QUESTION: Re cult "parkerised" wines

Campbell · Post by **Campbell** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:30 pm

Hi everyone,

This isn't a question about whether or not "parkerised" wines are any good or not, it just stems from a thought I had on the direction Australian wine is heading, and I wondered whether "parkerised" wines fitted the bill.

So, the question:

Of the wines that have outrightly, or loosely, been 'parkerised', how many of them are Single Vineyard Wines? Considering that Australia's international reputation is based on "multi-regional" blends, I was just interested in the Single Vineyard Wine phenomenon and whether or not, or to what extent, Parker had delved into it.

So does anyone know? Is there a bias towards Single Vineyard Wines among the Parkerised parade or do they not figure prominently at all?

(I'd figure out the answer to this myself but I know that there are others with more details on the list of what has been, and what hasn't been, parkerised than what I am).

cheers and thanks,

Campbell.

Gavin Trott · Post by **Gavin Trott** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:19 pm

Hi campbell

I think world wide there has been a move to 'Single Vineyard' wines. This is despite Australia's finest and best recognised wine being far from that, ie Grange. Parker may have played some small role in that but I think its wider.

Single vineyards are being picked out and feautred all over the world, France, Australia, the USA etc. Sometimes the single vineyard deserves its status, other times it seems to be a marketing ploy.

Parkerised wines refers more to the style. Double new American oak, hugely extracted, loads of impact, lots of glycerin as exemlified by say the Marquis Phillips style of wine, and more many can name.

I know of one wine maker who 'made' a Parker style wine to get points, deliberately made it differently to his other wines, largely as above. Guess what, it worked, 'gobs' of points! He called it, surprise surprise, his 'Reserve Shiraz'.

In general these are not my favourite wine styles, but by heck, when he gives them 93+ points they sure sell!

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:30 pm

Whether the single-vineyard aspect is a big issue is unclear, but Parker often seems to like wines from the sorts of places that make single-vineyard wines. Clarendon Hills is a good example.

Kieran

GraemeG · Post by **GraemeG** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:33 pm

Well, almost none of them, I guess. At least, none that are marketed that way. It may be that Chris Ringland happens to buy all his shiraz one year from the one grower - and makes 400 cases of very expensive, 99-point shiraz. So its a single vineyard wine. But it's still being sold under a brand name, isn't it?

I'd guess many of Australia's small volume wines are made as single vineyard wines, they're just not advertised as such - Dalwhinnie, Grosset, Leeuwin and so on. I mean, Lakes Folly is a single vineyard, but the vineyard doesn't have a name different to the Estate, so it's not obvious that it's a single vineyard wine.

Most of the cults that Parker rates highly are prestty small anyway. So if they're made by a maker with his own vineyards & winery (Wild Duck Creek?) then they're mostly single vineyard by definition. Itinerants like Ringland are not necessarily so.

I suspect single vineyard status counts for nothing unless the vineyard is 100+ years old - La Tache, Hill of Grace, La Landonne, Doktor - or, perhaps in the case of the old world wines, if the climate is somewhat extreme and tiny goegraphic changes can make a huge difference in the wines. (Something that's not the case in Oz - at least not the places we're growing grapes at the moment...)

cheers,
Graeme

Campbell · Post by **Campbell** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:11 pm

Many thanks for the replies, most helpful - and I take your point Graeme (though I'm pretty sure that Chris Ringland owns his own vineyard, and that Three Rivers always comes off that vineyard ... anyone?).

So I guess I'm looking for a list of wines that are, or have been in the past, Parkerised (96+), and whether they're single vineyard wines - whether they're marketed as such or not.

So:

Duck Muck: yes.
BFW Draycott: most probably.
Three Rivers: I think so.
Veritas: I don't know.
Clarendon Hills various: mostly.
and whatever the other wines are that have been so anointed ...

cheers,
Campbell.

Gavin Trott · Post by **Gavin Trott** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:16 pm

Campbell wrote:Duck Muck: yes.
BFW Draycott: most probably.
Three Rivers: I think so.
Veritas: I don't know.
Clarendon Hills various: mostly.
and whatever the other wines are that have been so anointed ...

cheers,
Campbell.

I'm pretty confident Three Rivers is, that's why there's so little.

Similarly, Veritas Hanisch and Heysen I believe are.??

1998 Grange no

Brokenwood Graveyard - yes

Noons Reserves - yes

Greenock Creek Roennfeldt Road - yes

Kaesler the Old Bastard, sort of, a section of the one vineyard anyway ....

others?

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:17 pm

Campbell wrote:Many thanks for the replies, most helpful - and I take your point Graeme (though I'm pretty sure that Chris Ringland owns his own vineyard, and that Three Rivers always comes off that vineyard ... anyone?).
Campbell.

Campbell,

To the best of my knowldege it is owned by him.

Mike Hawkins · Post by **Mike Hawkins** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:11 pm

Torb, I understand that is the case, and that some of the grapes from this small vineyard are sold to Rockford (for B/Press) under a longstanding contractual arrangement. The rest of course go into 3 Rivers (either way, he makes the wine !).

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:29 pm

Campbell wrote:BFW Draycott: most probably.

Campbell,

The Draycott Reserve in 98 got the points (and I think its the only one that got 96 or more) but I know for sure all Ricks fruit comes off one block.

Re Veritas, although Rolf has contracted growers, I am pretty sure (like Gavin) the Hanisch and Heysen are both single vineyard wines.

The Magpie Estate wines also made by Rolf is a single vineyard job and thats why they stopped making the old label Shiraz, the vines were to old to yield reasonable levels of fruit.

JamieBahrain · Post by **JamieBahrain** » Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:37 pm

Hi Campbell

No disputing Parker's romance with the single vineyards. Chapoutier in France must have over half a dozen single vineyard wines. Their Parker scores seem to consistantly resemble or better Don Bradman's batting average.

Interestingly, I found in many French wines, vintages without huge levels of ripeness scored well too.

L'Ermite is a single vineyard wine from Chapoutiers portfolio. A tiny plot at the base of the St Christophe Church on Hermitage Hill. 90 year old vines.

1996 99 pts

1997 91-94 pts

1998 98 pts

1999 96 pts

2000 98+ pts

2001 98-100 pts

Even in perceived poor vintages ( 97 ) the wine does score well.

If we looked at Three River's Parker scores I think we see similar. Faded memory but I recall the tough vintages ( 1993 ) scored relatively well.

Is Parker onto something regarding the SVS?

1- Old, deep rooted wines can do very well even in regionally poor vintages.

2- SVS get special vineyard attention.

3- Deliberately low yields

4- Deft oak treatment to suit the intensity of the vintage.

If 1-4 is the success of the SVS, than this may constitute the perceived romance bias of the Old Vines and the Single Vineyard Site.

1-4 if true, a welcomed direction the industry is taking.

I must add more seem to fail than succeed at attempts to second guess the palate of Mr Parker.

SVS Parker Cult wine-anyone mention Red Edge? :lol: