TN: Hunter, SAust, + few foreign ring-ins

[GraemeG]

Sundry notes from interesting/notorious wines consumed in the last month or so, starting with the mighty Hunter Valley:
1991 Lindemans Bin 8203 ‘Hunter River Burgundy’ [Shiraz] [cork, 11.5%]
Garnet red with similar rim. A near-aged nose of medium intensity; woodspice and resin, soft earthy/red fruit touches along with typical Hunter medicinal and polished leather aromas. The palate presents another facet; an almost candied sweetness to the cherry fruit flavours, plenty of zingy acid, and a warmth that blooms in the mouth. Light-medium body, good balance of flavours down the length of the palate, medium length finish, soft dusty tannins and minimal oak evident. A good effort that should hold a few more years, but I wouldn’t expect further improvement.

2004 Lindemans Bin 0403 Hunter Shiraz [screwcap, 13%]
A generation later for this wine, and Lindemans Hunter River is really a footnote in Australian wine history. Will there ever be any more ‘Bin xx00’ reserve wines I wonder? Doubt it, somehow. Maybe we should be grateful for even this offering. Medium ruby colour. Spiced fruits and a little earthiness, but really mostly berry fruits. A wine of medium weight all round, with dusty tannins, a warm, rich, and quite nicely balanced palate. Doesn’t really scream ‘Hunter terroir’ at this stage yet, but has a tightly wound feel; a solid warm-climate not-too-lavish shiraz with some structure and the potential to age well enough in the medium term. Should develop more personality with a bit of cellar time.

2004 McWilliams Mount Pleasant ‘Phillip’ Shiraz (Hunter) [ cork, 14%, A$12]
This venerable-pedigreed wine seems to be coming out of a long (ie. ten year) slump, if this offering (and reports I’ve read of the 2005 effort) is a guide. A youthful nose, with ripe red fruit aromas never-the-less showing some restraint – it certainly doesn’t leap from the glass. A bit anonymous/international in style, but not fatally so! The palate mixes a little tobacco and earth with the lightly spicy fruits, soft oak, and medium-low chalky tannins. Dry and savoury, it’s a little hollow in the mid-palate, and the finish just struggles to medium length, but really, for the price there’s no complaining. Twelve bucks these days buys you plenty of semi-sweet cordials, or hot & harsh alcoholic throatburners; this wine is neither.

2002 Tyrrell’s Vat 9 Shiraz (Hunter) [ cork, 13.5%, A$26]
Crimson-ruby. No fading anywhere here. A developing and classic stinky Hunter nose; fungal earth, undergrowth, ink, leather, and a whiff of brett. Lots of earthy farmyard and delicatessen flavours on the palate, along with soft powdery tannins, medium bodied weight, minimal oak, and a respectable palate structure that just tails off at the back of the mouth. The bretty quality dissipated somewhat in a half-bottle kept overnight - I wouldn’t have any qualms about keeping this wine a few years longer, just for sake of it. An enjoyable wine with an individual voice that’s very much a minority style these days.

2004 Peterson’s Cabernet Sauvignon (Mudgee) [cork, 13.5%]
Medium ruby coloured wine. Youthful, quite intense nose of mulberries, cassis, earth, dark chocolate, soy and ink. Interesting. The feared blockbuster doesn’t appear; instead there’s a fairly low-key palate of almost bretty hue, with a grenache-like bubble-gum chewiness to it; high-toned raspberry fruits, seemingly minimal oak, soft chalky tannins – there’s as wide a gap between the aromatic expectation of the palate and its reality as I’ve ever encountered. Just barely reaching medium weight – when could you say that about a Mudgee wine? – but with a slightly short finish; I can’t really see it improving much. Drink up.

On to the rest of the country...
2005 Voyager Estate Shiraz (Margaret River) [screwcap, 14%, A$21]
Ruby, verging on impenetrable purple, with plenty of legs. I was expecting a monster, but the aromas were cool-climate tinged, with savoury-spice and a little smoke. Youthful, and not hugely forthcoming. With all of 1% viognier in the wine, the makers clearly weren’t trying for a crowd-pleaser right off the bat. The palate adds a touch of tomato and spice, but is surprisingly austere (in context!). Dry, with medium gritty tannins, medium weight and length of finish, it’s structured quite well along the tongue, with a decently firm mid-palate. Finishes perhaps a touch warm. Needs a few years to bring it out of its shell.

