The Auswine Forum

Dark Red Purple. Intense liqueured black fruits and sweet vanilla oak on the nose. The palate opens with vanilla, and then some dense, thick, liqueured ripe black fruit and some alcoholic heat on the palate. Gripping tannins for the finish. This is heavily oaked. Others commented this is a surprisingly poor showing of this wine.

How does this stack up with other peoples impressions?

Cheers

Andrew

Tried it as CD today as a back release and it doesnt sound like the wine I tried at all. More later in the Tour Diary.

hello wizz, i had the 98 a couple of months ago and i tend to agree with your impression. my notes at the time: "ink purple. berry sweet fruit on nose. Full body sweet with gripping tannin. Blackcurrant, just a touch of mocha. Lots of spice as well. Again a difficult food match [mainly because of the oaky sweetness]"

i thought it was a fruit bomb with too much alcohol heat lacking balance but i gave it the benefit of doubt as it could have been a bad bottle (bought locally in HK)--- although there was no evidence of it being a "cooked"bottle--capsule spining, no stain on side of cork. Then i had the 99 version the week after and it was a totally different story. the 99 was impeccably well-balanced.

eddie
ps i am ready to be flamed

There is a brief unedited note. Aroma dominated by coffee oak, spice, clean fruit below with menthol. A solid wall of smooth drying tannins with pure persistent fruit to back it up. A squeaky clean wine thats well balanced thats intensely savoury with cherry, chocolate and coffee. Ample weight, firm consistency, solid but layered structure, well developed refined complexity. Some real class to this wine. Drink after 2006. A lovely wine, seriously good quality. Rated as Excellent.

All I can tell you is what I found in the glass. We all do agree there was oak and tannin. But then we have 3 divergent opinions form 3 bottles.

Ed thought it was a fruit bomb. Andrew thought it was heavily oak (which it is) but his comment infers that its out of balance and lacks fruits (I think). I thought it had good fruit and lots of oak but was well balanced. It could be bottle variation or the wine in a dumb phase, but who knows, its interesting as 3 people found some similar components but are diametrically opposed on others.

(Ed, do you want to be flamed cause its cold in your part of the world. )

Hi all, our bottle had heaps of fruit, but for me, too much of the wrong kind of oak.

Also worth noting that this was tasted blind in a lineup, Where a lot of the other wines were not oaked as much, and those that were didnt show such overt coconut and vanilla.

I'm starting to go off this type of sweet, heavy oak in a big way. I think I would personally have enjoyed this fruit matched with a different type of oak. (Wayne Dutschke showed us an 03 barrel sample in a different kind of American oak the other night that was much less coconut and vanilla)

Also, to show relativity, I scored the 98 Dutschke St Jakobi (see post below) at 94/100, I scored this wine at 90/100.

cheers

Andrew

I thought it was a great wine, and one of my favorites from that vintage. While I can't necessarily disagree with your notes, I thought the elements were well integrated and very rich.