Torbreck New Release Tasting
April 21st, 2006
A few short notes from a free tasting with Torbreck winemaker David Powell at North Sydney Cellars late last month.
These wines are favourites of the powerful American wine critic Robert Parker, hence the prices of the top wines are beyond the budget of most people. This was a good chance to taste these wines and find out what the fuss was about, without having to spend a large amount of money to do it.
There tends to be an interesting story behind the names of each of the winery and wines. The name “Torbreck” matches the name of a forest that David worked at when he was a lumberjack in Scotland. This is also the origin for the names of the two Woodcutter wines. Cuvée Juveniles was named for a friend’s winebar in France, with a similar story of the Les Amis restaurant in Singapore approaching David to make a special blend for them. A number of the other names have Scottish origins.
All wines are from the Barossa Valley in South Australia and I’ve tried to include an approximate RRP in Australian dollars with each wine.
Woodcutter’s Semillon 2004 ($22)
Nose is reasonable but overworked - some funk, butter, citrus, and some nutty oak. The palate shows harsh phenolic characters as well as alcohol and excessive acid.
81/100
Marsanne Rousanne 2005 ($40)
65% marsanne, 35% rousanne. This wine usually has a small amount of Viognier in the blend. Nose shows candy notes, some florality, orange peel and musk. Palate is hot and disjointed with alcohol influence.
81/100
“Cuvée Juveniles” Grenache Mataro Shiraz 2004 ($28)
60% grenache, 25% mataro, 15% shiraz. Some (more) heat on the nose along with smoked meats, dirt, mulch, some green characters, cherry and some licorice. Fruit sweetness on the palate. Thought that the palate was short and uninteresting. Didn’t like this at all.
80/100
“The Steading” Grenache Mataro Shiraz 2003 ($40)
60% grenache, 20% mataro, 20% shiraz. Chocolate, licorice and some cedar oak on the nose. Shows better length, depth and power on the palate than the Cuvée Juveniles, but is still lacking some interest.
86/100
“Woodcutter’s” Shiraz 2005 ($22)
Nail polish, varnish and pepper on the nose. Palate is hot, acidic and stewed.
78/100
“The Struie” Shiraz 2004 ($55)
This is a bit more like it. Spice, licorice, smoked meat and I thought some very small cheesy notes. Lovely fruit intensity on the palate. Well balanced and and drinking very well now for my tastes.
88/100
“Descendant” Shiraz/Viognier 2004 ($145)
93% shiraz, 7% viognier. Another step up in class (and price!). Floral, sweet, slightly candied nose as well as some tobacco/ashtray, mocha and just a touch of apricot. Very mouth filling and has good intensity of flavour while retaining balance and elegance. Drinking pretty well tonight, but sure to improve.
91/100
“The Factor” Shiraz 2003 ($150)
Nose is rather tight - some spicy, peppery, smoked meat characters being all that I could get. Palate has excellent structure and balance as well as very good length. Given time, I think it’ll open up and be rather good.
92/100
“RunRig” Shiraz/Viognier 2003 ($250)
98% shiraz, 2% viognier. Restrained power on the nose with some tar, dark fruits and floral notes with balanced oak in the background. Palate is elegant, balanced and focused with good texture and flavour. Drinking alright on the night, it will still be a waste of potential if you open then before another 3 or 4 years.
92/100
“The Pict” Mataro (Mouvedre) 2004 ($250)
The first vintage of this single-vineyard old vine Mataro from Torbreck. Earth, smoke and chocolate nose. Palate structure and flavour is interesting. Tannins felt like they were chewy. Good length, but very youthful and will should benefit from time in bottle.
89/100
“Les Amis” Grenache 2004 ($250)
Nose shows blackcurrant, raspberry, chocolate, tarmac, sweet fruit, a slight oxidative character and a touch of oak. Tannins are quite prominent on the palate at this stage, but apart from that it was exhibiting balance and structure with good flavour intensity.
91/100
These are some very good wines, probably some of Australia’s best when it comes to Rhone Valley blends. It is just a shame that they are out of price reach for anything other than very special occasions for most people. “The Struie” is probably the best “value” in the lineup, but other Shiraz wines at $55 can be much better.
Still, it raises a question that often results in a heated debate - RunRig was originally released at $36 and as the reviews got better, the wine has risen in price to its current level. People say that this is “too expensive” but the economist in me says that the winery should release the wine at the price that people are willing to pay. This also stops the problem of people getting their allocation of wine and then selling it straight away at auction, making 5 or 10 times what they paid for it - when the people who should be making the profits are the people who put in the hard work (the winery).
So, are these wines “too expensive” if that is what people are willing to pay for them? Should wineries follow the lead of some of the old fashioned places (Wendouree, Wild Duck Creek etc) and sell to loyal customers at prices well below auction prices? I would be interested to hear my readers thoughts.
Either way - thank you to David Powell and North Sydney Cellars for giving people a chance to taste these wines and make up their own mind about them.
April 21st, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Cam,
Thanks for the write up. The top wines are pricey, especially when you take into account the cost price of production etc etc. As you say it seems to be what the market will tolerate - even if that market seems to preclude me and most drinkers.
I wonder if it is just symptomatic of the general inflation of all assets in these times of plenty. . .
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I had dinner with Dave Powell after the event and we discussed the pricing. He is strongly of the opinion that we don’t have nearly enough high priced wines in this country…almost that it is a cultural cringe. The high price is in part his marketing strategy, cost of fruit, and wanting to make some money. He was paying something like $8000 per ton for the fruit that goes into the Pict. That is an astronomical amount for fruit.
