a great combination of “oomph” and elegance. In this case, the blend is 65% Cabernet Sauvignon, 23% Merlot, and 12% Cabernet Franc. It’s not the fruity, oaky wine that I usually expect from Australia at this price. Peppery, on the nose, with notes of capers, ripe blackberries, and maybe leather and spice, it’s approachable and well balanced, clear and smooth on the palate with firm but fine tannins and good intensity and length. It’s good value at the price.Norman really liked the Rymill booth at the Expo. While I wasn’t so keen then, after many hours of tasting, I’ve got to agree with him now. Their 2004 Shiraz is also a winner.
The only small negative is that the MC2 has a bit of the unpleasant capers/capsicum/peppers quality that some people detect in some Cabernet Sauvignons. (Remember the high school science experiment in which PTC-infused paper rates from unremarkable to untasty to stupendously revolting, according to the taster’s genotype? I think it’s like that, except maybe it has to do with underripe grapes.) I can’t detect that flavour, so it didn’t affect my enjoyment.
Price: $19.99
Score: 88
Value: 4/5
Region: Coonawarra, Australia
Grape: Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Cabernet Franc
Tasted: Jan 2009
UPC: 9315128981089
Posts
I had this wine a couple of weekends ago and it was my favorite of the three reds I had that evening. I like cabs and this went down a treat. However, I’d probably score it a little lower than 4, perhaps even 3. Partly because of price (had it been $5 less I’d give it a 4) and partly because it just seemed too well balanced and smooth, if that makes sense. Admittedly I felt I had a pretty ‘dead’ palette the night I tried it, so I may get a bottle and do a proper tasting. Or I may just move on to something else.
ReplyDeleteIn any case I’ll try to repost once I’ve done a proper tasting!
I think I know what you mean: sometimes well balanced and smooth can seem characterless.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteExactly. I think sometimes i don't trust a wine like that because it seems too contrived. As a result i don't often give it credit for more subtle complexity or character which may exist. I'm sure there's a 'forest' and 'trees' analogy in there somewhere
ReplyDelete