Yarra Yarra Dinner

A comment by Murray to my last post (and my subsequent whine) made me remember that next Friday I have something really great to look forward to.

Ian Maclean, Yarra Yarra winemaker, is hosting a dinner at Restaurant II in Brisbane to celebrate his top wine 'The Yarra Yarra' making the prestigeous Langton's classification. There will be a vertical tasting of 10 vintages 1993 - 2003 (none was made in 1996).

I am really looking forward to the evening as we have rustled up a table of 8 friends. Those that remember my wine buddy Lynton from earlier posts (the guy with laurel wreath stuck on his melon) will be pleased to know that he is also going. Our wives and two other couples will fill the table.

I saw an email Ian Maclean sent Lynton in which he said he was bringing a Magnum of Yarra Yarra surprise wine. Don't you just love surprises! If I remember, and if I am allowed to, I will attempt to take photographs. BTW the dinner is being organised in conjunction with The Wine Emporium via Stewart Plant.

The thought of this evening will help me to sail through next week - no probs.


wine
wine tasting
food and drink
shiraz

Seppelt Victoria Shiraz 2003 (Great Western)

Another of my favourite mid-week guzzlers! It cost around $11-$12 and contains 13.5% alcohol.

There were aromas of spicy plums and other fruits. It was red, a little darker than a medium red. It was medium to full bodied. The palate showed a rich plum and fruit with moderate length.

I rated it on an overall basis at 85-88/100

and when I scored the components came up with

17/20 (again)

I think a lot of the good value guzzlers (ie under $20) are going to be in the 85-92 range. These are my everyday drinking wines and I save the better ones for the weekends and the really good ones for special occasions.

Live well and drink well!


wine
wine tasting
food and drink
shiraz

Evans & Tate Shiraz 2001 (Margaret River)

I bought one of the Evans & Tate Margaret River Shiraz 2001 some time ago and went back the next day and bought 2 dozen. I think I paid around $12-14 per bottle. Whilst I enjoy the wine I wish I had curtailed my enthusiasm slightly.

This is a yummy wine (how's that for subjectivity) with berry, dark cherry, pepper and hint of licorice on nose and maybe a touch of mulberry (I ate tonnes of these growing up) on the palate as an aftertaste.

The intensity seems to grow (after swallowing) for a few seconds (I really love it when a wine does that)! It is a medium to full bodied wine with a moderate to long finish accentuated (how do you like that word - we ARE getting flash now) smooth, gentle tannins.

Do you get the idea that I liked this wine???

It is 13.5% alcohol and I rated it an an overall basis at

89-92/100

and per the components

18/20 (maybe worthy of 18.5 but I don't want to blow my high scores just yet.)

Would I buy it again?? Don't need to - still got a heap left!

wine
wine tasting
food and drink
shiraz

Hardy's Tintara Cellars Shiraz 2000 (McLaren Vale)

On Friday night's I look forward to coming home from the office and selecting a decent wine to have with dinner.

Last Friday I turned up a Hardy's Tintara Shiraz 2000 (McLaren Vale). The label suggests it should be best drinking in 2006. The label says 14% alcohol.

The wine was a medium red and clearly ageing toward a bricky (sic) colour. It exhibited fruit aromas that were not quite berries and not quite plums with some pepper or spice. There was also a hint of burnt toast (?). The wine was medium bodied with good fruit flavours and a gentle finish and drinking well, but with probably not a lot of time to go. Length of flavour was moderate. Very enjoyable I rated it on an overall basis at:

85-88/100

and rated the components:

17/20

I was really concerned with my scores as it seem the last few wines have been really close in their scores and I was wondering if I was kidding myself. I didn't post the note over the weekend because I thought maybe I was wrong and should wait a week or so and try it again. That, and the fact that I have had a huge weekend with the boys and a big night Saturday at a surprise 40th for one of my friends.

I have just had a few minutes to myself and I picked up Halliday's 2006 Wine Companion and found this note:

"Tintara Cellars Shiraz 2000 - light to medium bodied; black fruits, leather and spice. Rating 87 Drink 2010"

I am feeling much better. I have either got it right or have fluked another one - either way I am feeling better. The best part is that it was not just the score that was similar but the fact that I was having trouble trying to identify any specific fruit and Halliday just says black fruits.

