TN: 2007 Mollydooker Boxer

WINE TALK
1

Every so often, it’s good to confirm one’s prejudices.

Tonight a friend served this blind. Clearly, it was an Aussie shiraz. Super dark, super ripe on the nose. In the mouth, a big hit of alcohol, followed by syrup and what I’d call a pre-pruniness (it will get pruny with a big of age). The opposite of precise, this is just one big gawdawful mushy mess. No character, no varietal signature, no delineation. Not that there were any winemaking flaws in the technical sense. It’s just industrial swill. What is it that draws people to this? Beats me.

In fairness, it wore its alcohol (16%) well. I’d never have guessed it was a decimal point over 15%.

2

John, I have to agree with you, I purchased a bottle of this and was not a fan at all. I even closed the bottle back up and did the infamous sparky shake and it didnt get any better. I felt it was trying to be too much and just became a mish-mosh of undesirable flavors.

3

[quote=“John Morris”] What is it that draws people to this? Beats me.
Miller Points ! [stirthepothal.gif]

4

Hey John…I agree the 07 sucks. I also agree that Miller screwed the pooch on this one, in fact when I posted about tasting the 07’s on ebob Jay make a snide remark akin to “you dont know what youre talking about.”
The original points for MD, however, were Parker’s and not JM. And in the orginal batch (05) Everything in the lineup was ok to great. The 05 Boxer is actually good now. The 05 COL is one of my favorite oz shiraz even today. And the 06 Velvet Glove is my kind of wine. 07 was a notch below 06 in VG, and COL, and I thought the Boxer and TLF kind of sucked. Long answer to the question of why people get drawn in…its not all Boxer though it was the 05 Boxer that started the frenzy. JM just followed Parker’s footsteps…poorly.

5

What was the good Doctor’s prognosis on this one back in the day?

6

JM 93 with an 8 year drinking window

7

Good lord! Maybe I’ll buy a bottle and send it to him for retasting in eight years. (Then he’ll sit on it for a year.)

8

He might just upgrade that 93 to a 95. [rofl.gif]

9

Don’t forget, Parker gave an earlier vintage of this wine 95 points…so it looks like Parker might be the one who doles out high scores like crack… maybe give Jay a break. [stirthepothal.gif]

10

Does not matter as they have the same palate and both have stated it on many an occasion. It’s why Parker hired Jay.

11

If only…Id still be buying Shiraz…

12

Jared, no horse blah blah, but if I read this correctly, the 05s warranted the higher scores, no?

13

I just recently had the 2005. I actually enjoyed it. would I go make it a point to buy more, no…was it amazing, no - but for the price point, i, and those who had it with me thought it was a pretty solid wine

14

I have no idea, as I’ve never had any vintage of that particular wine. I was just trying to exercise some Parker demons from when I was a newbie and bought all of his 95-98 point Aussie Shiraz that tastes like shit! :slight_smile: Well, shit is a strong word but they certainly weren’t 95 point good.

15

The ‘98 Grange that RMP rated highly is worth every bit of his praise…I’m just sayin’.

16

For me, this is no different from some $15 Rosemont shiraz. They’re equally uninteresting to me, simply with different levels of extract, oak and alcohol.

17

I like Australian shiraz. It was Aussie Shiraz and Chardonnay that got me interested in wine in the first place.
I used to head to The Wine Club at least once a month to see what was new, and if there was an Aussie pouring I’d be there.
For a long time my cellar was primarily Aussie, and Penfolds was my #1 producer holding.
The best wine I ever drank was an Aussie - 1980 Grange.

But I don’t get the Mollydooker wines at all. Didn’t like Marquis Philips either. Undrinkable.

18

I agree with this statement. There are still many good wines from Down Under. Miller even rates some of them. But they are all overshadowed by the OVERrating of many other wines from buddies, Sparky and Dan P. I have had just a couple of Mollydookers, and never the super expensive stuff, but none of them did it for me.

19

pileon

Sorry I got to the pile-on late, & am making this my first post, but I can’t keep my mouth shut on this one. I’d been meaning to try the Boxer for a while, but this was my first taste & note on it.

2007 MOLLYDOOKER THE BOXER SOUTH AUSTRASLIA SHIRAZ - Good fairly deep red/ruby color. Rich, exotic cherry cream syrup with a hint of prune juice Aussi barrel ferment nose - with earthy leather with alcohol showing through, but not in a totally negative way. Fat, rich, sweet entry, with strawberry juice, red cherry, plum & prune - very quickly shifts gears on the palate to flabby, flat, woody, leathery & alcoholic. Short & dilute. High alcohol (16% on the label) shows strongly through this seemingly artificial strangely rich & thin wine. Attenuated nasty astringent tannins in the finish seal the deal. This borders on undrinkable. Hmmmmm . . . who can I give the rest of the bottle to??? Maybe on the rocks or with OJ - I’m not liking this in a glass. I’ll give the nose an 85, but overall - 79 points.

Now - It’s one thing having a stylistic disagreement on an unusual wine - which this certainly is, but this is simply very poor wine, from poor quality fruit. Anyone reviewing this wine & scoring it 93/100 points is obviously either in the wrong business, or not being honest. The WS also scored this a 90. As far as I know Tanzer hasn’t reviewed the '07.

I would have been unhappy with this wine at a $7 price point, let alone $24.


newhere

20

Pretty sure it was Josh Raynolds who reviewed one of the 07 Mollydookers and declared that he’d “finally found the wine to serve with the Luther Burger”:

The Luther Burger, named after Luther Vandross, is a burger with the traditional burger bun replaced by a Donut, usually a Krispy Kreme. Possibly the worlds unhealthiest burger, the Luther Burger contains more than 1000 calories and typically has over 45 grams of fat per portion.