Stephen Brook: Very deep red. Closed nose. Rich but stern, very concentrated, almost austere, with a pronounced minerality; a touch of iron on the palate. This has depth and character but still seems very youthful. There’s none of the sweetness and accessibility that give a slight vulgarity to some of the other wines. It’s less overtly fruity, less friendly, but has distinction and should develop, in time, into an elegant and harmonious wine. Coonawarra? 17.5

Andrew Jefford: Dark black-red. Strange ashy scents. You’d guess this has been bushfire-affected, but I’m not aware of any problems of this sort in these areas. Herbaceous underneath; the ensemble rather unattractive, unclassical, unalluring. Something a touch fecal there, too, though this is the merest hint, and in a wine with more satisfactory primary aromas it might even add some complexity. After a while in the glass, the ashiness clears (a reductive issue?), but the herbaceousness, of course, remains. More tannic than some; customarily acidic. Some edgy blackcurrant crouching underneath the acidity. Lacks flesh, richness, depth, and sensual allure. A crunchy, bracing kind of Cab. That fecal back-note is still apparent on the palate. My score reflects my uncertainty about its long-term future. Margaret River. 11.5

Anthony Rose: Mid-ruby in color, this is relatively evolved; distinctly minty on the nose, perhaps a little on the green side, even, while the palate, which also shows underlying green notes of mint and capsicum, has an attractively sweet quality of concentrated blackcurrant fruit and chocolate to it. It is firm in its tannins and acidity, leaving you with a slight mouth-puckering sensation of excess acidity, but it should balance out perfectly well with food. Feels like Coonawarra. 16.5