A relatively inexpensive and highly-touted wine that piqued my interest after reading the favorable press. The nose, upon opening, is a pleasing blend of cherry, dark chocolate, and oak. After about 30 min in the glass (my feeble attempt at "decanting" while tending to bratwurst simmering in beer), the nose was still pretty much the same, with some of the initial heat having blown off.

On the palate, my immediation reaction, was "Oh hell, another over-oaked brew." In fact, this fruit is not bad, but the oak is so prominent that it's like chewing on a shiraz-flavored pencil. There are several California producers who over-oak their reds, believing, apparently, that this either adds desirable "complexity" or that it covers up various and sundry sins.

Who knows what the story is here...the prominent oak is so off-putting (even after a few hours) that I have recorked this and will use it in a stew (for that's what the wine really is). 90+ pts from WS is a joke. 84 at best....

I had a '98 two nights ago and it was excellent. It was my last bottle and luckily it was at its best. Polished and refined, with almost all of its Aussie fat gone, the wine was not overly complex, but still very fruit driven and with very pleasant layers of spiciness and tobacco. I opened it to see how Shiraz would pair with Elk in Port sauce and it was indeed a good match.
If I were to attempt and rate the wine, considering the price, I'd give it a ***1/2 or even ****.

Good to hear that the '98 is giving you great pleasure. So, would you think the character of the 01 might become more integrated with time? And did you try the '98 closer to the release year? If so, how did it evolve?