Over the past 2 days, I have been spending some time with the 2009 Glaetzer Bishop and Amon-Ra Barossa Valley Shirazes. I’m a big fan of the Amon-Ra in most vintages and often find it to be worthy of its price point ($60-$90 over the last few years). The Bishop has been $20-$30 and doesn’t stand out nearly as much to me - even within its price category; in other words I don’t purchase it that often. So how do I think the two stack up from 2009?
2009 Glaetzer Bishop Shiraz
Fruity with plenty of big bright berries, but also a nice bout of darkness and a good note of acidity. Some smoky pepper also sneaks in. Actually a pretty nice release of the Bishop and one that performs well for its price point. I am interested in seeing how this ages over the next few years - it the upfront fruitiness calms down a bit, this could become quite nice.
(100% Shiraz, Barossa Valley, South Australia, Australia; dry grown old vines 35 to 120 years of age; 14 months in oak of which 90% is French and 10% is American; $25-35 US)
2009 Glaetzer Amon-Ra Shiraz
Thicker than the Bishop with a more subdued fruitiness and more dark berry, spicy pepper, and smoke. Definitely a better wine, but not a top Amon-Ra IMO. I normally don’t find Amon-Ra to be syrupy or jammy, but this has a touch of it. Don’t get me wrong this is a nice wine and one that will age fairly well and improve for at least the next five or so years, but I don’t find this to be at the level of the 2002, 2003, or 2005 (my favorite releases of the Amon-Ra Barossa Valley Shiraz). Not quite worth the coin it goes for is my take.
(100% Shiraz, Barossa Valley, South Australia, Australia; dry grown old vines 50 to 130 years of age; 16 months in oak of which 90% is French and 10% is American; $70-100 US)
Much less separates these wines in 2009 than in other vintages. (3) Bishops or (1) Amon-Ra? That is the question or maybe neither as you can buy some nice Champagne for that price?