FWIW I strongly disagree with many of the ratings of these wines (apart from the whites which were very ordinary).
GW
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Gary, it is clear that our point scales are not the same. Aside from the woodcutter’s shiraz which I know we are not of the same opinion on - do you disagree with the impressions as well as the points, or just the points?
Wines scoring 90+ are very good wines on my scale. People reading know that 90+ wines for me are very much in the minority rather than the majority. Makes it hard to get quoted when wines that you love get “only” 92 or 93 points, but that isn’t my goal anyway.
Here is the rough point scale that I posted over on the forum, I admit it is more compressed that I would like it to be, but that is the way it goes -
Below 80 I very much disliked it (or it was faulty).
80-83 is stuff that is bordering on me tipping it out - probably a fault of some sort with it.
84-86 is generally pretty boring, maybe a very small fault or two at the low end of the range.
87-89 is around what I don’t mind drinking on weeknights, not special but tasty (where I would have put the woodcutters if I agreed with your note).
90+ is generally that I liked it quite a bit and would have a good chance of me making a purchase.
94+ is pure excellence
97+ would be enough that I would be willing to drop everything that I was doing just to get a taste of it.
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Your points scale equates almost exactly to the way I used it - the part from 86 upwards especially.
Your notes/descriptors are generally really quite similar to mine.
What do you mean by ‘quoted’ ??
GW
April 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 pm
If the notes/descriptors are similar in general then I don’t really see too much of a problem. If we were coming up with completely opposite notes on every review (like that Vic chardonnay or the Woodcutter’s) then I might be a bit worried!
Surely the points come down to more of a personal preference and I’m just a bit more conservative with them. It would be super if everyone’s scale was the same, but that isn’t possible.
By quoted I mean this trend that I see recently with some reviewers that are on the fringes and will score at the top end of the scale for wines that I would be looking at 87-89 or maybe 90-93 for. Makes their reviews look great in winery or retailer newsletters and will lead to the reviewer getting some exposure. I’m sure you’ve seen similar. If I wanted to really get my name out there, then I could start writing flowery, praising notes for even boring wines and rate everything on a scale that runs from 90-100.
No particular names, just an observation. If you are wondering, no I don’t mean you Gary, I like your writing and reviews and you deserve the exposure.
April 22nd, 2006 at 3:32 pm
I am using the same 100 point scale in the same ‘commercial’ sense as Oliver and Halliday (although generally lower than both and certainly much lower than the latter). It gives the abstract idea of points some popular currency.
People won’t use notes just because they are given high scores. There is much much more to it than that. Issues of credibility first and foremost I believe. You won’t last long if you hand out 95 to everything and the wine is shit. I have not seen any examples of people being ‘quoted’ just for high points…and I see a lot of retailer newsletters. Nicks do their own points but that is another matter altogether.
I think that philosophically we are different. I look to like a wine from the word go and look for the positives…I suspect you look for things not to like. Just a guess though. I also take into account a very blurry factor that considers price into the equation. I will be harder on a wine that is more expensive. I know some will argue with this non-absolute quality but I don’t particularily care. i.e. I am more likely to give and excellent $15 wine 90 points than I am a $50 one.
GW
April 22nd, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Do you think that Oliver and Halliday do the same and give different weights to different price points? Even then, their idea of what an expensive wine or a cheap wine is will be different to yours. While the scales may match, I still don’t think they can be directly compared simply because of factors like that. To me, a Gary Walsh 95 isn’t a Oliver 95, it probably isn’t even a Lincoln (other reviewer at Winorama for those who don’t know) 95 and the same in reverse.
Next time I see one of these high pointed scores I’ll “point” it out. Retailers (and/or wineries themselves) giving points to wines is another issue I agree.
April 22nd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Well anything above 90 for me means an excellent wine. Same scale as Lincoln. Same as yours. At the end of the day I just find it strange that you would rate a wine like 2005 woodcutters as undrinkable (by your scale) but as with all discussions about points it always ends up reductio ad absurdum. So I’ll leave it at that. I’m keeping an eye on you though..thats all I’m saying
GW
April 22nd, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Fair enough Gary. I’ve got some notes from that Tyrrell’s tasting that you were at as well last year that I need to publish sometime, I’m certain I’ll hear more from you then
Oh, while you are here, what do I need to do to get a link from your site!
April 22nd, 2006 at 6:35 pm
My list of demands
1) The 2005 Woodcutters will receive a firm but fair 89 points.
2) You will review more releases.
Failing that I have put you on the links page anyway because I got to slip in an acerbic comment.
GW
April 23rd, 2006 at 10:57 pm
I have decided to set up a website that rates wine blogs on a 100 point scale.
I expect you to both to quote me whenever I give you a score of 90 or more.
And seeing as the first ever wine book I read was a Halliday wine guide, you’d better get used to quoting me all the time.
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:00 pm
BTW Cam,
many thanks for mentioning us and our humble tasting.
97 points.
April 23rd, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Maybe I should start a website that rates wine retailers ratings on wine blogs. 100+ points for your previous rating Jules.
April 24th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
I hate being called a wine blog! It is just a site with tasting notes…no blogging..
GW
April 24th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
[...] Several different Torbreck releases, although after this review from Appellation Australia I worry about the next batch from this vineyard [...]
April 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Uses blog software though Gary. I don’t like the word either but what can you do?
April 24th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
It is publishing software! How you use it defines the nature. If you ramble about having a bad hair day or rude taxi drivers…then you have a blog…else it is just publishing in a rather beautiful and presentable format.
GW
November 8th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
nice write up cam,
just got to read them as im toying the idea of the new releases…. pity my wallet doesn’t agree!
c