I am traveling on business and wanted a bottle of wine to have in the room. I didn’t want to spend too much since I’m not going to finish the bottle so I set a target of $20. I found a wine shop with a decent selection. They were running all Australian wines 15% off so I saw a bottle of Mollydooker “The Boxer” 2008 Shiraz that hit exactly $20.
I don’t drink much Aussie wine but I knew that Mollydookers usually are rated pretty well and I thought I would see what the fuss was. I popped it open and was surprised by the sweetness on the nose. It reminded me of a late harvest zin. My first taste was no better. It reminded me of an experience I had at a dimly lit pizza buffet where I took a bite of what I thought was cheese pizza only to realize that the “red” sauce was the cherry pie filling of a dessert pizza. I felt that same disorientation with this wine.
I like syrah. It is tied for number two in the number of bottles I have in my cellar. I have quite a bit of Novy and have what I think is a pretty good range of approaches of for California in Constant, Failla, Kokomo, Martinelli, Peay, Surh Luchtel, Turnbull and Venge. There are some fairly refined wines in there and definitely some that are powerful expressions.
This wine tasted nothing the ones listed above. I enjoy a Novy or Surh Luchtel Page-Nord syrah with a steak. I couldn’t imagine pairing this wine with a steak. With its sweetness, maybe I could pair it with meat that had a spicy rub (like pairing riesling with spicy Thai food) but that would be about it. I poured a a glass and left it out to air all night and some of the sweetness went away but it still didn’t hit me that right way.
My question is what am I missing on this wine? I don’t buy based on points but this wine is pretty well reviewed. (WA 91, WS 91, RR 92, even CT 89.7) I usually purchase based on recommendations from people who I trust their palate. (I thank the Berserkers for Rivers-Marie, Scherrer and Loring) This wine makes me want to avoid all Aussie wines unless it comes from Penfolds where I have had good experiences. I understand that my palate may have developed differently and I have had many wines that I could respect as being good wines but were not my style. This is the first time I have had a wine rated consistently above a 90 that if I was to give it a number I’m not sure I would give it even an 80.
That is why I ask the question - what am I missing? Or am I on the right track?
Sounds like a preference towards a drier style in your case. I haven’t had The Boxer this year, but have in the past and enjoyed its in your face personality. I agree that it can be a bit sweet and certainly over the top, but that is part of the allure. My cellar is mostly New World Napa cabs with a healthy smattering of syrah, CdP and WA wines. But this one is like hanging with your wild friends one night, fun, on the edge, but not something you would want to do all the time. I would buy a bottle for $20. FWIW, I saw it get a 98 on one website.
When I try a wine that is new to me, I try to be as open as possible. I certainly have had my share of big fruit-forward wines that I have enjoyed. Some of Martinelli’s zins will bowl you over and I can certainly appreciate them for what they are and pair them appropriately. This wine was too far out there for me.
At least on red wines, I find that my impressions aren’t usually too far away from CT ratings on wines that there is a reasonable sample size. That’s why I was so surprised when I saw the ratings because I wouldn’t have it anywhere close.
I searched this site after tasting it and saw how divergent opinions are on this wine with more opinions favoring my impression. I was shocked by this wine and not in a good way.
I like your explanation. I like LH zin and have a guilty pleasure of opening a bottle and serving it with good quality, slightly warmed dark chocolate. Adam Lee’s Oley dessert wine, Hall’s LH Sauvignon Blanc and ports are other sweet wines I enjoy on occasion. I don’t have much experience with rieslings yet but I am learning since I love Thai food.
The residual sugar is what I think caused me the issue. It is just too much to me for a dry red wine.
CT, like Zagat’s, is self-selecting: People tend to rate the wines they own, like and drink. So if it’s not your style of wine (or restaurant) the ratings aren’t necessarily good predictors.
It might be that people who don’t like MD don’t like port etc… or it might be that they have difference expectations when opening a red ‘dry’ wine vs a dessert wine. Port? You’re expecting a sweeter, fortified wine and are pairing it correctly if you pair it at all. Dry red wine? Well, note the word dry. Unless you’ve had and like MD and similar wines, you’re not anticipating or desiring a sweetish wine.
Monte - It would be a mistake to judge an entire continent by one wine. There are cooler climate syrahs from Aus out there that can be quite nice. It’s never been a focus of mine, so I can’t give you names, but I’ve seen threads over the years talking about them.
Mollydooker’s winemakers take things a bit further than just a little RS, though. They stress the yeast to produce abnormally large quantities of glycerol in addition to ethanol. So they can take like 30 Brix fruit and have it close to dry at 15%-16% ABV by having a lot of glycerol as well. See this link for the chemistry.
Glycerol as I understand it is neither alcohol nor sugar, though it has the viscosity of the former and the sweetness of the latter. The Marquis are making a wine that is both technically dry–or close to it at least–and sugary sweet at the same time. Definitely a bit of a Franken-wine if you ask me. Interesting biochemistry experiment, but not something that sounds good to drink.
Since it was mentioned, I have a theory about Port. I’d venture that Port is Mollydooker-style wine done properly. None of this half-arsed exaggerated hugeness, go for the inordinately extreme. Port has more alcohol, more sweetness, a vastly more structured whack of tannin and loads more deliciously ripe (but not jammy) fruit than the Aussie upstart. The thing is with Port that its monster-power elements sit comfortably together as a harmonious, appealing, jape-tastic whole. Port is much further down the road of excess, which as we know leads to the palace of wisdom, than larged-up Shiraz or Cabernet, but the conspicuous heroism required to drink the stuff and survive the hangover the following morning makes me feel it wins by a country mile on the hilarious escapade front.
I love Port, Auslese and other sweet wines. I have many other reasons for disrelishing Mollydooker other than sweetness.
I agree with Rick. It would be unfortunate to judge all Aussie wines based on Mollydooker. There is tons of great Aussie Shiraz with restraint and finesse throughout Australia. You might want to try cooler climate areas like Victoria or Western Australia (Margaret River), but you can also find reds from South Australia and New South Wales that are very nice. If you really want to try something cool, get into Semillon from Hunter Valley in New South Wales- amazing how good some of those wines can be from such a warm climate…
I disagree with the comparison of Auslese in the mix as it has plenty of acid to add complexity to the sweetness.
The problem I have with these wines is that they are so over the top with extraction, wood and sugar that any charateristics of the grape become so obscured that you truly cannot distinguish cab from merlot from syrah etc. It’s a shame too as Australia produces wonderful wines, and they get lumped in with these and those who emulate the style chasing points.
I will admit my ignorance when it comest to Australian wines. I have had some Penfolds I have thoroughly enjoyed and some from Rosemount and others that were fine for their price point. When you begin to explore a region you are unfamiliar with, most would look at wine ratings or something similar as a point of departure to begin. While I have been somewhat successful taking flyers on Spanish and Italian wines, this experience will make me research Australian wines before I jump in again. I won’t dismiss them but I will be much more selective in my approach.
Matt - you give me some good places to start looking. Thanks.
Port has loads of alcohol and loads of acid. As you note it has loads of tannin. Most importantly, there is a ton of acidity as well. Just drink any Douro dry red and you can really notice the acidity in many of the native varieties. Anyway, tannin & acid = lots and lots and lots of structure. There is a framework to contain all of that sugar and alcohol. It works gloriously.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}