Once more, and without resorting to ALL CAPS, illegal emoticons, or words perceived as being of a profane nature (although the concept might fall under that heading);
if I may reiterate again, candy-be-damned, these Oz wines may be "just okay" (albeit oft mono-dimensional) on release but rarely become compelling to drink until they've got 8-10 years of age on them.
Think of them as you would Chinon or above-average-IQ high school cheerleaders. In their formative years, they're easy game for pointy-headed intellectual naysayers who seem to make sport of judging something that may well be callow in its youth (wayward or otherwise) and then continue as vehement haterz, predisposed against them forevermore and for all time and rarely deigning to revisit them once they've evolved to a state more demonstrative of their heritage and environment.
I mean, it's easy here at Wine Disorder to to march in lockstep to the ideology of "if it's in Wine Spectator, the wine's already jumped the shark" and hew to the traditionalist, protectionist, jingoistic and fundamentalist POVs in our devotion to old world wines over new world wines. That's okay, but maybe it's just me, but it seems that slavishly adhering to any wine ideology fucks up stuff because signing on to support a particular POV puts us in a defensive position and invariably prevents one from rethinking (and possibly challenging) your previous stance. As David Mamet once put it, "things change" (I love Ricky Jay's work). Sometimes they get better and the wines grow more interesting, they compel and implore pleasure over time. Sure, sometimes they devolve into a murky, syrupy mess destined for the wine list at IHOP, or maybe they turn into a fruitless, acidic olive-pit of a wine, inspiring descriptors along the lines of
"this reminds me of what the atmosphere of Pluto would be like if it had an atmosphere" or
" quick, someone call the CDC to destroy this before we all die!" Personally, I don't believe that I'm ever going to love many (if any) of the 2003 Ch“teauneuf-du-Papes, but you never know so I haven't gotten rid of all of them yet. By the same token, I'm ever hopeful that my bottles of 2004 Bellivière
Le Rouge-Gorge are going to be drinkable for more than intellectual purposes, but I fear that I may be waiting longer for that blessed moment to occur than I will for my Barossa Mourvèdres (at least most of the 04 Bellivières I've opened have been corked, so I haven't had to have been an apologist for the wine itself and I'm given the opportunity to rant to my students against the use of cork as a closure)(we all need closure of some kind, don't we?)
Whether something is done in a style you like is another question. Jesus coming back to earth would be impressive to Christians (Jews too, in all likelihood) but while followers of Haitian Vodou might possibly enjoy the pentacostal fire-in-the-sky pageantry inherent in such an event, they would probably interpret it differently (and that's not even touching on how it would affect Raelists, Scientologists, Universe People, and Star Trekkers and them that are following "normal" religions in the Middle East, India, Canada, etc).
I'm not advocating that we all go out and buy scads of Harlan Estate or Spanish glop made by flying Aussie winemakers just to see how they'll develop. I'm merely suggesting that we not pro-forma condemn
all wines from a appellation (or even a producer) just because we had one untoward experience with them when they weren't ready for prime time and we didn't know that they even
could evolve into something more pleasurable. After all, just think what it would be like if we stuck to that approach after the first time we got laid?
-Eden (excuse me, but I'm late for my
Nuwabian Sunday School class)