Henschke Mt Edelstone 95 versus St Hallett's Old Block 95.

[JamieBahrain]

Old Vine Eden Valley versus Old Vine Barossa Floor.

Enjoyed the comparison last night in Melbourne, both bottles purchased from cellar door on release, and cellared in a commercial, environmentally controlled facility.

Both wines decanted for a couple of hours.

Mt Ed 95- Dark, red purple. Rich combined aromas of blackberry and smoke. Background earth, blackcurrant and spice. Sweet fruit flavours on the palate-licorice and blackberry. Full bodied wine, finishing with considerable length and fine grained tannins. There is some warmth at the end. The lingering smokey, blackberry flavour persistance, aswell as a Melbourne winter, makes the slight heat not unpleasant.

Old Block 95- Slightly lighter in colour than the Mt Ed. The American Oak influence dominant. Rich, creamy vanillan aromas meld with some bright berry fruit to give the Barossa X-Mas cake effect. Oak dominates the palate, some sweet berry poking through. Medium weight and with a smooth texture and seamless transition to a pleasant finish with fine tannin and acid.

Over time, the Edelstone evolved with more blackberry and ripe,plummy fruit. The combined French and American oak adding a dimension of complexity. The rich blackberry and smoke on the palate, not to be confused with charriness-there was some evidence of the latter on the backpalate.

Old Block evolved with more blackberry fruit flavours, but never to a level of power or persistance to overcome the American Oak.

My accomplices last night, enjoyed the easy drinking qualities of the Old Block-though in time, recognising the Mt Ed at another level of power and complexity.

I preferred Mt Edelstone. Not a grand vintage, but the deft combination of seasoned American and French oak, aiding complexity and complementing, not dominating, the rich shiraz fruit.

The Old Block has a few years ahead, the Mt Edelstone considerably more-but probably should be recognised as a very good effort in a tough vintage;and certainly not with the future ahead of the 94 ( which I consumed the night before ).

[Mike Hawkins]

Jamie,

I had the 95 ME last year and expected it to be a dud based on the vintage. I was pleasantly surprised at how good it was, and in fact I would rate it above the 97,99 & 00.

[n4sir]

I had the 95 ME last year and expected it to be a dud based on the vintage. I was pleasantly surprised at how good it was, and in fact I would rate it above the 97,99 & 00.

Again this highlights the danger of applying the general state of a vintage across the board. Okay 1995 wasn't good, but some regions (notably Clare and McLaren Vale) still produced some good results. Plus, in drought conditions, some dry-grown old-vine fruit can surprisingly come up with the goods. If the Winemakers judge it right and you look hard, you can still come up with some surprises.

Cheers
Ian

[Mike Hawkins]

Agree wholeheartedly Ian. I thought the 2000 Filsell Shiraz was a ripper for about $19 on sale, yet most barossa shiraz's from the vintage have been average.

[simm]

Agree wholeheartedly Ian. I thought the 2000 Filsell Shiraz was a ripper for about $19 on sale, yet most barossa shiraz's from the vintage have been average.

IMHO better than the 2001 (haven't seen the 2000 on sale at that price though)

cheers,

[JamieBahrain]

Mike

I agree. The 95 Mt Edelstone better than the 00 and 97- possibly the 99. I have only tried the latter once. I would go as far to say the 95 Mt Edelstone underrated-sure, not a classic like the 94, but offering a very good level of complexity when compared to other 95 shiraz from the Valley Floor.


Conversely, the 99 Old Block excellent, with more balanced oak, fruit oomph and structure; a longer term cellaring proposition to the 95.

[Craig(NZ).]

95 is a bit underrated. the 95 saltrams number one is a fantastic shiraz