OK. Think of your favourite 6 South Australian wines. The wines you buy every year regardless of vintage or the ones that you buy 9 vintages out of 10.
Now, keeping those wines in mind, which is looking like the better vintage. 1998 or 2002?
1998 or 2002
-
Julio
Gary W wrote:1999
GW
Mr Walsh is a stirrer, a troublemaker and correct in this case. History, as the arbiter of these things, will show that 1999 shall eclipse both in time, thus rendering the argument insignificant.
However, put both in your cellar. And as much 99 as you can find.
Rockford BP
Turkey Flat shiraz
Wynns BL
Wynns JR
Nine popes
Charles Melton shiraz
If anyone wants to try 98/99/02 of these six as requested in the original post, let me know and serve the lot up blind. I'll have a sheckel on 99.
The real answer should be 98 as 02 suffered in the Coonawarra.
-
Mahmoud Ali
- Posts: 2954
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:00 pm
- Location: Edmonton, Canada
I can't say for sure. I usually don't buy verticals, opting instead to extend the range of my cellar by country, region, producer, variety. Often I will skip vintages, partly out of practicality, mostly out of economy. I can't afford to buy a pricy wine every year. Its sad but true.
History will be the judge alright, between the 1998 and 2002 vintage in South Australia, but it will be some time in the making. The highly extracted, high-alcohol, sweet styles may not look so good in a few years but the rest will require more time in the cellar. For my part I am not opening any of my 1998s. I am still waiting for some of my '94 and '96s to mature fully.
So a follow-up question might be: How many years after the vintage should one wait to determine if a particular vintage is, overall, superior to another vintage? Of course there are wines that require extended cellering (like Grange, John Riddoch and Tahbilk for example) and perhaps these wines would only serve to confirm the earlier assessment.
Cheers.......Mahmoud.
History will be the judge alright, between the 1998 and 2002 vintage in South Australia, but it will be some time in the making. The highly extracted, high-alcohol, sweet styles may not look so good in a few years but the rest will require more time in the cellar. For my part I am not opening any of my 1998s. I am still waiting for some of my '94 and '96s to mature fully.
So a follow-up question might be: How many years after the vintage should one wait to determine if a particular vintage is, overall, superior to another vintage? Of course there are wines that require extended cellering (like Grange, John Riddoch and Tahbilk for example) and perhaps these wines would only serve to confirm the earlier assessment.
Cheers.......Mahmoud.
-
Mike Hawkins
- Posts: 2734
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 9:39 am
BA wrote:Gary W wrote:1999
GW
Mr Walsh is a stirrer, a troublemaker and correct in this case. History, as the arbiter of these things, will show that 1999 shall eclipse both in time, thus rendering the argument insignificant.
However, put both in your cellar. And as much 99 as you can find.
Rockford BP
Turkey Flat shiraz
Wynns BL
Wynns JR
Nine popes
Charles Melton shiraz
If anyone wants to try 98/99/02 of these six as requested in the original post, let me know and serve the lot up blind. I'll have a sheckel on 99.
The real answer should be 98 as 02 suffered in the Coonawarra.
99 St Henri and 99 Grange too...and a host of Coonawarras.
I voted for 1998 overall as it was a better vintage in Coonawarra and McLaren..and I don't much like 2002 for shiraz at all in the Barossa.
GW
-
Gavin Trott
- Posts: 1860
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:01 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
-
Ratcatcher
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Hobart
What's with the even years being the best?
1990, 96, 98, 02 and 04.
They were all hyped prior to the release of any wines.
The only challengers from the odds are 91 and 99 but they were only recognised some time down the track.
While 99 was obviously underrated, is it really superior to 98 and 02 or is it now getting overrated just because it was a surprise tthat it was better than first thought?
1990, 96, 98, 02 and 04.
They were all hyped prior to the release of any wines.
The only challengers from the odds are 91 and 99 but they were only recognised some time down the track.
While 99 was obviously underrated, is it really superior to 98 and 02 or is it now getting overrated just because it was a surprise tthat it was better than first thought?
I am not really into these vintage generalisations as there are just too many exceptions but in terms of the Barossa and McLaren Vale I have been impressed by many from 91, 94, 96, 99 and 04 is looking promising. Having said that, I have seen good and bad from every year. 98 does not look special to me and 02 may be great but will probably be late maturing as many of them appear to be in a coma!
Roger
Roger
-
Ratcatcher
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Hobart
I've just done some quick calcs of my cellar. I've always sorted by name, not vintage.
I only started seriously acquiring a cellar in about 2000 so I didn't cash in on the 96 vintage.
