Subscribe
I picked up a bottle of the Bleasdale Shiraz Cabernet 2003 the other day because it has been getting a fair bit of good press and it also happened to be on special for $10 per bottle.
Aromas of ripe plums, red fruits and a hit of leather, this blend of 51% Shiraz and 49% Cabernet Sauvignon tastes a bit dirty, with dark fruits, bitter herbs and a little tannin and spice. A couple of hours later the fruit character was more foreward, however the wine still failed to excite.
I must admit that although it is a decent wine for the money, I fail to see what the fuss is all about. For a similar price you could pick up a far better bottle, such as a Mount Pleasant Philip Shiraz 2002.
Score: 82/100
Price: $12
Closure: Screwcap
Alcohol: 14%
Other Opinions: Bleasdale
Would I buy this wine again?
No
You must have had an off night.
This is a very good blended wine. At least 90/100 and probably closer to 94/100
My 2c
Comment by John — September 28, 2006 @ 9:45 am
Now this wine has made it onto James Halliday’s top 100 wines of 2006
Fantastic value, lovely taste.
Comment by John — November 13, 2006 @ 8:34 am
Try another bottle. I think Halliday got it right as a very good wine. 89pts from me.
Comment by daz — December 10, 2006 @ 11:55 am
There’s not accounting for taste. You need to account for your apparent inability to discern the difference between personal preference and quality product.
This is an excellent wine for the price. I can’t wait to screw one open in 2 or 3 years.
Comment by ItsMeMo — March 12, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Thanks for the comments MeMo, we have never and probably never will claim that our reviews do not contain personal bias.
I personally feel that many of the professional reviewers who claim to be objective about their own preferences are to a certain extent, full of it. At some level it must affect your opinions, thus Winetastic runs straight down the line, containing our opinions only.
Please feel free to post why you feel it is an excellent wine for the price, you could even go out on a limb and not post anonymously!
Comment by Murray — March 12, 2007 @ 9:23 pm