Are my 98s starting to turn?

[gbrawley]

Hello in the past two days I have had a 98 St Hallet Blackwell and 98 Lindemans St Geo cab. Both wines seem to have peaked and the nose especially is smelling like a over the hill wine. The St Geo tasted ok but color and nose seem to indicate I should drink my 98s soon. So not to cast a shadow on the whole vintage but wondering if others have noticed a difference in the 98s lately?
thanks for your input. Gerald Brawley

[Partagas]

I just had the Penfolds 407 and 389 "98" vintages on the weekend. 407 is drinking well but I don't think it will improve any further. 389 is very impressive and still has more time to sit patiently in the cellar.

[JamieBahrain]

98 Turkey Flat shiraz seemed overdone recently. The 99 the better wine by far. Could have been an errant bottle.

[Gavin Trott]

98 Turkey Flat shiraz seemed overdone recently. The 99 the better wine by far. Could have been an errant bottle.

Hmm

personal opinion I know, but 99 in general, in the Barossa, is a better vintage, better structure, better up side than 1998 IMO.

98 overhyped, I didn't cellar personally many 1998's.

just my 2c worth

[Gary W]

2002 Barossa Shiraz will be the same. Another 98. Overhyped.
GW

[roughred]

I think 98 in general was overhyped, load me up with 92's and 96's anyday. Balance and structure are far better pointers to longevity than richness and ripeness - occasionaly you are lucky enough to find a wine that ticks all of those boxes. Similarly longevity is not the only pointer to quality - if a wine is a knockout at four years well so be it, drink up and be glad you didn't have to wait so long

Also consider that those 98's are now eight years old - and speaking very generally I am not sure that many warm climate 98's were destined to live far beyond 8-10 years.

The St George is an odd one - not having tried it I can't comment, but they generally dont shut up shop that early. A 98 407 a couple of weeks back was looking very slick, and I thought had some time ahead of it.

Interesting topic and worthy of more debate.

LL

[Craig(NZ)]

Exactly what I have been saying for years, (and have been abused for suggesting it by nameless fools of the "guest" variety) - Aussie 96, IMO, is definately, on average, a superior long term cellaring vintage than 98.

So the above comments dont surprise me, matches my experience

[n4sir]

Exactly what I have been saying for years, (and have been abused for suggesting it by nameless fools of the "guest" variety) - Aussie 96, IMO, is definately, on average, a superior long term cellaring vintage than 98.

Sounds like a good theme for a future Blacktongues or offline - 1996 vs 1998 of the same wines.

Let the vintage battle begin...

Cheers,
Ian

[gbrawley]

I agree with you Gavin on the 99s being better than 98s today as a rule.
I started collecting Australian wines with the 98 vintage so I bought lots because of the hype. I just wish I had purchased more 99s.

Did not buy many 2000s but bought 2001s and they seem mostly to be drinking very nice now.

The 2002s I have collected mostly just need so much decanting that I have decided to wait another year on most.

Anyhow I appreciate this forum and tasting notes on wines I have and others I end up buying.

Thanks again Jerry

[Irregular]

Can’t comment on the quality of the 99’s, as I’ve had so few to date, but disagree on the 98’s. Over the past few of weeks I’ve had a Chapel Hill Shiraz, Richard Hamilton Centurion Shiraz, Ingoldby Cabernet, Kidman Cabernet, Richmond Grove Shiraz, Mamre Brook Cab and Shiraz and a Chalambar and they have all been great wines. None show any sign of being over the hill and in most cases have only just reached their drinking window and will age beautifully over another 5 plus years.

cheers
Ian

[JamieBahrain]

Had the 98 Mt Ed vesus the 96 Mt Ed over the last few days. The 98 Mt Ed is going OK considering the brett problem, however, the 96 is the pick and coming into it's maturation window. The 98 doesn't seem to be going anywhere special.

[Red Bigot]

I've finished some of the 98's I bought, the early-drinkers, but still have quite a lot of 98 reds left. I'm not too worried about that though, I've missed the drinking window on very few. Here are those I've tried over the past 6 months, many nearing peak maturity or on the plateau, some not ready yet (for my tastes anyway), only a few duds:
BVE Ebenezer Shiraz - mature, good
BVE E&E Shiraz - still improving
Blackjack Shiraz
Bleasdale Frank Potts Cab Blend - mature
Bowen Shiraz
Doonkuna Shiraz - getting there
Elderton Shiraz
Glaetzer Bishop Shiraz
Hamiltons Gumprs Shiraz (tired)
Lake Breeze Winemakers Selection Shiraz
Leasingham Bin 61 - mature but will hold
Metala Original Plantings Shiraz
Normans Peacock Cabernet blend
Orlando Jacaranda Ridge Cabernet
Peter Lehmann 8 Songs Shiraz
Pikes Clare Shiraz, fading, bretty
Pirramimma Reserve Shiraz
Rosemount Balmoral
Saltram Mamre Brook Cabernet
Seppelt Chalambar Shiraz
Tatachilla Clarendon Merlot (bottle variation, some tired, some good)
Wetherall Coonawarra cabernet
Yalumba Hand-Picked Shiraz-Viognier (tired, fading)

[platinum]

Brian; Where did you think the Lake Breeze is at and also the Jacaranda?

