A challenge for me when reviewing wines, Italian grapes or otherwise, is to look for what is right and good in the bottle, ahead of going searching for faults and flaws. A positive screen rather than a negative one. But there are some wines where you 'get' the good bits quickly and then find yourself wondering why there is not more good to find and talk about. Especially for wines well regarded by other tasters, where what you find in bottle, glass and mouth does not seem to reconcile with that regard.
This 2010 release of a Barossa lagrein is part of Seppeltsfield's plan to add table wines to their fortified offering. My first impression was the note below:
Had a look at this tonight (blind first) and will revisit tomorrow.
Thought it looked a bit spliced-together: smells & front palate of
something ripe and rich (great colour), but the mid & back palate
look like another wine entirely, with the primary fruit dropping off and
acid taking over. Comes across as washed-out/dilute through the finish,
which ends up being appealing in a refreshment-factor kind of way, but
no sign of the fruit the wine started out with. Perplexing.
Over-cropped? Young vines? Late-irrigated? Want to know more.
Apparently 10% cabernet sauvignon in this too. 2012 Barossa show
trophy for best other red and 93 points from James Suckling too. Maybe
I’ll see something else on a second day.
And should have a $20 rrp, not $39 ($31.50 at cellar door), nice label and all.
Tasted again the next day, there was a bit of an improvement, but no more than polish on the edges. Maybe I just do not 'get' this wine in some way (the back label refers to Lagrein as the 'Shiraz of Italy', Alps and all), but I'm happy in the skin of my opinion that this is just not that good.
13% alcohol, screwcap, gift.