 150-200...
Doesn't make one any easier or harder than the other..they're both incredibly difficult...But for those that still think baseball is easy for a cricket player...consider this.
If the tall tale of a cricketer hitting pitches over the fence with ease was true..they'd be the greatest baseball player to ever live....Consider that a very good cricketer might make 2-3 million USD a year playing cricket (and much more in endorsements) vs. a very good baseball player making 20 million USD a year playing baseball. If you were breaking records, etc, you'd easily be making 30+ million a year and much more in endorsements..yet it doesn't happen..because it isn't that easy.
Fielding - Yes it is harder to catch a ball without a glove. But the expectations of the fielder in baseball and in cricket are different...Far fewer missed sitters in baseball, far more diving catches, far more stopping the ball when it is hit hard at a player on the ground...a glove makes it easier but the expectations are different...Consider this - They employ BASEBALL coaches to help crickets with fielding...the movement and especially how to get ready to throw the ball quickly is something crickets have only somewhat recently started to get better at because the need in games like T20 is vital...but let's be honest, you can be a world class cricketer and still throw a ball "like a girl" in cricket (Not to say all women can't throw a ball, it is just a term). It just will never happen in baseball..
Thursday, January 21, 2016
New Year
Can't believe it is has been almost 3 months (or more) since my last post...Terrible of me to be honest..
Lots of things happening with the holidays makes it tough but surely there was enough wine to talk about :).
Meerea Park Alexander Munro Semillon 2005.
Served blind...smelled a bit like aged Sem but more like aged Riesling..some toasty notes and lemon curd on the nose..On the palate it had great acidity and good depth of flavor....actually had a little bit of grip as well which is why I went away from Semillon and towards Tassie Riesling....Best way to be right at blind tastings is to not guess what I guess :).
Overall a really nice showing by this wine...They're released after 5 years from vintage and they show great development and acidity.
I think more people like MP for their reds..but I think their whites have been their best wines for quite awhile now...
Good Chardonnay...and two great Semillons...
Lots of things happening with the holidays makes it tough but surely there was enough wine to talk about :).
Meerea Park Alexander Munro Semillon 2005.
Served blind...smelled a bit like aged Sem but more like aged Riesling..some toasty notes and lemon curd on the nose..On the palate it had great acidity and good depth of flavor....actually had a little bit of grip as well which is why I went away from Semillon and towards Tassie Riesling....Best way to be right at blind tastings is to not guess what I guess :).
Overall a really nice showing by this wine...They're released after 5 years from vintage and they show great development and acidity.
I think more people like MP for their reds..but I think their whites have been their best wines for quite awhile now...
Good Chardonnay...and two great Semillons...
Friday, September 11, 2015
Vin Diemen Tassie 2015
I think one region that has been a bit of a disappointment for me is Tasmania...Given the weather, I would expect some really great stuff to come out of there and frankly, a lot of it hasn't performed like I think it could...
But I think that is going to change..
I'll start off with the Pinots....Not too long ago these were still very overripe....very shiraz like in texture and how they were being made. They had great acid, but they were just too big, too ripe, too bold, too much oak....so it was a great surprise to see quite a few Pinot Noirs from Tassie that have actually started to have that lighter mouthfeel, great acidity and still ripe but not overripe fruit. Stefano Lubiana and Glaetzer Dixon are good examples..but you're seeing quite a few from several different places.
Don't get me wrong, still a lot of very shiraz like Pinots out of Tassie...but I do like that we're seeing some of them come out of their comfort zone and really make a Pinot that can compete with others from other countries rather than appeal to the fruit bomb crowd..
Whites
A few years ago, I started seeing a few winemakers experiment with some skin contact to give their wines some added texture...today, nearly every winemaker is doing that or having solids in the ferment to give their wines this added texture/grip.
Now, I think it is great as it adds a lot of interest..but I can't help to think, don't these winemakers want to make wine THEY want to drink or that they think is how it should be made? Forget about everyone else, just make something you think its great...instead, like what I think is typical of Australian winemakers (especially the over 30 crowd), they just follow a trend.
It isn't like this stuff is new...maybe more people are doing it now but this isn't new...so my question is, if you enjoyed it, why didn't you do it earlier? And if you don't really want your wine to be like that, why do you make it like that?
I've probably mentioned Domaine A on here a few times...I'm not a fan of their Pinot Noir at all..in fact, except for the fact that it is made from a Pinot Noir Grape, it is nothing like a Pinot Noir...but one thing I can respect is the winemaker saying, I don't care what anyone says, this is how I want to make this...and he does...People that enjoy his style will buy his stuff and I think that is great...
I mean, I know winemakers evolve...I know there are trends...I know money is important....but to me this goes a bit beyond that.....I feel weird complaining about it because honestly, I like the fact that they make a Pinot Grigio that actually has some interest....I like what they're doing but I'd much rather see a winemaker really passionate about what they do and couldn't give a damn what anyone else thinks..I want to taste their effort, their philosophy, I want to taste the wine they want to make in their head...
But I think that is going to change..
I'll start off with the Pinots....Not too long ago these were still very overripe....very shiraz like in texture and how they were being made. They had great acid, but they were just too big, too ripe, too bold, too much oak....so it was a great surprise to see quite a few Pinot Noirs from Tassie that have actually started to have that lighter mouthfeel, great acidity and still ripe but not overripe fruit. Stefano Lubiana and Glaetzer Dixon are good examples..but you're seeing quite a few from several different places.
