2005 Rolf Binder/Veritas Halliwell

Cross-posted from 2 Days per Bottle. This wine received an "89" from Harvey Steinman at Wine Spectator. He said:

Bright and juicy, with lively acidity to balance the fresh berry and spice flavors, which linger effectively on the generous finish. Drink now through 2009. 3,000 cases imported. Score: 89. —Harvey Steiman, October 15, 2006.

Curiously, Robert Parker gave it a "92":

Wine Advocate- A sexy, knock-out effort for drinking over the next 5-7 years is the 2005 Shiraz/Grenache Halliwell. This aromatic blend of 60% Shiraz and 40% Grenache offers up notes of blueberries, raspberries, cherries, earth, spice, and a hint of oak. It is full-bodied with juicy, concentrated flavors, supple tannins, and a velvety, opulent finish. Score: 92. —Robert Parker, October 2006.

and Joe Czerwinski gave it a "91":

Wine Enthusiast This is 60% Shiraz and 40% Grenache, with the Grenache providing some volume and roundness while the Shiraz provides the more assertive flavor notes. It’s a heady blend of sweet—cola—and savory—black olive and coffee—notes, with a long, supple finish. Drink now–2015. Score: 91. —Joe Czerwinski, November 01, 2007.

I love reviews. Read those three, then mine, and tell me if any of us tried the same wine. That said, I think in this case Czerwinski and Parker are a lot closer. Really, I can't imagine any reason this just got an "89" other than a price south of $20.00.

Type Red
Producer Rolf Binder/Veritas
Variety 60% Shiraz 40% Grenache
Designation Halliwell
Country Australia
Region South Australia
SubRegion Barossa
Appellation Barossa Valley
Price $19.49



The Little Wooden Guy signals "TOUCHDOWN!" This is startlingly good stuff for the dollar. Heck, it's just good stuff.

Night One

The color is very dark, turning to purple-tinged scarlet at the edges.

The nose starts with a bit of barnyard must and earthiness, probably from the grenache. It also has plenty of fruit, starting with creamy blueberries, plus the dusty, fruity smell of a bag of dried strawberries. There is also a touch of fennel.

The palate is deep and rich, with a very smooth full mouth feel. Blueberries and blackberries in cream, plus a hint of licorice, open the attack. Some tart red fruit shows up on the mid-palate. Toward the finish, add vanilla and pepper. The finish is long. This is very nice, well balanced with fruit and sweet silky tannins.

Night Two

The nose of Night Two is still fruity, but darker than on Night One, adding blackberries and elderberries to the creamy blueberries. The pepper shows up earlier on Night Two, on the attack rather than toward the finish. The fennel is still there.

The attack is very prickly peppery plus loads of black fruit, especially blackberry and elderberry. Vanilla, ample and espresso glow on the mid-palate. Tannins are very smooth and sweet. Finish is long.

This is very good. When you factor in a price under $20, it is terrific. Grenache tempers the jammy fruitiness of Barossa Valley shiraz.

Where the Rubber Hits the Glass: d'Arenberg 2005 'The Custodian' Grenache

OK, so technically this one is an 88 (Wine Spectator). So sue me - it's close enough. And to make it even more intriguing... Stephen Tanzer of the International Wine Cellar gave it a... 90!

d'Arenberg 2005 'The Custodian' Grenache (McLaren Vale, Australia):

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with the tasting notes on this one...

This wine is more full bodied, as you'd expect from Grenache it packs a buttload of booze (14.5% abv). Yes, it's got jammy fruit, along with lots and lots of berries (strawberry, cranberry...). But it feels a little 'hot', and gives the impression that this vintage is not fully representative of the big, explosive fruit that McLaren can deliver in warm years (2005 was a bit on the cool side for them).

Now, while technically I agree with WS on their sub-90 ruling, I don't agree with them on the core reasons for that ruling.

That's because I get something out of this wine that I think I shouldn't. It's floating just above the fruit after the mid-palate and it's seriously disrupting my enjoyment of the finish on this otherwise tasty sucker.

Rubber. Sniff-sniff. Damn! There is it again.

I confirmed this with some dinner guests who shared the wine (and no, we did not eat tire for dinner). They're not wine geeks, but once I pointed it out to them, there was no mistaking it.

My verdict: overall point reduction due to, well, Reduction.

Cheers!

Longhop Old Vine Grenache 2005 Adelaide Plains

We've had this wine open in our store over the past two days, so I figured it's a good time to give it a pop. Before I get to my thoughts on this selection, here are a couple of interesting points:

• The 2005 vintage scored 89pts from WA, the 2006 scored 91pts, from the quotes below who can tell which is the 91 pointer?
• "exhibits strawberry, raspberry, pepper, spice, and background wood characteristics. This fruit-forward, medium to full-bodied, soft Grenache is best consumed over the next several years."
• "exhibits notes of garrigue, black cherry, and raspberry. Layered and ripe, with gobs of spicy flavor, soft tannins, and excellent length, it can be enjoyed now and over the next 6-8 years."

• This brings another dimension to the debate... text... the actual review which is ignored by so many as they quickly scan the document looking for the next rock star to add to the cellar. Or worse... the next purchase for the shelves of the shop! ...But that is a topic for another day. A topic, we probably don't want to get into! My point... very often you'll find the text review to be much more complimentary than the number, but that is meaningless. As a former importer I can tell you; my basement is filled with case cards with great text but no 9- in the top corner. They make good kindling for a fire, but that's about it!
• Point 2: WS gave this one an 84, WA gave it an 89, that's a five point spread. Not huge, but sizeable enough. I remember a few years back, a certain Ribera del Duero clocked in at 91 points in one publication and got panned with a 78 in another. Bad bottles aside, how can this be? If a point system is the "best" method to judge quality, how can one wine score so differently? What the point system doesn't account for is palate preference. We're all different, we all like different wines. A score can absolutely be part of your buying decision but you need to trust your own palate above all others.
• Oh, and one more problem with 9-'s. Producer's (some, few) now build wine's in order to secure a 90+. And you can't blame them, it's the difference between an empty warehouse and a full one. That's a slippery slope, one that will lead to the extinction of terroir.
  

Enough rambling, back to the wine in front of me. I like it. In fact, I like it a lot, and I'm not a bid Aussie type of guy. Yes, it's a powerhouse, the fruit is packed in there, and the alcohol is way too high for my typical taste at 15%, but I've found myself continually going back for another taste. That's how a wine should be judged. Do you want another glass? Yes or no? Also, I should note, this stood up very well over night, just a touch of heat on the finish, but the fruit was still very pure.

For us, here at Bin Ends, we love 89's! Many times it will allow us to sell the wine at up to a 45% savings, and judging by the reviews above, I'd take the $16 bottle over the over the $30 bottle any day of the week.