2001 Grosset Polish Hill Riesling (Clare) [screwcap, 13%]
Clear, but distinctly mid-lemon. A clean but developing nose of grapefruit, soapsuds and a whiff of toast. Definitely not youthful any more. The palate follows the nose, although the soapy character transforms into lemonsuds and tangy citrus flavours. Medium acidity frames a wine of surprising lightness of body, despite the parade of flavour reaching past the mid-palate. Overall, a bit low-key and something of a disappointment for such a heralded wine (not a heralded vintage, however). Not oxidised, but developing quite quickly and without much finesse. On this single tasting, clearly outshone by its 2001 Watervale sibling (tasted last year).

2005 Glaetzer Godolphin Shiraz-Cabernet (Barossa) [cork, 14.5%, $38]
Ruby/blue in colour. Sweet blueberries and mulberries on the nose, with milk chocolate and vanilla. The shiraz takes the honours on the nose, no question. The palate I find rather thick and syrupy; rich and ripe with lots of warm-climate red fruit flavours, but if the cabernet was there to put some real spine into the wine, then it needed at be a bigger percentage of the blend. A medium-high level of chalky tannins, generally intense palate, but quite low acidity all add up to a wine with good weight of fruit along the palate, but overall more warmth than depth. Yes, it’s young, and maybe some aging will help, but I rather think it’ll just get softer instead of more interesting. Enjoyable enough, if a bit underwhelming – not a repeat buy for me (a second bottle some weeks later yielded a similar note).

2002 Torbreck The Steading Grenache-Mouvedre-Shiraz (Barossa) [cork, 14.5%, A$30]
Glowing ruby. Cured meats, bacon, and a the general air of a delicatessen pervades the nose, with some confection-like grenache. The palate follows wit the same spiced meat flavours, quite soft acidity, low-level powdery tannins, subtle oak, a medium-bodied weight, and a generally warm finish, which avoids being too cloying or sweet. No great complexity, but good with food, and the slight softening on the back palate is not too ruinous to the finish. A few more years won’t hurt, that’s for sure.

And a few foreigners to round out the show…
2003 Antinori ‘Villa Antinori’ (IGT Toscana) [cork, 13%, A$26]
Clear garnet. Sour cherries, brown leaves, roast nuts and some charcoal-smelling oaky notes. The palate presents no surprises; sour and brambly fruit, ripe but not rich. Modest but gritty tannins. Medium-bodied in weight, but rather clunky and diffuse. Knowing the label, you’d agree with the idea of relatively high-yield grapes from a hot vintage. A short-term drinker that’s rather over-priced locally.

1997 Yves Cuilleron ‘L’Amarybelle’ (St-Joseph) [cork, 12.5%]
Badly TCA-contamined upon opening. Toxic within 30 minutes. Bloody corks.

2000 Jaboulet Domaine de Thalabert (Crozes-Hermitage) [cork, 13%]
Soft earth and gamey notes aromas. A restrained nose. The palate is dry and slightly sour, earthy, with a warm gentle finish. Soft powdery tannins, not much acid, a promisingly smooth and even palate structure, but a disappointingly short finish let down a little what is otherwise a tidily built wine. At peak now probably, but will hold a while yet

cheers,
Graeme

[PaulV]

1997 Yves Cuilleron ‘L’Amarybelle’ (St-Joseph) [cork, 12.5%]
Badly TCA-contamined upon opening. Toxic within 30 minutes. Bloody corks.

Graeme

That's a bummer - as it happens have had 2 bottles of this wine at separate occasions over the past fortnight and both were lovely. Ready to drink - quite hunteriste - some earth and spices on both nose and palate, not quite midweight , lovely tangy acid and soft fully resolved tannins - not at all rustic like a lot of St Joseph - if you have any more try it over the next 6 months with a mushroom rissotto.

I have a few Godolphin and have a similar feeling that it won't be my style - too sweet - too soft.

Good old Tyrrell's still puts out some lovely old fashioned style reds - hardly any newish oak , open ferments etc - at least they have a lot of character.

Cheers

Paul

[Gary W]

Tyrrells have also gone to great pains to clean up their reds post 2005 vintage. The 2006 are as clean as a bean (well a new washed one anyway).
As an aside I have bottles of 03 Rosehill and 03 Old Pimp and Ho. The Rosehill is 15.5%...
GW

[PaulV]

15.5%...

[GraemeG]

As an aside I have bottles of 03 Rosehill and 03 Old Pimp and Ho. The Rosehill is 15.5%...
GW

I haven't bought Rosehill or Old this & Old that since the 98 vintage. I think whoever's making those wines needs a solid kick up the bum. I presume it's the winemaker who's at fault, rather than the viticulturalist - but whoever it is, I don't thing the bottled results are reflecting the potential of the vineyards, if everything I read about O'Shea (the man, not his namesake wine) is true...
If Hunteristes wonder why the reputation of the valley sank so low, then they could take a good look at some of the best vineyards around the place, and ask why they're producing carthorses not racehorses...
cheers,
Graeme

[Gary W]

Well they have only had 3.. O'Shea, Brian Walsh (name of champions), Phil Ryan. The new young bloke doing most of it now is Andrew Lembruggen and he is pretty good. Move to French oak etc. (tho still too much). The 05 O'Shea is a good wine. If you remember the 03 Philip - that is a biggish wine and a great deal of fruit comes of Rosehill. i.e. the crop heavier on the philip part of the vineyard and lower on the Rosehill.
GW

[Alex F]

Wow... 15.5%, that is quite scary. What's the difference between a Hunter red at 15.5% and say a South Australian one?

[Gary W]

Wow... 15.5%, that is quite scary. What's the difference between a Hunter red at 15.5% and say a South Australian one?

About 2000km
GW

[Grant]

But wasn't the 1965 Bin 3110 around 15% alc....no-one seems to be complaining too much about that wine nowadays.

Cheers

[pokolbinguy]

I haven't bought Rosehill or Old this & Old that since the 98 vintage. I think whoever's making those wines needs a solid kick up the bum. I presume it's the winemaker who's at fault, rather than the viticulturalist - but whoever it is, I don't thing the bottled results are reflecting the potential of the vineyards, if everything I read about O'Shea (the man, not his namesake wine) is true...
If Hunteristes wonder why the reputation of the valley sank so low, then they could take a good look at some of the best vineyards around the place, and ask why they're producing carthorses not racehorses...
cheers,
Graeme

Personally I think this is a pretty low blow. (This is a completely Hunter bias comment as I live and work here so take that on board).

The 98, 2000, 2003 and 2005 vintage of both the Rosehill and OP&OH (Old Paddock and Old Hill.....I chuckled quite hard at the "old pimp and ho" comment before). Were really quite good wines, what you have to think about is:

- how different the climate is in the Hunter compared to the southern areas. Coming from a growers perspective (family owns a vineyard, and have done for 30 years) the Hunter is not the greatest place to grow grapes, and I have read before that if you looked at the "records" there is strong reason to NOT grow grapes here. However we do, and we can make some bloody damn good wines when we try.

- The price....how many other wineries sell wines from vines planted in 1945, 1921 and 1880 for under $40...I bet the list is VERY short

- The bottled results are very different in the hunter compared to that of the southern areas. Yes the crop can look and be fantastic but the structure of the wine down the line has to meticulously made to work. The fruit in the hunter just doesn't have the "fruit bomb" style that you can utilise down south.

- If the wines were not up to standard then why do they sell out so rapidy The first stocks of 2000 O'shea were sold out in Cellar door within one day? While not all vintages and wines sell this fast there is a great demand for all three wines.

- For noting sake the O'shea is sourced from the same vineyard as the OPOH. However the best parcels are set aside for O'shea down the line, predominantly from the Old Hill (planted 1880)


- Ohh and seeing it came up in a post...yep the 2003 Rosehill is a big boy coming in at 15.5%, this is pretty much due to the exposer and fast ripening on the rosehill vineyard. Should be a stunning wine in 10 years. Deffinatley showing great potential.

[Alex F]

I find it quite strange that the O'shea is released before the OP&OH and the Rosehill.

