The Auswine Forum

Just a quick update on a few wines. 1996 HP Riesling Terrible nose, infact lacked any nose other than metal and kero, I thought it was corked, but eventually the fruit came through on the nose. For a so called quality riesling, this lacked any finesse or elegance. A very short upfront palate of app...

Have only had 96 and 97 both in the last 6 months. 96 is a beast, with grainy tannins, big dark fruit and a long life ahead of it. Don't drink yet. 97 is ont of those lighter bodied confected types that I seriously doubt is heading anywhere interesting. Drink now.

Slightly off topic: Don't attempt to cellar the 01 Footbolt. Very approachable and enjoyable on and just after release, it has since turned into a hideous beast.

Steer well clear.

I've had a 1992 John Riddoch last year and loved it. Not in the slightest as you've described. The comparison with 1997 is way off the mark IMHO. 1997 is truly awful and shouldn't have been released.

As with Cabernet, do we accept these styles because the two or three classics we might see every decade are worth the underipe and overpriced horrors we have to endure in between? Look forward to your thoughts, LL There's so many more too - Bannockburn, Seppelt GW St. P's, Best's Bin 0 and Thompson...

Everybody has wines they are destined never to understand - mine is Turkey Flat , perhaps Craiglee (another one everyone raves on about), Mount Mary Pinot/Triolet and even Rockford basket press in less than outstanding vintages . Hey ... same here, glad I'm not the only one. Craiglee , admittedly, ...

Hello all The dinner went off very well. The red bubbles were great and the whites matched very well with the seafood and chicken. The only mismatch in food/wine for me was the Grenache Shiraz Touruga which seemed too sweet with the muscat glaze on the duck. I saved a little of the GST and it went ...

Anonymous wrote:Smity,

Q:Heathcote and Pyreenes consider hot/cool climate?

Considered cool I think. I always heard Coonawarra described as cool too, but the whole black & white argument of cool vs hot seems pretty bloody arbitrary for mine, given that you get hot spots in cool regions and visa versa.

Aussie Jonny wrote:IMO, 1991 SA is turning out much better than 1990.

As 1999 will do to 1998 given time ?

Clearly Mishy likes her wines young. But to suggest that this taste is "correct" and that Torb (and JO et al) should all bring their wine tastes and hence drinking windows into line with Mishy's is absurd.

I can't help but think that Mishy is trolling ...

Have had both 86 Petaluma & St Henri in the last 12 months. Petaluma was drinking nicely enough, but was a bit flat. Drink now. St Henri was a cracker, would get a hell of a lot more if I could afford it. Secondary market has pushed the price into triple figures. Drink anytime over the next 10 y...

707 wrote:1996 Penfolds St.Henri (Barossa+) Excellent, I had a second splash

Drinking window ??

The St Henri record from 1990 is less consistent I think, avoid 92, 93, 95, the 90 and 91 are starting to drink nicely now, but should last 5 years probably. Had 92 St Henri last week, very good wine ... ... mind you not an option for a further 10 years, 1996 is probably your best option there. Gar...

Given that on the secondary market 92 goes for half that of the vintages you list, you would have to give me 2-1, and at that point I would swap. Secretly I think 1991 is the pick of the bunch, and I had 19 8 2 only a month ago, so that's saying something. I can't stress this enough though: 1997 suc...

(4) The 90 is far better than the 93. The ones to get are 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998. This just looks like a list of good vintages ... 1992 very good too. Still a young wine of course, but the one I had for my birthday last year was a fine thing. Come to think of it, 93 isn't too bad ...

As I was adjusting my data base records, I noticed that JH gave it 95 points originally and JO recommended drinking between 2007-15. But then thatÂ’s not bad for JO – I just had a look at ONWine and he predicted the 1992 would be best drunk after 2012. – ItÂâ...

Going to Michael Moore for an accurate impression of American society is about as reliable as going to Josef Goebbels for information about Jewish society. Hardly, Michael Moore is American after all and likes America he has preached the jingoistic "greatest country on earth" line before. Fahrenhei...

I drank a couple the St.Peter '98 and holding on to my Reserve'98. I understand the Reserve is from the same material but aged in 100% new oak. Is there a big gap in quality between both of them? Just different. Right now I like the Reserve - maybe in time this will change as they evolve differentl...

Hi all, recently had a couple of bottles of Seppelt Great Western Shiraz 1996 and curious as to similiarities / differences to the St Peters 1998 and also 1999 which I have both on hold in cellar at present. Found it to be a lovely wine and if anyone could give me some feedback would be much apprec...

Chuck wrote:Hi all,

Not much of note except for my last bottle of Penfolds 1990 Bin 389. Just lovely and at its peak. Tannins receding.

Chuck.

Hmmm, tried two of these last year and was disappointed each time. Maybe unlucky ??

My godson was born in 2002 and I would like to buy some 2002 vintage wines to cellar until he is 21. Unfortunately I have absolutely no idea which wines will last that long and I am hoping that some kind souls will be able to suggest some nice wines (preferably Australian) that will last for > 20 y...

1998 Jameson Run 'Alexanders" Cabernet Sauvignon [Coonawarra] Still quite dark red with no thinning. Quite a complex nose of black berries, earth, touch a mint and only a wisp of vanillan oak. Mid weight palate again of dark berries and mint but filled out with some nicely handled oak. it lacked on...

for what reason would the value decrease? sorry, I'm not much of a wine connoisseur. The value could decrease as the wine is from a "lesser" vintage and is now 13 years old. Depending on cellaring conditions it could be starting to fade by now, increasing the risk of buying and thus reducing the pr...

Pete wrote:Wynns riddock cab sav 98

About 2030

'82 I had last week is still youthful at 23 years of age. Wish I'd waited now.

GraemeG wrote:Not that 2002's a bad wine (it's not, it's very good) just that I don't think it's anywhere near the potential ager that the 2002

Typo ? 1998 ?

Obviously the dogs have been 95, 97 & 2000. 1993 was worse again. 1992, 1995 and 1997 have actually produced some decent wines given appropriate time. 1992 St Henri last week was a gem, but as has been covered numerous times before, St Hank is pretty good in most vintages after about 10 years.

OK, let's get this straight, we're talking Barossa / McClaren Vale / Clare right ? Coonawarra is far too different to be considered in the same debate (for example 1992 Coonawarra has produced a couple of good 'uns, not to mention many fantastic 2000's, both shockers in the Barossa) and I don't know...

Sorry, couldn't leave this one alone. JO's scores. Nothing here to suggest this is a vintage of the calibre of 90 or 91 (or 94, 96, 98 or 99 for that matter), no matter which way you turn it around. 16.0 d'Arenberg Footbolt? ("finishing rather stale and cooked.") 17.0 Leasingham Bin 61? 15.9 Grant B...

Who are these "lot of people" ? '01 SA was a bit of a shocker IMHO, although not as bad as '00. Yet to be impressed with an '01 S.A. shiraz. Fatboy, You're yet to be impressed with an S.A. Shiraz? Have you tried any? If you enjoy several bottles on a weekly basis like many of these forumites, than ...

How does the '01 Bin 28 stack up? A lot of people associate the '01/'02 consecutive years with the quality that came from the '90/91 years. I wonder if that's justified.. Who are these "lot of people" ? '01 SA was a bit of a shocker IMHO, although not as bad as '00. Yet to be impressed with an '01 ...