The Auswine Forum

Tasting Note No:26

A shiraz from a single distinguished site in the Hunter Valley. Winemaker Iain Riggs has hit the nail on the head this time. This wine is a lot better and much more exciting than the previous vintage of 2000. Grapes were sorted and bunch selected before crushing, successfully eliminating the problem of a lesser vintage, the wine matured in 90% new oak. Alcohol is at 13.5% Vol.

Colour cherry red with a dark centre. Unique and slightly unusual nose of plum, cherries and what I can only describe as road tarmac! There are more typical Hunter aromas of spicy earth, briar wood as well with some burnt rubber...again. A freeway style wine no doubt! Excellent sweet fruit on the palate. Very fresh, rich and juicy. I've really enjoyed this one! Lot's of cherries on the palate, somehow more reminiscent of a Grand Cru Burgundy than a Shiraz. Medium bodied but full, round and soft with chewy tannins. Excellent even now, will shine and go down as a legend in 10 years time. Impeccably balanced, finishing with fine acid, this is a very good Graveyard. It cost AU $90 and those who can afford it should go for it. In my opinion the price of $45 would be more realistic but this is a single vineyard wine with limited availability.

Also tasted but not reviewed in detail:
2001 BROKENWOOD Graveyard Vineyard Chardonnay- a standard Hunter Chardonnay with good flavours but lacks excitement, AU $40.
2002 BROKENWOOD Indigo Vineyard Beechworth Pinot Noir- a lighter style wine with creamy oak and grippy tannins, pretty good at AU $30.
2001 BROKENWOOD Wade Block 2 McLaren Vale Shiraz- a rich and full wine with 15%Vol alcohol. Good but lacking real excitement.
1998 BROKENWOOD ILR Aged Release Reserve Semillon- a very dry and lean Hunter wine, good with food but otherwise standard. AU$35
2001 BROKENWOOD Mount Panorama Central Ranges Chardonnay- juicy and fat white with good oak. I liked it very much. AU $30.

Tasted:January 2004

Attila wrote:
A shiraz from a single distinguished site in the Hunter Valley. Winemaker Iain Riggs has hit the nail on the head this time. This wine is a lot better and much more exciting than the previous vintage of 2000.

Really? Iain Riggs the winemaker don't think so, neither do all the major reviewers like Halliday, White and Hooke, ot the general vintage quality comparison. More importantly, I don't think so either. I thought the 2001 well below the 2000, the latter in my opinion the best Aussie red produced since 2000 (yes, better than 01 Cullen). Why, because I believe is has astonishing structure for a young wine - very rarely have I seen such quality components in a wine - fruit, oak, tannin, acid all craftily stamped with class. Super wine!

Note I am not disparaging your opinion - in fact, I find your notes to be among the more consistent and interesting and knowledgeable on this board - just questioning why u believe it to be "a lot better and much more exciting"?

Dear Justin,

I appreciate your enthusiasm towards the 2000 Graveyard but it will not change the fact that the 2001 is the better wine. In time you'll see. The 2000 Graveyard is a correct wine but that's where it stops.
Cheers,
Attila

At the Tucker-Seabrook tasting in Sydney last year, the 01 Graveyard Shiraz was the only wine sample I swallowed in its entirety all night. (I also swallowed the Grand Marnier made from 25yo Cognac).

Kieran

Justin,

I have to agree with you. I tried them side by side at CD, and no-one in my party of eight preferred the '01.

In time we will see, though I dont think the '01 will have the longevity of its older brother, so the point may well be mute.

Anyway, that's why we all have our own tastebuds ....

I have had the 99-00-01 side-by-side on two occassions in tastings (once at CD).

In both instances I preferred the 00 by a long shot followed by the 01 and 99.

I think at this time the 01 shows better but I too agree with Justin that in 2010 I believe the 2000 will be streets ahead (I have previously written too of my loove of this wine).

