ojeffso  
warren, new jersey
Wine Lover
Posts: 4877
 | | 11-20-2002 03:30 AM |
| it was hidden in the aussie shiraz tasting notes section in the latest issue. steiman gave it an 87. usually i am at odds with harvey, but this time i am closer (me89) to him than parker's 93. i think parker got a little carried away with all their wines. rumor has it that parker loves sparky marquis. | | |
|
|
Blair Ridley
Wine Labeler
Posts: 3980
| | 11-20-2002 03:13 PM |
| ojeffso -
I feel the same way - Parker definitely over-rated these wines. I've had three of the bottlings (Shiraz, Cabernet, and Shiraz 9) that were good --- but not *that* good.
His ratings, in my opinion, definitely carry some emotional value (similar to Suckling's 2000 Bordeaux and 1997 BdM ratings). | | | |
|
Seek
Upstate NY
Wine Thief
Posts: 2772
| | 11-20-2002 03:20 PM |
| | While excellant values I agree they are overhyped & overrated. | | | |
|
Bradley Molzen
VinoCellar.com Admin
Bayonne, NJ
Wine Connoisseur
Posts: 5054
| | 11-20-2002 04:09 PM |
| | I think we all feel the same way... But MP is still definitely a great QPR. | | | If you drink wine, you get smarter.... | |
|
Budman
Philly Suburbs
VinoCellar.com Extraordinaire
Posts: 23632
| | 11-21-2002 07:24 PM |
| Overhyped - maybe
Overrated - maybe
Overpriced - NO WAY!
With all the hype, it'll be interesting to see how the 2002s are priced. | | | |
|
ojeffso
warren, new jersey
Wine Lover
Posts: 4877
| | 11-21-2002 11:29 PM |
| | budman-definitely not overpriced. in fact they are all excellent qpr's. yes, expect a big bumpon the prices for 2002. | | | |
|
JonesWineNo1
Sommelier
Posts: 8568
| | 11-22-2002 12:18 AM |
| | At the Grateful Palate tasting (the importer), they indicated there was not going to be an increase in price. Grateful Palate's pricing alientated some of his customers (namely Torbreck) in the past so you may have some hope that GP will not take advantage of Parker (over)rating the wines. | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Master of Wine
Posts: 11169
| | 11-22-2002 04:20 PM |
| | I think the Sarah's Blend is closer to a 90, but the Shiraz is a 92-93, imo. I'm supposed to be getting some of the S9. | | | |
|
Pool Boy
Laurl, MD (DC suburb)
Master of Wine
Posts: 13767
| | 11-23-2002 09:30 PM |
| | You know, I did not really get blown away by this wine. It was OK, but not a 93. I think I rated it an 87-88. But, perhaps I had an off bottle. I have 4 more and I will try them as time permits to see if my opinion changes. | | | www.roguefood.com -- www.cellartracker.com | |
|
Eric White
San Ramon, CA
Advanced Sommelier
Posts: 9430
| | 11-24-2002 07:20 PM |
| | I very much enjoy the Shiraz, but also feel Parker got a bit carried away. I would rate closer to a 90, and still feel the 2000 vintage is the better wine (sadly, only one bottle left in the cellar). | | | 2008: the end of an error | |
|
ChangeMe
Grape Destemmer
Posts: 98
| | 11-25-2002 03:50 AM |
| | Good bang for the buck, but a touch one dimensional. | | | |
|
Budman
Philly Suburbs
VinoCellar.com Extraordinaire
Posts: 23632
| | 11-25-2002 10:38 AM |
| | While it may not be the blockbuster 93 pointer that RP says it is, I also don't see it as the 87 that WS gave it. My score is closer to 90+, based on 3 bottles. | | | |
|
Bradley Molzen
VinoCellar.com Admin
Bayonne, NJ
Wine Connoisseur
Posts: 5054
| | 11-25-2002 04:23 PM |
| ojeffso and I had a nice dinner awhile back where we tasted both the 2000 and 2001 MP Shiraz side by side. Our conclusion was the 2000 was not quite as extracted, but more complex, so we liked it better. Gave about a 91 on it. The 2001 was more extracted for sure, but was indeed more one dimensional, still worthy of the 90.
Incredible QPR no matter how you look at it. | | | If you drink wine, you get smarter.... | |
|
Seek
Upstate NY
Wine Thief
Posts: 2772
| | 11-25-2002 04:34 PM |
| | Looks like I should pick up more of the 2000 Shiraz. My initial feelings were the same about the overall quality, I like the depth (though not great) of the 2000 better than the `01, so visiting it again now or in the future would be neat. | | | |
|