6/6/2019 - arguseyes6 wrote:

This has past its peak. I would recommend patience in the glass or at least 30 minutes in a decanter. Please drink up now. Muted fruit/ strawberry and cherry eucalyptus finish. Was better a year ago.

4/16/2020 - deBare wrote:

I'm ambivalent about this wine. Admittedly I bought it mistakenly thinking it was 2020 Wine Spectator's #7 wine so I was probably expecting much more - shame on me. However, this is a sibling.
It's gold-coloured with a nose of flint, stoniness and mineral. The body is light. The wine has satin-like texture. The wine finishes long. However as a previous reviewer noted, there is a slight bitterness to the finish.
I'm not likely buying this wine again - especially at the price point here in Canada.

12/13/2016 - bjamesclark wrote:

A lengthy decant shows moderate to moderate-plus aromas that are starting to show the evolution and age of this wine. Aromas show a mix of sarsaparilla, old wood, game meats, crushed dried violets and lavender, tar, earth, camphor, menthol, leather and walnut scents that lead into plum, wild blackberry, dried cherry and vanilla with touches of fennel pollen. Noticeably less fruit than previous notes.
The palate remains lively with medium-plus acid. Flavors in this have evolved as well, losing the jammy fruit quality noted in the past. Flavors of grilled game meats, herbs and tobacco, crushed walnut, dried violets and lavender, camphor, fennel pollen, menthol and fruit flavors which show dried cherry, wild blackberry and black plum skin. The finish lingers highlighting the acidity and savory notes.

Overall trending downward and showing more maturity than expected.
Past its peak, but still a great wine drinking well in its price point.

8/31/2013 - deBare Likes this wine:

I have to wonder (and it's entirely Schild Estate's fault!!!) if the extremely negative reviews below are in fact tastings of the infamous 'Second Blend' which was horrible - even undrinkable. Given the sheer number of tasting notes for this particular vintage, mixed with one of the stupidest marketing decisions by a winery since fermentation was discovered in the Neolithic period, I believe the two 'co-vintages' are often being reviewed as representing 2008 as if it were a singular vintage. In my humble opinion, this creates unfortunate confusion because the original and its inferior cousin are very very different (let me stress again this entirely Schild Estate's fault!).

It's certainly not up to the CT members to figure out which of the two releases they are drinking, especially when the labels are identical and you need to look at the etchings on the bottom of the bottle (it's ridiculous - see: www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/44637).

That said, I cellared five cases of the original 2008 Schild Estate Shiraz when it first came out and it remains among mine and my family's favourite wines. I still have about half of those bottles left. The wine is aging well and continues to deserve the high praise it received by WS as their #7 wine in 2010.

On the other hand, I bought two cases of the 2008 'Second Blend' when it came to Canada under this moniker (because WS said it was almost identical to the original), and several cases of 2010 Schild Estate Shiraz (which reached #33 on the 2012 WS list). Both vintages were absolutely horrible, and fortunately the BCLS has a great return policy because everything went back to the liquor store.

The whole experience has made me sad/mad about Schild Estates' attempt to deceive the public (and drop their winemaking standards) ... but even more confused about the tastings/rankings offered by WS which seem wildly inconsistent. I realize it's ultimately up to our individual tastes to determine what we like and don't like - using others' reviews and experiences as mere guidelines to our own buying/drinking decisions. I'm just not sure anyone reading the 522 CT tastings notes on the 2008 Schild Estate Shiraz will appreciate that if they do happen upon an original bottle, they should snap it up. I think they will discover what made this wine among the top 10 in the world for its year. As for the other Schild Estate Shiraz vintages, definitely drink at your peril. Cheers.

11/2/2009 - Polarper wrote:

Rated 5 stars in Platter's 2009 edition. Finely blends 8 separately vinified varieties, some oaked. Sauvignon Blanc (40%: Chardonnay 20%: Viognier 15%) dominates with subtle tinned pea notes, but seamless, harmonious. Silkily elegant, with rare sense of completeness. Should mature good few years.