The bottom line is that they are both very fine and personal preference may come into it.

Guest - Justin Th. wrote:Really? Iain Riggs the winemaker don't think so

Justin are you saying that Iain Riggs isn't the winemaker or saying that He doesn't believe the wine is better than the 2000?

I always enjoy a good wine battle. Just for fun, I had a look at James Hallidays reviews of each wine in question:

From Winepros, etc., etc. - please don't sue me:

2000 Brokenwood Graveyard Shiraz - A monument to what can be achieved with shiraz in the utterly perverse climate of the Hunter Valley. Deep red-purple; prune, dark fruits and oak interplay on the bouquet, leading into a sumptuous yet powerful, multi-layered palate of blackberry and dark plum; almost unrecognisable since first bottled. - Rating: 96 out of 100 - Best Drinking: 2007 to 2027

2001 Brokenwood Graveyard Shiraz - A veritable icon, from a low yielding, single vineyard, and not made every year. Even when it is, quantities vary widely. The black fruits of the bouquet have touches of regional earth backed by subtle oak; the palate offers much sweeter flavours, mixing blackberry and cherry through to a long finish. Surprising finesse. - Rating: 95 out of 100 - Best Drinking: 2006 to 2021.

I am not here to argue whether JH is be-all-and-end-all in Australian wine opinion but I think it useful to use him as a constant.

The first thing to note is that wine is subjective and JH only rates the wines 1 point out of 100 apart.

However, more importantly, I suspect that the difference in opinion expressed here can be found by noticing JH's descriptors:
Of the 2000: "prune, dark fruits and oak" and "sumptuous".
Of the 2001: "Surprising finesse" and "regional earth" and "mixing blackberry and cherry"

I have only tried the 2000 but I found it a bit too "Barossa Beast" for my liking and not what I expected from the Hunter. I also found it a bit hot. I suspect this wine could be too much for a European palate as well, at least for the moment. Whether I like it more in 5-10-15 years time, I will tell you then!

Attila probably will as well.

Kind regards,
Adair

Some of you may have noticed that I don't use the point system to determine the quality of any wine. The reason is highlighted by the example above, courtesy of Adair.
According to Halliday, there is 1 point difference between the Graveyards and this one point actually can go either way. Adair's point that the 2000 is a 'non Hunter style' wine is true to some extent. My real disappointment with Halliday's view is that he found the 2001's finesse 'surprising'. That earthy softness is a very Hunter character in my opinion, it's surprising that the 2000 doesn't have it.
Anyway, both wines worth trying for comparison.
Cheers,
Attila

Adair wrote:However, more importantly, I suspect that the difference in opinion expressed here can be found by noticing JH's descriptors:
Of the 2000: "prune, dark fruits and oak" and "sumptuous".
Of the 2001: "Surprising finesse" and "regional earth" and "mixing blackberry and cherry"
Adair

Adair
Your example brings light & clarity. It's a great example of how to use tasting notes properly & not to believe a score tells the whole picture.
thank you
Ian

Ian S wrote:

Adair wrote:However, more importantly, I suspect that the difference in opinion expressed here can be found by noticing JH's descriptors:
Of the 2000: "prune, dark fruits and oak" and "sumptuous".
Of the 2001: "Surprising finesse" and "regional earth" and "mixing blackberry and cherry"
Adair

Adair
Your example brings light & clarity. It's a great example of how to use tasting notes properly & not to believe a score tells the whole picture.
thank you
Ian

Adair - Giver of Light & Clarity

Sounds goods!

Thanks.

Attila wrote:. My real disappointment with Halliday's view is that he found the 2001's finesse 'surprising'. That earthy softness is a very Hunter character in my opinion, it's surprising that the 2000 doesn't have it.
Cheers,
Attila

I think he means he probably finds it suprising in a Graveyard rather than a Hunter Shiraz as such. The points are meaningful to me by the way. They illustrate that he things that the 2000 is a better wine.
GW

Thanks fellas, the most interesting thread I've read for some time. I can't add anything on the wine, as I'll only ever drink it if it turns up at a tasting (a bit rich for my blood), but it's been useful reading, especially as one tries to grasp what characteristics are to be found in "classic Hunter shiraz."

