Yalumba 2002 The Octavius Barossa Shiraz

[wine dummy]

I am attending a wine dinner next month and looking for a wine that will get some attention.The rules for the wine that is brought to the dinner are that it must have a 90+ rating and cannot be from California. This wine has a 96 point rating from the Wine Advocate. I have read that the maker has built a very good reputation for it's Shiraz. I have had some other very good Australian wines but know nothing about this one. The write up for it seems to fit my liking for wines but would like to know if any one has had this wine and how you would rate it. I can pick up a bottle for just under $100.00. Is it worth it? Will it get noticed by some fairly knowledgable wine drinkers?

[Innkeeper]

Even if I won the lottery I would not spend over $50 for a bottle of wine. If fact have only spent over $20 retail less than 10 times over the past fifty years.

Most importantly, a little research will reveal a carload of non-CA-CA wines rated over 90 that sell for less than $20. Finding a 90+ bargain will impress more than spending a load.

[brappy]

That being said, The wine in question is a great wine. You certainly won't disappoint anyone.

IK is correct when he states there are plenty of 90+ point wines under $20. Not sure how many 96 pointers there are under $20.

The Yalumba Signature shiraz is also a 90+ point wine and has been for several vintages. The price is half of the Octavious. Then there is the Shiraz/Viogner that for at least the last several vintages has been a 90+ point wine. The cost is somewhere near $20 give or take a few dollars.

Either way, what you spend on wine is your business.

Have fun at the tasting.......

mark

[winoweenie]

Have a problem answering posts such as this as I don't give a rats-patootie what one of the so-called espetz deign to annoit their expertise and numbers on a wine. I buy wine for my cellar based on what I find in the bottle and where it fits in the price point I'm looking for. I've bought lots of juice over the 50 price point and have rarely, if ever, been dissapointed. WW

[wine dummy]

OK WW, I think we may be on the same page.
I'm still rather new to the wine world and generaly look at the tasters write up to pick my wine not the rating or the price.
It's just that the ground rules for this tasting dinner stipulated a 90+ rating.
Even though I did my search for 90+ wines I still made my selection from the write up not the price. It all lies in your own taste buds. I've had some very good wines that have had no rating, both above and below the 50 mark. I can also remember two tastings where I was able to sample a wine with a rating of 99 and one that ranked the almighty 100 (of course both were fairly expensive). Both of them ended in the dump bucket because they were so sickening sweet I could not drink them, even though others were raving about them.
I guess I'll have to wait till next months dinner when my palate tells me if my purchase was worth it.
I do Thank every one who has added their opinions to my posting and welcome anyone else that may wish to add their comments.
OGM

[Innkeeper]

Hope you have a great event, and thanks for swallowing our divergent views.

[winoweenie]

IMHO I think you should change your handle. You done' talk like no Wine-Dumskie to me. If you look in the wickipedia under that heading, there's a picture of Buckmeister. WW(giggle,snort)