6/9/2012 - Hamilton1 wrote:

Tried this after having the Blue Eyed Boy, which I thought was outstanding. This was disappointing in comparison, even in consideration of the considerably lower price. Not significantly better than Penfolds or Shotfire offerings that are in the $12 to $15 range.

5/18/2013 - wineshaman wrote:

Massive yes, jammy yes, sweet yes, fruit bomb yes, typical MD yes, Bordeaux no, Rhine no, elegant no. I am continually amazed at the critics of MD wines, like what are you expecting, what is even more amazing is how many and how much$$$ they spend to trash Aussie wines in general. When I open a bottle of MD I know what I am going to get, same as if I open a Bordeaux or Rhone etc. it is what it is and it is what it should be!

8/27/2012 - imissjerry wrote:

This is one of those wines that when you frink you wish you had waited another 10 years! I happen to know that was the 1st lot of this celebrated wine, (#8 WS TOP 100) and was not part of the purchased fruit mele' that plagued Schild! This wine was gorgeous Shiraz with a deep rich nose of cocoa powder, violets and a hint of coffee. The palate was deep dark bluberry, plum and chocolate present. It's inky dark color was gorgeous and had fantastic structure. The wince finished with lots of style and grace with a wonderful coating mouthfeel!

6/3/2012 - bjamesclark wrote:

Dark purple color with opaque core. medium viscosity.
(Decanted) Nutty aromas and tabacco frame plum, dark cherry wood and a hint of sassafras extract.
The Palate is full throttle delivering more than the nose alludes; Firm, well integrated tannins, bright acidity, and velvety texture; Structured. Concentrated flavors of blackberry, cherry and plum flirt with spice, wood, chocolate, vanilla and blue fruit. The finish is long with drying tannins. pleasant

7/27/2011 - Joegish Likes this wine:

Despite all the recent negative (and I might add well-deserved) press Schild has received, this is still a delicious wine.

3/9/2013 - Philly NQ King wrote:

More than a year since my last bottle and what a difference. All my bottles are from the original batch, but have still experienced plenty of bottle variation. This bottle - fantastic. Balance, spice, depth and complexity. My other bottles were NOT like this...too bad this was my last.

2/17/2013 - swade wrote:

I usually don't repost on the same wine. It has been a year. The flavor profile hasn't changed, but the mouth feel is unctuous. Simply amazing. I'm blown away. This is not spoofilated at all. Rich, but not heavy. No weariness in drinking it. Layers of flavor. My palate profiles European and my CT score average is 87. 94-95.

3/17/2013 - Arch57 Likes this wine:

Wow this wine has peaked into a glorious Aussie Shiraz that finally delivered on the WS ratings. We popped this after an 05 Clarendon Hills Piggott that was not nearly as expressive as this bottle.
I reviewed my notes on this wine over the years and this last bottle was by far the best. Explosive fruit on the nose with a mouth coating palate like a bowl of bing cherries. This is in a great place and I envy the 61% who still have some stashed away because at this price it was a real steal.

10/29/2011 - Fragrant Farmer wrote:

I think this wine. after two bottles over the last six month, is hideous. All I could taste was the "seamlessly integrated vanilla oak spice". So overpowering oak and 14.5% alcohol. Australian chardonnay 1995? Maybe if I had left it a day or two open or a year or two in the bottle it might have been OK. Take away the oak and maybe there was something nice underneath but who knows.

3/24/2013 - belfast taxman wrote:

In this varietal dominated world here was a wine with real difference - the Semillon and Sauvignon just had an edge of dominance and provided lovely depth complexity and a good long finish = drank beautifully with Chinese food

6/27/2013 - deBare Likes this wine:

Very young still bit of bottle shock after just two days. Needs some time!

12/17/2012 - WannabeRenaissanceMan Does not like this wine:

Not sure if I had a bad bottle or not, but it initially both smelled and tasted like a barnyard. We aerated it and decanted it, and that improved the nose substantially. But it still didn't taste very good.

I will not purchase it again.