Attila wrote:Some of you may have noticed that I don't use the point system to determine the quality of any wine. The reason is highlighted by the example above, courtesy of Adair.
According to Halliday, there is 1 point difference between the Graveyards and this one point actually can go either way.

I don't want to start a religious war, but I always take the scores with a grain of salt. Whatever the scoring system, words or numbers, they are not repeatable and are equally valid ways of defining quality. For a quick summary of a wine's quality, I actually prefer the numbers: I see 95 and think I have a better idea of the quality of the wine than if a word (or phrase) is used. This is because I believe there's a reasonable amount of standardisation on what the number score means. No, it's not perfect, but I think it's better than using words. For example, here are some terms commonly used: "outstanding", "exceptional", "highly recommended", "excellent". Is "excellent" better than "highly recommended"? Is "outstanding" better than "exceptional"? Unless I see the particular ranking of these terms used by the person writing the review, then I usually get very confused. Of course, all of this is next to meaningless unless you have a tasting note, a description of why the wine was liked or disliked..... Anyway, enough from me.....

Lincoln wrote:

Attila wrote:Some of you may have noticed that I don't use the point system to determine the quality of any wine. The reason is highlighted by the example above, courtesy of Adair.
According to Halliday, there is 1 point difference between the Graveyards and this one point actually can go either way.

I don't want to start a religious war, but I always take the scores with a grain of salt. Whatever the scoring system, words or numbers, they are not repeatable and are equally valid ways of defining quality. For a quick summary of a wine's quality, I actually prefer the numbers: I see 95 and think I have a better idea of the quality of the wine than if a word (or phrase) is used. This is because I believe there's a reasonable amount of standardisation on what the number score means. No, it's not perfect, but I think it's better than using words. For example, here are some terms commonly used: "outstanding", "exceptional", "highly recommended", "excellent". Is "excellent" better than "highly recommended"? Is "outstanding" better than "exceptional"? Unless I see the particular ranking of these terms used by the person writing the review, then I usually get very confused. Of course, all of this is next to meaningless unless you have a tasting note, a description of why the wine was liked or disliked..... Anyway, enough from me.....

Please Lincoln, no, no, don't start this here - let's all focus back on Hunter Shiraz and what it offers the world. It has unjustly missed its time in the sun, and it is loving its "little ray of sunshine" - let's all start singing now...

Adair

I found the 2000 a better wine than the 2001.

In fact, four out of our six person tasting group rated the 2001 Mistress Block higher that the 2001 Graveyard.

I am at a loss to see how the 2001 will age better then the 2000 ???

This is a great thread BTW....

deleted

Hello Sean,

Thanks for your comments.

With regard to 2000 vs 2001 Graveyard - although not proving anything, I note that the 2000 was given 7 by Brokenwood and the 2001 was given 5 by Brokenwood in The Gold Book - so I don't think the Coonawarra 90 vs 91 is a comparison here.

Although I have not had many vintages, I suspect many might agree that the Graveyard is not a "traditional" Hunter Shiraz - more extraction and more oak than what "traditional" Hunter Shiraz would have to enable the "traditional" Hunter Shiraz fruit to be the prominent feature. (Aside: discussed this offline with another prominent Hunter lover recently - no prizes for guessing who). The Mount Pleasant O'Shea may also be seen to have more extraction and more oak than the "traditional" Hunter Shiraz.