[Craig(NZ)]

The 98 Jacaranda I dont think is in too much trouble. Last time I had a bottle about a year ago it was trucking along fine, although not the most structured and complex of wines - Nice dark sweet blackcurrant fruit, good texture. For the $$ I think it isnt a bad effort and better IMO than the 98 Orlando Lawsons or 98 Centenary Hill. I bought a few

But to finish off on the theme, I prefer the 96 of all these 3 wines - all tend to be more substantial, more serious with more defined palates.

[Red Bigot]

Brian; Where did you think the Lake Breeze is at and also the Jacaranda?

The LB Winemakers Reserve Shiraz 98 is getting close to the peak for my tastes, I'll be drinking my remainder over the next couple of years. The Jacaranda has quite a few years ahead of it yet.

Also had a Grant Burge Filsell Shiraz 98 tonight, a very nice wine also nearing its peak for my taste, right on schedule, but will plateau for a few years.

[markg]

I think 98 in general was overhyped, load me up with 92's and 96's anyday.

LL

I certainly agree with you on the 1996 vintage. I have had some stunners from this year and they just seem to be getting better.

Also agree with the 1999 comment Gavin, certainly an underated vintage.

[Aussie John]

Can't agree with much of the above. All the 98's that I have tried are no-where near maturity, some going thru adolescence and not showing that well. These wines need at least the following time IMO-

Rosemount Balmoral- 10+ years
Leasingham Bin 61- 5+
Leasingham Classic Clare shiraz - 10+
Parker First Growth - 15+
Wendouree shiraz - 20+
Wynns Black Label - 15+
Wynns Riddoch - 15+
Wynns Michael - 5+
Bin 707 - 15+
Grange - 25+
St Henri - 10+
Bin 389 - 10+
Turkey Flat Shiraz - 7+
Bleasdale Frank Potts - now-2015
Brand's Stentiford - 5+
Petaluma Cab - 10+
Greenock, Creek - 5+
Greenock, Seven Acres - 15+

All those seen in the last 3-6 months. IMO 98 is a great vintage, matched only by Barossa in 99, and the best will live for a long, long time.

[Craig(NZ)]

Fair enough - every vintage has keepers but on average comparitively?? How many of the above labels would do the same or better with the 96 editions?

[Gary W]

I have no question marks about 98 in Coonawarra. Great vintage (like 99 better there too though). I do on Barossa though.
GW

[JamieBahrain]

Turkey Flat Shiraz - 7+

AJ

I am not one to base judgement on a single bottle, however, I found the 98 TF shiraz seriously lacking in structure, with lots of upfront, ripe fruit and seemingly going nowhere. I have 11 left and was careful to note that I need to revisit the wine to make a sound opinion.

And incidently, I have had four bottles of Mt Ed 98. I seriously recommend to those who have it, not to decanter the wine and serve a little cooler than normal to camouflage the brett. Last bottle was very good.

[Red Bigot]

Fair enough - every vintage has keepers but on average comparitively?? How many of the above labels would do the same or better with the 96 editions?

Probably a lot of them, but the question of this thread, and quite a few others like it here and on other forums over the last year or so is whether or not 98 (reds) are "starting to turn" (downhill, for the worse etc).

As is the case in almost any vintage, if you want to cellar Australian wines for 10 years or more you have to be pretty selective in what you buy. As I said, I've drunk a lot of 98s already (4-8 yo at drinking) and will drink a lot more of them over the next year or so, but many of those 98's left in my cellar will easily make the 10 years and some more.

From a warm ripe year there are always going to be a lot of wines that peak a bit earlier, that's why you have to buy carefully and actively manage your cellar and monitor the wines you have a lot of to see how they are developing for your particular palate.

[Aussie John]

Jamie,
The Turkey Flat is, IMO, still basically primary- reminds me of a young classic clare shiraz in that it seems to lack structure and feels flabby. I would expect this wine to "firm up" quite a deal over the next 5 years or so, and drink well for a decade after that. To be fair, the 94 Turkey Flat is now in its peak, and comes across as a little one dimensional, so the marque itself may be a trifle over-hyped.

Gary,
1998 and 1996 Coonawarra are the best vintages I have seen for that area over the past 25 years. 1999 is good, but not comparable, in my humble opinion. My Coonawarra ratings would be:
1996
1998
1991
1990
1994
1999
1997
1993
1992
1995
With the exception of the 1993 Hollick Ravenswood which is a freak wine, and totally atypical of both the vintage and the other years of that wine.