5% 1996
1.5% 1997
8% 1998
10% 1999
10% 2000
15% 2001
13% 2002
10% 2003
11% 2004
6% 2005
10% earlier vintages and Non-Vintage wines etc.
I was surprised when I saw how many 2000 and 2001 wines I had. I guess that's about the time I started seriously buying wine and there were lots of discounts for those vintage wines from memory. I'm still getting the odd bonus 2000 and 2001 thrown in if I buy 6 or 12 of something else.
30% of the 2000's are from SA and most from Coonawarra but 60% of the 2001's are from SA. I've got a few Tassie wines from 2000 too so that probably distorts things a bit.
NB: These figures include whites (mostly Riesling and Semillons)
I only started seriously acquiring a cellar in about 2000 so I didn't cash in on the 96 vintage.
5% 1996
1.5% 1997
8% 1998
10% 1999
10% 2000
15% 2001
13% 2002
10% 2003
11% 2004
6% 2005
10% earlier vintages and Non-Vintage wines etc.
I was surprised when I saw how many 2000 and 2001 wines I had. I guess that's about the time I started seriously buying wine and there were lots of discounts for those vintage wines from memory. I'm still getting the odd bonus 2000 and 2001 thrown in if I buy 6 or 12 of something else.
30% of the 2000's are from SA and most from Coonawarra but 60% of the 2001's are from SA. I've got a few Tassie wines from 2000 too so that probably distorts things a bit.
NB: These figures include whites (mostly Riesling and Semillons)
Back to the original question: 1998 vs 2002 (I know all about the other great vintages folks, but it's drifting from the poll topic)...
This may sound like a cop-out, but it's too early to tell.
I tried many from 1998 this year, with quite a few in a flat spot, some outstanding, some past-it, and too many cork-affected for my liking.
The only 1998 vs 2002 bottles I had were the Penfolds Bin 389 last year, and despite the 2002 being regarded the best for years the 1998 destroyed it head-to-head.
Yes 1998 was over-hyped, but that said the wines from Coonawarra and Clare (in particular the Cabernets) still look extremely good.
One of the big knocks on 1998 was that the fruit was too ripe, the alcohols too high and they lack the supporting acid/structure to age. I would hazzard a guess an average alc figure across the board would come in at about 14%, and yet I'd say 2002 that would be up another 0.5-1.0% to 14.5-15.0%. A few Winemakers and passionate consumers I know have said that it's just simply too much to go the distance.
So let's look at the 2002s in another four years time and see if they assume the mantle as the next most over-hyped vintage, or whether they do have something extra compared to the 1998s.
Cheers,
Ian
This may sound like a cop-out, but it's too early to tell.
I tried many from 1998 this year, with quite a few in a flat spot, some outstanding, some past-it, and too many cork-affected for my liking.
The only 1998 vs 2002 bottles I had were the Penfolds Bin 389 last year, and despite the 2002 being regarded the best for years the 1998 destroyed it head-to-head.
Yes 1998 was over-hyped, but that said the wines from Coonawarra and Clare (in particular the Cabernets) still look extremely good.
One of the big knocks on 1998 was that the fruit was too ripe, the alcohols too high and they lack the supporting acid/structure to age. I would hazzard a guess an average alc figure across the board would come in at about 14%, and yet I'd say 2002 that would be up another 0.5-1.0% to 14.5-15.0%. A few Winemakers and passionate consumers I know have said that it's just simply too much to go the distance.
So let's look at the 2002s in another four years time and see if they assume the mantle as the next most over-hyped vintage, or whether they do have something extra compared to the 1998s.
Cheers,
Ian
Forget about goodness and mercy, they're gone.
Don't forget 1996. IMO better than both '98 and '02 and even '90. Everything I've tried has not dissappointed. Aging wonderfully and may come close to '86, one of the great vintages in SA.
been saying this for years, many times to disagreement. to me its always been obvious that 96 was going to outperform 98 in the cellar.
the hawkes bay 98s are far better
Follow me on Vivino for tasting notes Craig Thomson
Hi all, don't have much experience with the 2002 vintage as yet, but have had a run of 98s recently, and unfortunately, not one of them had excited me. Petaluma Coonawarra, D'arenberg Dead Arm, Orlando St. Hugo, Rosemount Mountain Blue, Brand's Stentiford, Yalumba Signature come to mind recently, and I must say, the over-whelming theme has been a sour cherry tinge associated with a lack lustre middle to back palate. I am wondering if the wines were too ripe initially, attracting us all with the rich, sweet berries, which are now fading away??? Anyways, will try a few others in the upcoming festive season, and if performance continues, will need to seriously think of unloading to auctions.
cheers,
monghead
cheers,
monghead