I really have learned something from this, as my original handwritten notes from Friday night show under "Nose" the words 'berries' and 'plums' crossed out. This is because I initially wrote berries when there was a strong fruit aroma. I knew the wine was from McLaren Vale and I thought 'it must be berries'. In other words, I was influenced by my perception of the region and past tastings of shiraz from McLaren Vale. I crossed it out because on second smell I realised that I could not just say it was berries when I couldn't really identify the aroma. I was most pleased when I saw Halliday's note saying 'black fruits' which I take as him not being able to identify any particular fruit aroma.

Obi-wan (if this is how you spell it - I have never had to write it before), the tasting helmet exercises are starting to pay off - thanks!


wine
wine tasting
food and drink
food

Wine with Phil

My older brother, Phil, was up from Canberra for a few days last week. On Thursday some of the family came over and we had roast dinner. We had eye fillet roasted in a base of onions and in a sauce of shiraz and soy sauce.

With it we had

Taylor's Shiraz 2004 (Clare Valley)
We started with the Taylor's and it certainly had a varietal and regional nose. It was a dark red and somewhat aromatic with spicy plums on the nose and another pleasing note that I just could not describe (it was just out of my grasp - sorry). The palate was commensurate with the nose and had a certain richness to it and fine tannins.

I forgot to give it an overall score out of 100 (because the family was gabbing about different things) and felt I couldn't give an honest overall score after I had scored the individual parts, so no score out of 100 (please don't take me to see Jabba). Scoring the components (I took myself off to a quite corner) I scored it 17.5/20. Phil thought I was being a bit miserly seeing as how the bottle carried 4 silver medals!

Chateau d'Armailhac 2002 (Bordeaux) - 12.5% alcohol
I found the wine to be dark red with berries, maybe a touch of soy sauce and some vegetals on the nose. I also found the nose to be somewhat closed. The wine was well structured and finely balanced with a moderately rich palate and quite dry on the finish. I must say I was a little disappointed - but this might be because I was so looking forward to the wine.

I originally gave it an overall rating of 86-88/100 and when I scored the individual components I came up with 17.5/20

The Wine Journal said
"At en primeur in Apr-03: the nose is muted: some dull earthy notes. Like Le Petit Mouton: very tannic but with a little more complexity. Black tarry fruits and cigar box notes. Quite dry on the finish. Again a little charmless. (18/25) Then after bottling at the UGC in Oct-04. A very sweet blackcherry nose with scents of iodine and Morello cherry. The palate has a svelte texture, certainly softened in the interim with moderate concentration. Blueberry, cranberry and tar. Quite linear on the finish but otherwise this is a fine sensuous Pauillac to consume over ten years. (19/25) Tasted again in May-05. A soft, supple nose that lacks a bit of character. The nose is very plush and toasty, overtly modern with a velvety sheen. No rough edges here. Fine, it lacking typicity or a sense of terroir. (19/25)"


wine
wine tasting
food and drink
food

THE GREAT WINE SCORING WASHUP

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away ……………there was a band of Jedi that came upon the “Knights Who Say ‘NI’” (forget mixed metaphors – I am mixing my movies). The Jedi were a peace loving group that wanted order in the cosmos whilst all the Knights Who Say ‘Ni’ wanted was ….. a shrubbery!!! (hope you all like Monty Python – but I can’t go any further with the mix because I am already lost).

Thanks to all who contributed to the discussion that took place when I posed the simple questions – Why a Wine Scoring System? And Which One? The response was amazing! Being just an amateur wine enthusiast I was totally unaware, not only of the variety of systems of scoring but also, of the depth of feeling in relation to various systems. I feel I have benefited greatly from the discussion and the different points of view.

I did not pose the original questions on a whim. It was very much a considered response to where I am at with my tasting and enjoyment of wine. I think I covered my reasons sufficiently in the original post so I won’t go over them again but, I will attempt to summarise the points raised by various people in the discussion and attempt to address them all in stating how I am going to approach giving any wine a score.

NUMERICAL & NON-NUMERICAL SYSTEMS
It appears there are really only two streams of scoring systems – numerical and non-numerical. I would include any scale of one star (glass etc), two stars (glasses etc) as numerical scales. Non-numerical scales would include word descriptor scales (such as “Cat piss” through to “Ultimate”) or pictorial scales such as Wine Girl’s various faces. Non-numerical systems attempt to rate a wine on an overall basis whilst numerical system users are broken into those who attempt to give an overall score and, those who attempt to score the individual attributes of a wine to come up with a total score.

Most disagreement in the discussion began around the value of numerical versus non-numerical scoring systems and ultimately refined to being about the objectivity or subjectivity of a system and thus its corresponding value to others who may read and/or use the score.

OBJECTIVITY & SUBJECTIVITY
Proponents of non-numerical scoring systems appear to believe that as subjectivity is inherent in all tasting, attempting to be objective can be misleading and shouldn’t be attempted. Proponents of numerical systems appear to believe that despite there being subjectivity in scoring (whether or not an attempt is made to be objective), a numerical score is not only the most widely used standard but that there is really no difference (except possibly in immediate understandability) between a numerical and a non-numerical system, as they both rate wines along a gradient – the only real difference being the blurring or ‘rubberiness’ of the edges of each category in a non-numerical system which isn’t really available if you give a single numerical score.

I can see a real honesty and intelligence in Torb’s argument that he accepts wine scoring has a subjective element to it (and in cases may even dominate) and therefore he only, and openly, provides a purely subjective non-numerical score to wines. Because he knows more about wine than many people (myself included) his subjective score is a very good indication of how good a wine is.

The real problem for non-numerical systems (as I see it) comes if and when someone wants to differentiate between wines within the one grouping. For example there may be a wine that just scrapes into “Highly recommended” and one that just misses out on “Excellent”. Are these wines essentially the same standard? Mind you, this desire to differentiate would most likely only arise with professionals or enthusiastic amateurs. Other ‘punters’ just couldn’t be bothered. To these people, non-numerical systems have the greatest value.

Numerical scorers can also score on a subjective basis, especially if they score on (but not limited to) an overall viewpoint rather than score the individual attributes. This does not mean that the intention is to be subjective. It is possible for a numerical scorer, even whilst trying to be totally objective, to be influenced by personal taste (amongst other things). This would be especially true for amateurs with little tasting and scoring experience (such as myself). Although a professional taster (eg a show judge), whilst they may still influenced by personal taste and other subjective elements, if they are a true professional would attempt to put aside those influences and score as objectively as humanly possible. Is absolute objectivity ever really possible? Maybe not! Maybe Torb has a point but, I think the attempt to be absolutely objective is something that should be made.

However, I believe that scoring individual attributes is the most difficult to do (especially for the amateur who lacks knowledge and experience) but lends itself inherently to the most objectivity. Subjectivity can still have an effect.

MY PERSONAL VIEW (MY CHOICE)
I really don’t think either the numerical system or non-numerical system is right or wrong – they are just, well, different. (It’s sort of like toilet paper usage – you are either a ‘folder’ or a ‘scruncher’ – just different).

However, I want to try and look at the issue from a different angle. I have been looking at the issue in terms of outcomes or goals. Why am I doing this? What am I looking to achieve? What am I aiming at? How will I get value from scoring the wines I am drinking? In other words, the old (1) where am I now? (2) where do I want to be? (3) what is the best way of getting there?, goal oriented progression.

I want a system that I can use to score wines for my benefit (all that first person – what a selfish bugger). If others can get value from it, fine. If they think it is bullsh*t, fine. I want to able to score a wine so that I have some reference point to use either for purchasing or discussion in the future. In other words I am doing it primarily for my own use. If the score is subjective, so be it.

I agree with Cam and Torb that the most important part of any review is the tasting note, and I really need to work on mine. Irregardless how important the tasting note is, it still does not allow me to attempt to compare accurately a wine with another or the same wine over time or other vintages. Torb might argue that any numerical score, because of its subjectivity, may not allow me to do that accurately anyway.

What I am really looking to achieve is…. the holy grail!!!....objectivity!!! Look at it this way – if you assume (for a second at least) that there is one ‘true’ absolute score for any wine at a given point in time. Good wine tasters, who know what they are doing, who are able to put personal preferences aside (and yes, I believe this is possible – professionals in all walks of life do it all the time), should be able to consistently get close to that score. This is called – objectivity. That is what I am striving for. If I get it wrong then I have made a mistake. If I am being subjective in my scoring then I am no worse off than most other scorers.

Suggestions by GW and Cam suggesting that a numerical system is a more widely accepted standard appears to be true, but is that the reason I should use a numerical scoring system? I don’t think so.

I have decided to go with a numerical system for two main reasons (1) differentiation and (2) clarity. For me at least, there is a desire to differentiate between two wines that might rate a ‘Highly Recommended’ in a non-numerical system. One may have scraped in and the other may have just missed out on the next level up. (Maybe this is because I am an accountant?!)

Secondly, and this is the clincher for me AND the reason numerical systems are so widely accepted and used, I firmly believe that the use of a numerical system is more intuitive. When faced with 2 wines, one rating 85 and one 89, which is the better wine? Intuitively, the one scored as 89. Now, in deference to Torb, this may not be true because of errors and subjectivity problems, but in most cases it should be true and the difference should be noticeable. In a non-numerical system these two wines could potentially be scored the same, by being placed in the same category.

Even if someone else disagrees with either the scores and/or the positioning of the wines relative to each other, it really doesn’t matter. This is because when I see a score by Halliday, Parker, Robinson etc or even Ed or GW, I know that it is their score – I don’t have to agree. However, I believe that if a person is honestly and consistently attempting to objective, then their scoring will reflect it and be of value.


I note in some places Robert Parker is being criticized as being captured by the same system he railed against when he started out. He criticized establish wine critics and their associations with wine makers and accused them of lacking objectivity especially when it came to newer, less established wines. Parker championed some of the ‘new comers’ and is now being criticized for lacking objectivity in relation to other wines because he allegedly has become too close to some wine makers he championed. Are his scores still of value? Yes! But remember they are his scores. You or I may not agree (but even I would take his score over mine). Then why are his ratings so popular? Because he knows what he is doing and has proven himself to be a good judge and attempts to be objective and is consistently accurate.

I have decided, at least for the foreseeable future, to score numerically using two systems until I can find which one I find the best. I am going to give an overall score out of 100 based on my tasting notes and then once this score has been done go back and try to score each of the components using the score sheet from Torb's site to end up with a score out of 20. I may even score on a small range out of 100 – eg. 85-87/100. This is not a ‘doff of the hat’ to the non-numerical systems but is purely a confidence thing on my part and I hope it will disappear over time.


The best thing about being an amateur is that I can be wrong. I don’t mind being wrong and making mistakes, however I do hate not learning from them. I am sure I will make plenty of mistakes scoring and talking about wine – that’s a given. However I will always be trying my best to get things right and be as objective as possible.

Now, GW – where’s that friggin’ light sabre????? May the force be with you!!


wine
wine tasting
food and drink
food

Brown Brothers Tempranillo 2003

Brown Brothers Tempranillo 2003 (Victoria)

The better-half (oh, how I pine for the days when I could refer to her as the 'leader of the opposition' and get away with it - those days ended when one of you blabbed and told my darling wife about my blog) prepared a sensational roast chicken meal this evening. (I will get back to giving recipes and showing photos in the near future).

I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to road-test the Brown Brothers Tempranillo 2003. Again, this is a variety of which I know little and have tasted less than that. The bottle says to drink within 3-5 years of the vintage date and that it was good with roast chicken, so it got the call up. This was one of the wines from the Wine Society which I promised to review.

I found the Tempranillo to be surprising. My first impressions were of a slightly darker than ruby red wine that was simple and not very aromatic and with no complexity. However, after about 30 minutes the wine opened slightly to one that was somewhat aromatic and smelled of berries and maybe a hint of black pepper, which would indicate a touch of richness. It was not a particularly complex wine but not as simple as I originally thought. It was well balanced and had soft tannins.

At the risk of inflaming the debate that still continues in my post of 7 July (about wine scoring systems - some are debating the masses and you could say they were good mass debators - an old pun but still a goodie), I tried to evaluate this wine in two ways. Firstly I tried to provide an overall 100 point score without assessing the various components of the wine and I came up with

80-85/100

which on the Robert Parker scale is somewhere between barely above average (80) to half-way between above average and very good (85).

I then used the Wine Values Card (at item 4) in the article by Brian Jefferies on Torb's site to score all the individual attributes and came up with:

Appearance (2 + 1) = 3

Nose (2 + 3) = 5

Palate (1.5 + 2 + 3 + 1.5) = 8

TOTAL 16/20

which on the Jancis Robinson scale is 'just above average but distinguished'

These two scores - one by my general impressions of the wine after taking into account aromas, taste, balance, appearance, length etc - and the other by scoring the individual characteristics have landed me in almost the same position. Mind you, one swallow (geddit?) does not make a summer, and this could have been pure luck - especially when you consider that I am not an expert on wine, I have no real experience with Tempranillo etc - however I don't think so.

Most importantly - did I like the wine? - Yes I did (I wouldn't kick it out of bed ...)! Would I buy it again? - purely depends on the price.

(Many thanks to Catherine Hill from Brown Brothers for the photo and the kind permisson to use it)



wine
wine tasting
food and drink
tempranillo

Introduction to Wine Tasting

I was trolling through wine sites and links the other day and came across a very good introductory article on wine tasting. It is the sort of article I wish I had read some years ago. It demystifies some of the process for the amateur and is a good start to wine tasting.

(If for some reason the page doesn't load, try here - I found it on web archive the other day when the server was down - web archive is a great tool that I have only discovered recently).

Additionally, at the end of the article there are more interesting links to follow - one is to their more advanced article on wine tasting.

Another article with great information in it was found at the Winepros (US) site. The information is quite technical but good, however where the first article demystifies the process of wine tasting and simplifies it - this article tends to make it a much more difficult affair. There are some interesting links as well - at the end.

wine
wine tasting
food and drink
life

Orlando 'Gramps' Grenache 2004 (Barossa)

Another one of the Wine society wines received a few weeks ago. I can't recall ever having a straight Grenache before so the 'Gramps' will prove a challenge to taste and score.

Medium to dark red in colour and a stong nose of spicy plum and a touch of alcohol. There were plums on the palate and the tannins were subtle. There was also a hint of too much alcohol which overshadows the fruit a little. I checked the bottle - 14.5%.

Would I buy this again? Probably not! Not an unpleasant wine but I want more!! (see what happens when there is an oversupply of wine and you can pick up really good wine at low prices). Maybe I am hindered by a lack of knowledge of Grenache?

My Rating - 20 point scale = 14.5 - 15. On a 100 point scale = 78-80

(Settle down!!! Until I have heard all of your stunningly well-reasoned theories on scoring, as comments to my last post, and I have given everyone a chance to respond - by 14 July - I will continue to score out of 20 and 100)


wine
grenache
wine tasting
food and drink

Why a wine scoring system? - and which one??

Over the last few months I have come to realise that I really need to start providing some objective measure of the wines I am tasting. If for no other reason than to provide myself with a means of comparing wines with each other (ie horizontally) and over time (ie vertically).

This is quite a pain in the a*se!! Prior to this I was happy just to drink every wine placed in front of me, liking some and not others. It was simple! I just never bought the wines I didn't like again.

Two things have happened to wreck that simplicity. I have realised that I like an almost limitless number of wines but unfortunately do not have a limitless supply of money with which to buy them, or time with which to consume them. I want to maximise the remaining 40 or so years I have left (not long enough) and drink as well as I can with the budget I have.

Secondly, I have realised that some wines that I didn't like when I drank a 1999 vintage, and never bought again, can be absolutely different in the 2004 vintage (This makes sense as wine-makers are always looking to improve and some seasons are better than others). So I now cannot just write off a wine based on one vintage that I didn't like - darn! Therefore, I need to know (objectively) how one vintage rates against another.

I have discovered there are a number of rating systems and an equal number of views as to which one is the best. There are 5 star, 5 point, 10 point, 20 point and 100 point systems, 1 -3 glasses, A - D rating, and in the case of Wine Girl - happy faces.

Murray from Winetastic uses a 10 point scale, Cam from Appellation Australia and Gary from Winorama use a 100 point scale. Ed from Wino-Sapien used to use a 10 point scale until he was bullied into also adding a 100 point score, by Cam and Gary.

Which is best - how would I know? I am not a mathematician (like Jancis Robinson - with her 20 point system) or a wine expert (like Robert Parker - with his 100 point system) but I have the same problem with some of these systems that I have with the marketing hype of some wines. There are not as advertised!

If you look at Steve de Long's site, as originally directed by Dr Ed, you will see a brief summary of various scoring methods.

The first thing you notice is that the Real World US 100 point scale is really a 40 point scale, as is Robert Parker's. They really only score from 60 - 100 and the rest aren't worth scoring at all. The Real World French and UC Davis 20 point scale is really a 10 point scale in disguise, and Jancis Robinson's 20- point scale really only scores out of 6 (from 14 - 20). I say this because once you slip under 14 - forget it!! - you may as well have scored a zero. Therefore 14 = 0. This is called Wine Amateur new math.

What will I use as a scale?I still haven't decided but I am willing to take advice from the more expert among you. Please postulate your theories and arguments (they don't even need to be logical) and post them as a comment by 14 July and I will aggregate them and respond. Who knows what we will come up with.

It is like a blog carnival on wine scoring! It is over to you.




wine
life
diary
food and drink

Chapel Hill Shiraz 2002 (McLaren Vale)

Chapel Hill Shiraz 2002 (McLaren Vale)

13.5% alcohol

We drank this with a hearty beef and mushroom stroganoff. The wine maker's tasting notes are here. They suggest blueberry, licorice and white chocolate flavours whilst the label suggests spiced red berries and plum flavours with velvety tannins. Is this a contradiction or are they suggesting it is an extremely complex wine? How much is marketing and how much is truth? Gee, it gets confusing when you are just an amateur like me!

I certainly found the wine a dark red with luscious ripe berries and a touch of pepper or spice. I found no licorice, plum or white chocolate - but that may just be me. The tannins were genuinely gentle, but velvety?? There is a lovely balance, and some good intensity and length, to the wine but I think the wine maker's notes suggest a complexity that isn't there. This is not to say there is no complexity whatsoever. I really enjoyed the wine and would be happy to buy it again.

Here we go fellas - and now for the big one - GW, Ed, Murray, Cam, TWC - are you ready???? My first attempt at scoring a wine!!! (thanks Ed for the tips on scoring in your recent post)

I believe, on the Jancis Robinson scale: 16.5 - 17 points (I have to give a range - it's a confidence thing). It is more than average but distinguished, and somewhere between superior and a cut above superior. I guess this translates to around 85-88 Parker points. If 80 is barely above average and 90 is a very good wine, then this wine is somewhere in the middle to upper end.

Phew!! That was hard! (my apologies to Robert Parker and Jancis Robinson). I hope I haven't offended too many real wine critics and wine professionals with my notes. I also hope I haven't offended the hard working people at Chapel Hill. If I have, they need to remember that I am just an amateur with a very small audience and no sway whatsoever on the drinking public. My wife just thinks I am a raving lunatic - she pays no attention, so why should you?

I do want to raise one issue for comment though. Whilst I am not bagging the wine I tasted (because I really enjoyed it), I do question some of the marketing hype. Not just for Chapel Hill but for almost every wine. I am not against marketing 'puffery' because I understand wine makers have to compete and try to differentiate themselves, so as to stand out in a market that is being flooded by thousands of competitors. That said, I do believe marketing loses its effectiveness when the average punter cannot equate the product to the hype.

This wine is good enough to speak for itself, but I guess the real battle is getting the punter to try it. But having made that sale, if the product doesn't deliver all that's promised a consumer may feel a little let down. I do not have an answer, just a question - where is the balance?? I am glad I am not a wine maker and just here appreciating their talents and the fruits (pun intended) of their labour.


(Many thanks to Penelope Elliott from Chapel Hill for the photo and the kind permission to use it)


wine
food
food & drink
life
diary

Normans 'Old Vine' Cabernet Sauvignon 2002

Saw a recipe on Lifestyle Food Channel - you know one of those 'simply delicious' ones they use as fillers between programs, and are covered in two minutes - for a baked tomato and chorizo pasta. My mouth watered while watching so I thought I would try it!

It is certainly quick, easy and yummy!

Take half a dozen Roma tomatos and halve them lengthwise and place in oven baking dish. Garnish with crushed or diced garlic, salt, pepper, thyme and then drizzle olive oil. Place in 200C oven for 30 minutes.

Dice 150g of chorizo sausage and fry (shouldn't need to add much oil) until crispy whilst at the same time cooking pasta. When sausage done, drain pasta and pour into frypan and toss. Tip in cooked tomatoes and garnish with parmesan cheese and thyme (I forgot the thyme - until I looked at the photos and realised something was missing).

MOST IMPORTANT!! - Drink with good red wine!!

Normans 'Old Vine' Cabernet Sauvignon 2002
Dark red with plum, ripe berries and hint of chocolate. Good firm tannins and moderate to good length. A good wine that will last a few more years yet.




wine
food
food & drink
life
diary