A creamy and slightly bulbous offering that sees 30% new French and Hungarian oak, wild fermentation (100% malolactic) and significant battonage. You have to be in the mood or like the style. A plate of something creamy and rich wouldn’t go astray either.
Shortbread, peach, melon and figs on a fairly broad and slippery palate cut with citrus. Wanes on the finish somewhat with spicy gingerbread notes contributing the last impression. There’s certainly a ball of flavour surrounding some chalky acidity. Plenty of texture but the form is compromised and the line blurred. I think the malo is a bit over the top but some people will love it. 88
Region: Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand
Alcohol: 13.0%
Closure: Screwcap
Price: $25.99
Tasted: October 2013
You are right about some people. On the tasting table for the public, this is liquid heroin. An open bottle of this recently gave rise to more exhibits of mouth foaming crazy eyes than I’ve seen in a while, though it certainly didn’t surprise me.
I’m not championing this style, and my own preferences lean elsewhere on the scale shall we say, but it needs to be strongly asserted that this is absolutely bang on for what 90% of the sub $30 consumer (and about 75% of the over $30 consumer) hope for in a Chardonnay. If most industry insiders picked a rich and “buttery” Chard to show the public that was in their belief, a better or more in check version of the fuller style than this, the consumers en masse would take less than a millisecond to disagree.
They don’t want old fashioned, but they do want old school. They don’t want fat or flabby, but they do want a mouthful of toast, butter and cashews.
There’s absolutely no doubting your point Tony. For me it’s a significant conundrum…mostly when it comes to the score. Even with my preference for line and length Chardonnays I still share some of the attraction for this style of Chardonnay. And with certain food it does pair more effectively. Having said that I attempt to rely on my note as I simply can’t say a wine like this warrants anymore than a bronze medal. I feel a certain level of that problematic notion of quality is lacking. But it is less than $30 as you point out.
I guess that when I seek a style more in tune with this I head towards something like the 2011 Picardy I’m tasting right now or McHenry Hohnen’s Burnside Chardonnay. Rightly or wrongly I consider the detail, balance and form more admirable in such wines. But even if I could convince consumers who aren’t one bit interested in the (for example) Oakridge or Yabby Lake style of the merits of Picardy or McHenry Hohnen they would still be paying significantly more for the experience. At the end of the day I just hope that a score of less than 90 doesn’t put them off buying the wine. I really can’t stand that 90 point barrier. If this sounds like many consumers’ preferred style then I can only hope that they realise that 88 isn’t a poor mark and that the manner in which they judge a wine’s worth is quite probably different to mine.
Bah, let ‘em be put off by the score. Where I work, you may see some enthusiastic editorial copy for a wine, but fail to see a wine panel score displayed with it. This is an indicator it didn’t score highly.
Those are times when, in order to convey the delight the market will feel when trying the wine, I use rather explosive and effusive adjectives in any headline or first sentence of copy. That way both the write up is accurate, and so is the lack of a high score!