[Craig(NZ)]

From a warm ripe year there are always going to be a lot of wines that peak a bit earlier, that's why you have to buy carefully and actively manage your cellar and monitor the wines you have a lot of to see how they are developing for your particular palate.

Brian, this is absolutely true and as you imply this is the real underlying issue behind this sort of thread. I am sick and tired of people (usually those on the other side of the retail counter) that seem to attach longevity as a single indicator of quality.

To me it is a case of drink them at their peak. When that peak is is really pretty irrelevant. The old axom; better to dream of the glories a wine could have obtained than imagine the heights from which it has fallen.

People keep wines way way to long at times. It is a very risky business - no great bottles only great wine.

All a "long term wine" does is enable (or force) someone to have a larger cellar to really make it work. Larger average required cellaring time + same amount of drinking per year = more bottles required (or possible). Suits those with deep pockets and large storage areas, impresses friends and neigbours. So longeivity affects the 'quality/quantity' of the cellar, not the wine per se??

For example: If all I liked was Sauvignon Blanc id probably get away with:
Avg Cellar time = 1 year
Bottles drunk a year 100
= need a cellar of only 100 bottles (or a supermarket near by and a few in the cupboard but anyway).

If all I drunk was talbilk and wendouree then maybe you need 6 or 7 years+ avg cellaring 7x100 = 700. But if I had 600 Sauvignon Blancs id soon be drinking canned peas.

So I totally agree, good point. There is no ideal cellar size, it depends on what you like and what you can afford to a great degree. But whatever that size is you have to manage it so you dont get piles of your wines 'turning'

[Martin Phillipson]

FWIW

I posted some notes on the 1999 and 2002 St Hallet Old Block Shiraz a while back.

I decided to try one of my 1998's at the Weekend, and while still a very nice drop, it wasn't a patch on the 1999. It simply didn't have the same structure and I was worried that there was a hint of portiness to it. I'll def be consuming my 1998's before I open another 1999. Probably in the next year or so as well.

MP

[Ian S]

Looking at the examples quoted, probably only the St Georges surprises me (I've got 2 bottles and neither are on my immediate horizon for opening). A number of these had been argued to be disappointments well before, not just on the fora, but also by leading wine critics. I don't agree that they're developing badly, when they haven't been highly regarded before.

Some also appear to have general performance issues, wider than a single vintage.

Also it's worth acknowledging that we'll all have different preferences for age in wine (which is where I think the cross vintage comparisons quoted are useful)

I'm sure it would be just as easy to pick out failures in 1999, and no doubt there were also failures and disappointments in 1996. Beware of presenting just the case for the prosecution (or the defence for that matter Ian!). There will also be individual good and bad bottles, which adds enough confusion to make sweeping calls dangerous.

Happy to see this one play out in the glass over the years, and I suspect there's a little (over?)reaction to the excessive hype of the vintage at the time.

p.s. I'm presuming that we're all referring to South Australia here.

regards

Ian

[Waiters Friend]

For me, and my limited cellar (approx 400 bottles these days, and includes whites), I find the occasional surprise (as I expect is one of the rewards of cellaring - the other being 'dead' wines!)

One of my recent pleasures was a 98 Tollana TR16 Shiraz. I was expecting it to be 'just OK' but it had a solid structure, fine but prominent tannins and fruit to match. Given what I paid for it at the time, by today's standards it would be a bargain.......

... except Vintage Cellars recently had the 'revamped' Tollana going for $12.50 a bottle. Although there's a big difference between the 2004 and 1998 (and I realise it's now a Southcorp label), I could understand if people get 'sucked in' by the promotion. It 's actually not a bad red for $12.50, but I doubt it has the longevity of its 1998 counterpart.

Any opinions on the revamped Tollana range? I used to enjoy their botrytis riesling, too.

[Crow]

Late last year I went to Qld for 'pleasure' and took three 98's - Old Block, Tintara and Clarendon Hills (I can't recall which vineyard!). All three were outstanding and not in danger of falling over anytime soon.

I had a Melton that was past it, but suspect bad bottle.

I think it is unreasonable to put a blanket over all 98's vs other vintages - a bit like saying get out of stocks, they are expensive - when some are and some aren't - be a stock picker not a market picker and you can do well.

I have even tasted a few good 1997's recently (shock horror!!) Stonewell being one.

Cheers, Adam.

[Crow]

Late last year I went to Qld for 'pleasure' and took three 98's - Old Block, Tintara and Clarendon Hills (I can't recall which vineyard!). All three were outstanding and not in danger of falling over anytime soon.

I had a Melton that was past it, but suspect bad bottle.

I think it is unreasonable to put a blanket over all 98's vs other vintages - a bit like saying get out of stocks, they are expensive - when some are and some aren't - be a stock picker not a market picker and you can do well.

I have even tasted a few good 1997's recently (shock horror!!) Stonewell being one.

Cheers, Adam.