-
- Parker 95 pts - Wine Spectator 77 pts
d'Arenberg Dead Arm Shiraz 2006 was rated 95+ by parker and 77 by Wine Spectator,
Has anyone tried this wine and what was your rating?
I guess with South Australian Shiraz you either despise it or really enjoy it.
-
92 - Reply by penguinoid, Sep 29.
I've tried another vintage of this wine, at a wine tasting. It was a pretty good wine, but I'm not certain I'd give it 95+.
I'm also fairly certain that I wouldn't give it 77. I would have thought that even if they did not like the style, they would have at least given it credit for being a more than competent example of that particular style. Unfortunately, I didn't make any notes at the time, so can't post any detailed remarks about it.
My experience with South Australian shirazes has been quite varied. I've tried a lot which I don't particularly like -- generally over-the-top, over-ripe 'jammy' fruit bombs, and quite a few which I have liked -- which can be a bit more restrained, with spice and dark fruits. Generally, the former type seem to be mostly from the Barossa, the latter from the McLaren Vale, though that's not always the case. The McLaren Vale seems to be able to produce fruit bombs just as easily as the Barossa, and you do see more elegant Barossa shirazes to (eg, Langmeil).
Equally, I recently tried BK Wines 2008 Jean Bernard Syrah from the Adelaide Hills. Completely different again, and not at all typical of an Australian shiraz. But certainly very good, and very interesting.
-
1135 - Reply by dmcker, Sep 29.
Somewhat pertinent:
http://www.snooth.com/talk/topic/do-critics-talk/
Does sound like a particularly radical gap between the two. Do you know who the reviewers were? Perhaps WS is on a mission to take down Parker and fruitbombs worldwide... ;-)
-
92
- Reply by penguinoid, Sep 29.
Taking down fruit bombs worldwide? Almost makes it seem worthwhile...
Having said that, some people do seem to like fruit bombs, so I guess it would be unfair on them to take away the wines they like. Maybe there should be some sort of government warning on the front label: "Warning! This wine is a fruit bomb"?
-
0390 - Reply by GregT, Sep 29.
Parker gave it 95 points and WS gave it 77?
Isn't it more correct to say that WA gave it 95 and WS gave it 77, or Miller gave it 95 and Steiman gave it 77? Parker didn't have anything to do with the rating as far as I know. I think IWC also gave it a pretty high score.
-
30 - Reply by corskier, Sep 29.
Bizarre differential. Steiman and Miller generally agree on wine styles from what I've seen. I've seen this wine at our local Costco, I think I'm almost interested enough to give it a try just based on that 18 point swing.
-
33 - Reply by Greg Roberts, Sep 30.
I just went on WS to read the tasting notes and it actually recvd 91 pts. In any event, I don't believe points are a valid way to review wine. See if you can tell which is the 95 pt review and which is the 91 pt review:
1) Lush and ripe, with an earthy animal component to the generous cherry, currant and exotic spice flavors that keep sailing on the long, supple finish. Drink now through 2016
2) Opaque purple-colored, the nose is reticent but gives up aromas of meat, bacon, game, truffles, blueberry, and blackberry. Firm, layered, and complex, this beautifully rendered Shiraz demands a decade of cellaring. It will be superb from 2018 to 2036.
-
1135
- Reply by dmcker, Sep 30.
GregR, my guess is that 2) is the higher-rated wine. Did the same reviewer do both? And what were the wines?
-
92
- Reply by penguinoid, Sep 30.
Yes, I'd guess that the 2nd review also is the one that gave the wine 95 points. Interesting that there's no overlap between the suggested drinking dates for the two reviews (assuming here that they're the WS and WA reviews for the D'Arenberg The Dead Arm...).
Just came across this quote on wikipedia's article on Robert Parker:
Scores, however, do not reveal the important facts about a wine. The written commentary that accompanies the ratings is a better source of information regarding the wine's style and personality, its relative quality vis-à-vis its peers, and its value and aging potential than any score could ever indicate. ... [T]here can never be any substitute for your own palate nor any better education than tasting the wine yourself.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Parker,_Jr
Yes, it's Robert Parker they're quoting. It's a comment I'd certainly agree with, and on this point I wish more people would listen to M. Parker... It's not the points given that's the most important thing.
-
33
- Reply by Greg Roberts, Sep 30.
If you hadn't already looked, these are the reviews in WS & WA for d'Arenberg Dead Arm Shiraz 2006 without the point scores. I'll see if anyone else wants to guess before posting the scores.
-
1135
- Reply by dmcker, Sep 30.
Although I had assumed they were the two reviews (which I haven't seen) for the same wine, they read so differently that that's why I referred to them as two distinctively different wines. ;-)
A very good example of why reviews and reviewers should only be used as minor reference points once you've figured out which reviewer has a palate closest to yours...