FWIW, also discussed this topic with an ex-Tyrrells emplyee and he suggested that the "best" (whatever that means) "traditional" Hunter Shiraz is the Tyrrells Stevens "Reserve" Hunter Shiraz - very little or no new wood and the grapes are from arguably Australia's oldest Shiraz vines - 1865 (although I thought Turkey Flat vines were older)

Adair

deleted

Adair wrote:
the grapes are from arguably Australia's oldest Shiraz vines - 1865 (although I thought Turkey Flat vines were older)

Adair

Yes, both Turkey Flats and Gibson Old Vine are reportably older...but thats not the theme of the thread

deleted

Sean wrote:Interesting what the ex-Tyrrells person said about the Stevens. You probably know it used to be Lindemans, but during the frenzy of Rosemount led changes (to Southcorp) the lease with the Stevens brothers was dropped & Tyrrells took it over.
.

AFAIK there are two Stevens vineyards the Neil and whatever brother used by Tyrrells and the one used by the Lindemans Hunter winery. The Lindies one has been bought by someone else now. Forget who.
GW

Gary W wrote:

Sean wrote:Interesting what the ex-Tyrrells person said about the Stevens. You probably know it used to be Lindemans, but during the frenzy of Rosemount led changes (to Southcorp) the lease with the Stevens brothers was dropped & Tyrrells took it over.
.

AFAIK there are two Stevens vineyards the Neil and whatever brother used by Tyrrells and the one used by the Lindemans Hunter winery. The Lindies one has been bought by someone else now. Forget who.
GW

FYI; there are two distinct different vineyards (as alluded too by gary), the first is the Steven Vineyard (note the lack of the 's') this was sold post the Rosemount takeover of Southcorp, apparently as Shiraz is no good from the lower Hunter. Now owned by Bill Roche (aka Hunter Valley Gardens/Roche Wines) with the fruit going to a number of wineries including Tempus Two. This is a shiraz only vineyard and would be having it's 34 or 35 birthday this year.
The second vineyard Stevens, is a Tyrrells contract vineyard from the Stevens, the vineyard is on Marrowbone road and supplies Shiraz and Semillon. The Stevens did supply Lindemans up to the end of the 80's but were poached (amongst other reasons) by Tyrrells for their superior fruit and created a brand for it. Age of the vines I am uncertian but there is some old stuff there.

Also, the 'Traditional' Hunter Shiraz will be seen less and less, with the exception of Tyrrells (I think) there are no producers using big old and new oak (1000 litres), most have converted to 220 litre casks and are using American and French Oak. This in itself will effect the style of wine significantly.

Not to say this is a bad thing.

jezza wrote:Also, the 'Traditional' Hunter Shiraz will be seen less and less, with the exception of Tyrrells (I think) there are no producers using big old and new oak (1000 litres), most have converted to 220 litre casks and are using American and French Oak. This in itself will effect the style of wine significantly.

Not to say this is a bad thing.

It is a bad thing. It is a great wine style.
GW

Gary W wrote:

jezza wrote:Also, the 'Traditional' Hunter Shiraz will be seen less and less, with the exception of Tyrrells (I think) there are no producers using big old and new oak (1000 litres), most have converted to 220 litre casks and are using American and French Oak. This in itself will effect the style of wine significantly.

Not to say this is a bad thing.

It is a bad thing. It is a great wine style.
GW

I should have said "Not to Say this is a good or Bad thing"

deleted

Sean wrote:Hi Jezza

Thanks for the explanation about the Stevens vineyard. I guess that explains why Tyrrells say they took up a lease with the Stevens bros in 1993 (I think) & why the first Tyrrells Stevens label has only come out in the last yr or two.

No prob's and when you ever need more useless information on the Hunter just give a little whistle

Sean wrote:. But as far as I know, not all of the Turkey Flat Shiraz is sourced off its old vineyard. Some of it is, but not all of it. The original Turkey Flat vineyard had shiraz in the late 1840s, but I don't know if this is the same shiraz that is used now.
?

Yes the old original vines provide a contribution to the total blend and more cuttings have been taken that will also come on line as well. I asked Mr Schulz last year and he is a top bloke.

michel

deleted