Don't get me wrong, still a lot of very shiraz like Pinots out of Tassie...but I do like that we're seeing some of them come out of their comfort zone and really make a Pinot that can compete with others from other countries rather than appeal to the fruit bomb crowd..
Whites
A few years ago, I started seeing a few winemakers experiment with some skin contact to give their wines some added texture...today, nearly every winemaker is doing that or having solids in the ferment to give their wines this added texture/grip.
Now, I think it is great as it adds a lot of interest..but I can't help to think, don't these winemakers want to make wine THEY want to drink or that they think is how it should be made? Forget about everyone else, just make something you think its great...instead, like what I think is typical of Australian winemakers (especially the over 30 crowd), they just follow a trend.
It isn't like this stuff is new...maybe more people are doing it now but this isn't new...so my question is, if you enjoyed it, why didn't you do it earlier? And if you don't really want your wine to be like that, why do you make it like that?
I've probably mentioned Domaine A on here a few times...I'm not a fan of their Pinot Noir at all..in fact, except for the fact that it is made from a Pinot Noir Grape, it is nothing like a Pinot Noir...but one thing I can respect is the winemaker saying, I don't care what anyone says, this is how I want to make this...and he does...People that enjoy his style will buy his stuff and I think that is great...
I mean, I know winemakers evolve...I know there are trends...I know money is important....but to me this goes a bit beyond that.....I feel weird complaining about it because honestly, I like the fact that they make a Pinot Grigio that actually has some interest....I like what they're doing but I'd much rather see a winemaker really passionate about what they do and couldn't give a damn what anyone else thinks..I want to taste their effort, their philosophy, I want to taste the wine they want to make in their head...
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Mac Forbes Riesling
Mac Forbes Strathbogie Riesling 2011
I'm generally impressed by most of Mac Forbes stuff...Some of it is just ok but I find the rieslings to be very interesting and in general, the wines to just be of very high quality.
The 2011 Strathbogie Riesling has 19 g/L of RS which is a fair amount, especially for Australia, but the great acidity really helps cut through that and provides a wonderful balance. Slight petrol on the nose but not overpowering, toasty lemon notes, some bruised apple. The palate has some slight grip to it which suggests extended skin contact although I don't know if that was really the case. I know their EB version does have this, would be interesting to see if this has any at all.
Overall, quite an enjoyable Aussie Riesling....I actually find the RS/Acidity/Fruit to be well integrated compared to most Aussie Rieslings. 90 points.
I'm generally impressed by most of Mac Forbes stuff...Some of it is just ok but I find the rieslings to be very interesting and in general, the wines to just be of very high quality.
The 2011 Strathbogie Riesling has 19 g/L of RS which is a fair amount, especially for Australia, but the great acidity really helps cut through that and provides a wonderful balance. Slight petrol on the nose but not overpowering, toasty lemon notes, some bruised apple. The palate has some slight grip to it which suggests extended skin contact although I don't know if that was really the case. I know their EB version does have this, would be interesting to see if this has any at all.
Overall, quite an enjoyable Aussie Riesling....I actually find the RS/Acidity/Fruit to be well integrated compared to most Aussie Rieslings. 90 points.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Lethbridge Mietta
I've mentioned Lethbridge several times as it continues to be one of my favorite wineries in Australia.
Great Riesling, Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, Shiraz and some cool blends...
Lethbridge Mietta Pinot Noir 2008
I had this a few years back and was impressed but this came across so much more Beaune like in texture but it has definitely changed a lot since then...
Smoky meats on the nose, some herbs, red fruits...there is a charred green stem smell to it...the way I see it in my head is taking a green plant or stem and then putting it on a yakitori grill and then stripping off some of the black stuff and taking a bite of it....The mouthfeel has changed a bit since I had it before..lighter on the palate with the fruit having fallen off a bit..the tannins are far more in the background as well...which has moved this from more Beaune like to more Nuits like in texture. Acidity is still really good.....
Still very much in the vein of the area (Bannockburn Geelong) with the vegetal thing going on..but I'd rank it behind Bannockburn and By Farr in the vegetal department...
For an Aussie Pinot, I think it is great....it has the right texture, not too ripe, has a bit of grip, a bit of interest....
Great Riesling, Pinot Noir, Chardonnay, Shiraz and some cool blends...
Lethbridge Mietta Pinot Noir 2008
I had this a few years back and was impressed but this came across so much more Beaune like in texture but it has definitely changed a lot since then...
Smoky meats on the nose, some herbs, red fruits...there is a charred green stem smell to it...the way I see it in my head is taking a green plant or stem and then putting it on a yakitori grill and then stripping off some of the black stuff and taking a bite of it....The mouthfeel has changed a bit since I had it before..lighter on the palate with the fruit having fallen off a bit..the tannins are far more in the background as well...which has moved this from more Beaune like to more Nuits like in texture. Acidity is still really good.....
Still very much in the vein of the area (Bannockburn Geelong) with the vegetal thing going on..but I'd rank it behind Bannockburn and By Farr in the vegetal department...
For an Aussie Pinot, I think it is great....it has the right texture, not too ripe, has a bit of grip, a bit of interest....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)