Jamie Goode wrote:Aren't there much better, and cheaper, expressions of Australian wine? Just a thought.
Robin Garr wrote:I've had small tastes of the 1999 and the 2000 at trade tastings, Jamie, and under those circumstances thought that the 1999 was a classic case of "Emperor's New Clothes," pickle-scented alcoholic grape juice. The 2000 struck me as much better, firm and balanced if unabashedly a fruit-bomb. In fairness, the conventional wisdom holds that considerable cellar time is mandatory. But in short, I agree with you: It's difficult to justify the awe-inspiring price on the basis of anything but sentimentality.
Otto Nieminen wrote:I've had the 1999 now twice. A year+ ago it was like you described, a month or so ago it was as classic Grange as you can wish for and if that is a style that you enjoy, certainly worth the price. The 2000 I thought was great: the scent had so much shit and cedar that it was almost Bordeaux-like. The palate however was just too massive. The same problem I have with all Granges. It certainly is not the style of wine that I like.
Jamie Goode wrote:I'm not one for going after icons, but the question crossed my mind - is grange on current form worthy of its place in the wine firmament?
Jenise wrote:(Kay Brothers Block 6 comes to mind for one that's similarly traditional in style.)