[Gary W]

Can you fix the quoting please Woodwardbrett as you are not quoting my comments.
Ta
GW

[pokolbinguy]

I find it quite strange that the O'shea is released before the OP&OH and the Rosehill.

No idea why. I think it must just be a money thing.

Can you fix the quoting please Woodwardbrett as you are not quoting my comments.
Ta
GW

Fixed...sorry about that.

[Gary W]

I think the 2000 Rosehill was about 14.5% from memory. Very good wine that. I might fish a 1998 (14% I think) out of the cellar soon too.
GW

[Mahmoud Ali]

GraemeG wrote:
I haven't bought Rosehill or Old this & Old that since the 98 vintage. I think whoever's making those wines needs a solid kick up the bum. I presume it's the winemaker who's at fault, rather than the viticulturalist - but whoever it is, I don't thing the bottled results are reflecting the potential of the vineyards, if everything I read about O'Shea (the man, not his namesake wine) is true...
If Hunteristes wonder why the reputation of the valley sank so low, then they could take a good look at some of the best vineyards around the place, and ask why they're producing carthorses not racehorses...
cheers,
Graeme.



I think the Hunter has a fine reputation, especially for semillons and the better shiraz. Prior to leaving Australia in May 2006, my partner and I visited the Hunter Valley for a few days and made a point of tasting Hunter wines. We found plenty of excellent semillons and quite a few shiraz.

We didn't visit all the wineries but of the ones we did there more than enough wines that I would have dearly loved to take back home to Canada. By my recollection (no notes handy) the shiraz were from the 2005 vintage and could easily handle 10-15 years in a good cellar. The best wines I tasted at cellar door were the Margan White Label Shiraz, Margan White Label Shiraz Mouvedre, Tulloch Dry Red Private Bin, Merea Park Alexander Munro, and the Keith Tulloch Kesler. There were other fine wines but these were my favourite, ones that I would buy.

At Capercaillie and Tulloch the top Hunter wine wasn't on tasting but based on the Tulloch Dry Red (both regular and private bin) I would gamble on the Hector. The most interesting find was the Margan Barbera, a fine wine with a bouquet that wouldn't quit. It took me ages to taste the wine as I couldn't get my nose out of the glass!

In the semillon sweepstakes there were plenty of wines, some dry, austere and in need of lengthy cellaring, others equally good but softer and more approachable. There were so many examples its hard to remember them, except for the Tyrrells, where I recall thinking that I would be happy to have and cellar all three that I tasted. I also recall being impressed with the Margan semillon, especially the 2001 that I tasted at the Sydney wine show.

And finally, not related to the cellar doors, in Sydney I found the 2001 Elisabeth semillon to be a fabulous wine in the early drinking style while the 2002 was perhaps the more "typical" dry, austere style that needs plenty of cellaring time. In other words, drink the 2001, cellar the 2002, or, better yet, cellar both while drinking the 2001.

Then there was the 2002 Philip Shiraz, a very reasonably priced wine drinking very well. I have tried the Philip a few times on previous visits to Australia and at the cellar door but this vintage was the first Philip that I liked.

For people at home who say that all Australian wines are high alcohol fruit bombs that don't cellar well, these are some of the wines I would offer in rebuttal. Thank goodness we have variety in wines, thank goodness for the Hunter wine makers who care about regionality and "terroir".

Okay, okay, I guess that enough of this Hunter wine gushing,


Cheers.............................Mahmoud.

[GraemeG]

OK, after reading Mahmoud’s post I should make it clear I was talking about shiraz in particular – the Hunter has done Semillon proud over the years. As far the shiraz goes, I didn’t think I was being especially controversial – in fact I remember reading Campbell’s comments when the last Langton’s Classification came out and there was precisely ONE Hunter Shiraz out of 101 entries – a pretty sorry effort for such a premium area.

I gather from comments Gary has made previously that some of the great vineyards have been replanted or grubbed up for one reason or another, but I took aim at Mount Pleasant because of the history of their two historic vineyards in particular. The very fact that they do sell so cheaply indicates to me that either the vineyards themselves are shadows of what they were in O’Shea’s time, or that their potential is not being fully realised by the winemakers.
Or at least it wasn’t; perhaps things have changed in the last few years. I don’t consider that the 98 Rosehill has aged particularly gracefully at all – hot and oaky, and a generally unpleasant wine. Possibly it’s going through a dead spot and will emerge, gloriously aged, in another ten years, but I wouldn’t count on it.

