She obviously is inexperienced...Mount Mary Quintet TN

WINE TALK
1

Only two vintages ever rated for this wine…

2001 Mount Mary Quintet

RP - 83? - The proprietor of Mount Mary has never wanted me to taste his wines, which are revered by segments of the Australian press, but with some stealth work, I was able to secure a few vintages. In addition to the 2001 Quintet, I was able to taste the 1998, 1997, 1995, and 1994. For my taste, only the 2001 merited a score higher than 80 points. The attempt appears to be to emulate a Bordeaux petit chateau, but none were as fine, being lean, high in acid, austere, and meagerly endowed. They will not improve with age. The 2001 has slightly more to it than the older vintages. It is difficult to understand what merit these wines possess.

[pwn.gif]

2006 Mount Mary Quintet

Lisa Perrotti-Brown - 94 - (With some decent comments on the wine) [scratch.gif]

I’ll refrain from printing the TN’s for the current review, but just had to refer back to what I consider a legendary grudge note. Stealth work…LOL, I keep trying to imagine RP in a ninja suit buying from a BevMo or something…

FWIW - I like the Mount Mary, always thought Tanzer was more spot on with this one, nice to see Lisa giving it a fair shake.

2

CT has only 3 notes posted on the 2001, all are pretty consistant I think this one sums up the wine.

“Tasted by idrinkvino on 5/25/2007 & rated 90 points: This is a very interesting wine and hard to score as it is vastly different than what normally comes out of Australia. As the Quintet name implies, this is a blend of five grapes, although one can’t tell what grapes as they left that off the bottle. The wine got a huge Tanzer socre of 94+ and a divergent low score in the 80s from Parker. It is rare to see these two rating services take such a divergent view of things. The Mount Mary Quintet did command over $100/bottle after the Tanzer rating. However, after the Parker rating the price plummeted into the $30’s. As Tanzer points out the wine is subtle and has a good length to it. Parker, however sees the subtleness as weak. I think perhaps they are both right. It is a low key wine, but the flavours of minerals, mint and spice are well defined. It is the antithesis of the huge Australian Shiraz, but enjoyable for the thirty dollar ride.”


Parker gave 99’s to some of the Greenock Creek wines from this vintage they are the antihisis to Mount Mary I loved the Apricot Creek But it really was more like a Shiraz reduction than a normal wine.

I think the real question is if a winemaker does not want you to rate his wines should you?

3

A very good wine IMO. These develop well with some age. I have 1 left of the 2001. I would have bought a ton at $30.

4

I love the Mt. Mary Quintets ( though not at the prices asked ). And IMO they age very well.

5

Really good question -

I can understand the winemaker’s point of not wanting to release his wines to certain critics - especially if you don’t trust them or their impact -

But - if you are going to commercially produce a product - you have to be open to criticism - and run through the fire with all types of critics - whether it’s art, food, wine or music -

6

I don’t think anyone putting anything in the public domain has any real control of people being able to critique it. If you are making a product for the public than you inherently accept that you really only control the marketing and 1st level distribution, everything else is dictated by the market.

In the case of Wine Ratings and winemakers submitting samples to RP, WS, et all, I would say that it is a bit different. I seem to have at one time heard that winemakers have to pay a fee and submit a sample to have certain reviewers look at their wines, is this true? Then for some it might be purely on a principle, not wishing to submit something and pay a fee is different than “never wanted me to taste their wines.”

Now if a reviewer made several requests and was told “no, we do not wish to provide you a sample” than that becomes a different scenario, but going back to the first point that does not prevent the reviewer from buying wines on the open or secondary markets. Is that “Stealth”…I hardly think so.

In this specific case I would draw a parallel to Herb Lamb - I have never been able to find any ratings on Herb Lamb, but at least amongst this board it is a very highly regarded wine. So if a reviewer like RP were to get a bottle and rate it, would they pan it because they have never been “formally” requested to taste it? It’s almost the perfect case for blind tastings…we generally believe wine ratings may be influenced by the label hence we like to do double blind tastes at off-lines to remove the bias; what if someone were to slip a Mount Mary or a Herb Lamb into a double blind tasting with RP? Would he publish the notes? Would the review have been as harsh? (ok, beyond the fact that the wine is obviously not made in the style of his palate)

I almost feel that the pages of WS and The Wine Advocate are much like retail shelf space…there is too much variety for too little space. So I don’t think those publications, which are businesses after all, are needing to print reviews of wines that do not contribute to the overall business model they are run by. Which to some degree creates a discrepancy in the overall concept of advocate or reviewer, for how can you review a particular segment and leave out certain members of that data set that hold an overall popularity with the public that enjoy that subject? Kinda like being an Impressionist Art Critic and reviewing Monet and Manet, but blatantly omitting Renoir.

7

Scott,

None of the major critics charge a fee to be reviewed. Any critic that does isn’t trustworthy. As a few people have pointed out it’s perfectly valid for a critic to find and buy a wine for review if the winery doesn’t want to supply a bottle and there’s nothing wrong with that, though describing it as a stealth tactic is amusing.

8

Yeah, that makes sense and I totally agree. As I re-read what I wrote I was trying to figure out if there was a “processing fee” that had to be paid, but even that would not make sense in the whole scheme of things.

9

It’s definitely not “stealth” if RP buys a wine to review. Right on his front page he says: “I purchase more than 60% of the wines I taste . . .”

OK. It doesn’t say when they’re purchased, but let’s just give him the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re purchased for tasting/scoring. That means the majority of the wines rated are purchased. See? Not a stealth thing at all.

Scott - the whole thing about fees is a separate topic. I don’t know many reputable publications that charge you to get a rating. Some contests, fairs, etc., do charge. And some trade organizations charge you an annual fee to belong. Now if your wines only get tasted in the context of that trade organization, which is the case with several wines from some countries, then you might wonder what the fee actually pays for.

To be honest, I think some reviewers don’t necessarily know how wines end up presented to them. But remember Ron Ziegler? Plausible deniability?

10

I’ve had a Mount Mary Quintet once - don’t recall the vintage but it was from the early '80s. I think the cepage is the five classic Bdx grapes: Cab, Merlot, Cab Franc, Petit Verdot, and Malbec, thus the name. An Ozzie friend brought the bottle over, having cellared it himself since release. It was excellent (i.e low-90s if I were scoring), with a good amount of aged fruit, complexity and earth, very nicely balanced, medium body, good finish. Yes, very different from the typical Australian wines I’ve experienced here. I can see the comparison to Bdx but it wasn’t a substitute for Bdx despite the complexity and balance. It stood just fine on its own.

11

Parker’s stealth comment is hilarious. Makes it sound like the practice of seeking out and buying a bottle of wine is so foreign to him that it’s an extreme endeavor. He’s practically a martyr for having done so. What a hero! And against that evil winemaker’s great conspiracy! [rofl.gif]

12

When I visited the winery a few years back they had Parker’s comments publicly displayed - I think they found them amusing.

Taste is personal, but he got this wrong. These are wonderful ageworthy wines, as a recent taste of the 90 Quintets confirmed. Australia should be making more wines like this (and is…) - in Australia, there’s a ground move against the greenock creek style among many producers.

13

Haha, now that’s cool.

Mount Mary has more than enough of a following to ignore whatever Parker says. I have a bottle of the 2001 that I bought out of curiosity. Am intending to age it for a bit before popping.

14

I just bought a couple of the 2001 to add to my mini-vertical of 1999 and 2000. I might frame a copy of the Parker quote and hang it above one of the 2001’s when I get my new cellar built later this year. [whistle.gif]