I know the Hunter climate is capricious at best, but there have been some pretty decent Brokenwood Graveyards since the early 90s, and before Lindemans imploded the HRB range made the odd good wine through the 70s and 80s (83, 86). But there seems to be a yawning gap in Mount Pleasant’s quality output from 1965 until at least 2000, or is it just me? These were the vineyards from which O’Shea made some of Australia’s greatest ever wines, weren’t they? I mightn’t expect his successors to reach the same heights, but from the OPOH & Rosehill wines made for most of the last 20 years, you wouldn’t think there was anything special about the vineyards at all.

Yes, the style is different from the SA fruit-bombs – that’s one of the best things about it. The very worst thing McWilliams could do is to try and make Hunter shiraz in such a way as to try and pass it off as Barossa shiraz…
cheers,
Graeme

[Anonymous]

I think with the Rosehill's they have really been going the wrong way since 2000 but that is all changing now with Andrew Lembruggen doing an excellent job and really bringing it back to the older style, such as the 87's and 91's. Keep an eye out for the 05 Rosehill, did exceptionally well at last year's Hunter Show and is bloody good. Maybe 14% alc.

HS

[Gary W]

I tasted the 05 Rosehill blind (with Mattinson and Chatto) last year in amongst a whole bunch of 05 Hunters. Chatto again loved it but it was the 05 OH&OP that stole the show (of the Mount Pleasant wines but also one of the top wines of the tasting). The 05 Rosehill is labelled as 14.5%

GW

[Mahmoud Ali]

Sorry Graeme, I didn't realize that your criticism of the Hunter was directed mainly at Mount Pleasant shiraz. In that case I might even agree with you in some respects. In my two previous visits to Australia I didn't like the Philip Shiraz, I found it to be a dry, astringent, austere wine, somewhat lacking in both fruit and character. Much the same could be said of the other red wines that I tasted at cellar door in 2001. The O'Shea was perhaps the best of the lot back then but I didn't buy any, though I did find a bottle of '93 O'Shea in a bottle shop in the Barossa and took a couple home to Canada.

Back in 2001 I didn't spend much time in the Hunter, visiting perhaps 5 or 6 vineyards in total. In fact the highlight of my visit was meeting Len Evans in the parking lot of Tower Estate--I even got my partner to take a photo of me with him. I had asked him about wineries that I should visit and he listed Tyrrells, Mount Pleasant, Brokenwood, Rothbury Estate and Lindemans because the latter might have something interesting on tasting. After visiting these wineries, and of course Tower estate, I thought the best Hunter shiraz were the 2000 Tyrrells Vat 9 and the cellar door only 2000 Vat 11 Baulkham shiraz, both of which I bought to take home. I don't recall anything else that was worth cellaring (the Brokenwood Graveyard wasn't on tasting so I can't comment on that though I expect it would have been a fine wine).

So I guess in some ways I agree with you: on Mount Pleasant's record and to some degree on other Hunter wines. Nothing remarkable in the recent past, Tyrrells excluded but disagreeing on the reputation of the current crop of Hunter shiraz.

Cheers.........Mahmoud.

[Gary W]

The current crop of Hunter shiraz has never been better with 05,06 both top vintages and outstanding 07 still in the wings. It's (still) about my favourite region in Australia for Shiraz...
GW

[PaulV]

Had a 2000 McWilliams Mt Pleasant Rosehill last night - what a disappointment - lots of oak, short acidic finish and fruit submerged under the shell of oak and spirity alcohol.

[Wayno]

I had the 2000 Rosehill at cellar door on release and was blown away by it. A couple of bottles in recent times have been very disappointing - in so much as they appeared to be a completely different wine. One left - not a lot of hope for it but we'll see.

[griff]

Had my last 2000 Mt Pleasant Rosehill Shiraz in November 2008 at an offline. I had "Lovely middle heavy weight Hunter Shiraz. Old vine tar and savoury character. Excellent wine." Was well received and shame that you didn't have the bottle we had. I decanted it for a few hours if that helped any.

cheers

Carl