TN: 1986 Henschke Mount Edelstone Shiraz [Eden Valley]

PaulV · Post by **PaulV** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:28 pm

A significant birthday for our twins, so what better than an excellent oz red from their birth year.

For me the archetypical australian red made in the more old fashioned way of lower alcohol, less new oak, but far more of the place it was made.

Still a rich red with lovely bricking at the edges. What a nose! Mingling there were violets, old leather lounge, tobacco, dusty earth and a hint of liquorice. Palate was so long, so soft and silky - in many ways like a 15 year old grand cru burgundy - and a finish that seemingly lasted forever. easy to tell this is old vine fruit.

This wine is at its peak with the tannins all resolved and that perfect balance between secondary characteristics and the last vestiges of primary shiraz fruit. Even the 18 year olds enjoyed it. :lol:

An interesting point is that I cannot for the life of me understand how this wine would be better, if like today the fruit was picked 25% riper than what this was picked at.[alcohol of only 12%.] :shock:

If you have any drink a bottle at christmas and thank your lucky stars.

Cheers

Paul

JamieBahrain · Post by **JamieBahrain** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:40 pm

Paul

Nice note. I have enjoyed good bottles of 86 Mt Ed over the years aswell-preferring this vintage to the 88 and 90- though both those vintages outstanding.

You may open a can of worms talking about the Mt Ed style of old versus contemporary.

PaulV · Post by **PaulV** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:53 pm

Hi Jamie

Yep like the '90 and '91 although you can already start seeing the change in style with more vanillan oak, particulalrly in the '91 though the biggness of the fruit can take it - unlike some of the latter years :cry:

Cheers

paul

Mike Hawkins · Post by **Mike Hawkins** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:55 am

Paul,

I'd have to say the 90 & 91 ME are far more like the 86 than they are like some of the recent vintages. The last ME that I truly enjoyed was the 95 (surprisingly given the vintage). I haven't opened a 96 yet, so cant comment there, but more recent ones seem to following the riper, more alcoholic ternd so prevalent in warmer climate Oz shiraz.

I'm with you in terms of the alcohol content - about 13.5% is my preference for the bigger wines from the Barossa (or thereabouts).

Regards

Mike

Mike Hawkins · Post by **Mike Hawkins** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:56 am

I also meant to say that the last time I tried the 86 ME & HOG, I actually preferred the former.

Mike

JamieBahrain · Post by **JamieBahrain** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:19 pm

Mike

I agree with you on the 95. Pristine bottles have been some of the best shiraz from the 95 vintage I have tried-clever use of seasoned French & American oak and atypical MtEd fruit quality, make for a complex but earlier drinking wine.

Actually the jury may be out, recent bottles of the 95 not showing as well as 12-24 months ago. The oak coming to the fore.

Quizmaster · Post by **Quizmaster** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:58 pm

I had a 2001 this week, for the price paid, I was very dissapointed. I realise they require cellaring time, but this just didn't capture my imagination. The 2002 Filsell also consumed, well, several as a matter of fact, was a far better wine, full of lovely ripe fruit, oak was present but didn't overpower entirely (will be better in 5 yrs), great mouthfeel.

David Lole · Post by **David Lole** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:16 am

Greetings Paul, Jamie, Mike and all,

The '96 Edelstone presents a real conundrum only once you've opened (like me) multiple bottles. Your excellent note, Paul, suggests a mature, elegant yet complex, beautifully balanced wine at the peak of its powers. Good luck to you and particularly on the occasion of your twins' Birthday dinner. A couple of mine made me weep for joy, too. Unfortunately, most, of late, have made me weep for other reasons. Ranging from about good to almost undrinkable, I've lost all confidence with the wine. Problems included brett, oxidation, volatility, a weird herbaceousness and other dissappointing aspects I won't ramble on about. Anyone experienced anything similar?

Surprisingly, I've had no such problems with the much larger-scaled, most impressive '94 model.

Sorry to put a dampener on anyone's expectations, but I ain't happy, Jan.

PaulV · Post by **PaulV** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:01 pm

David Lole wrote:Greetings Paul, Jamie, Mike and all,

The '96 Edelstone presents a real conundrum only once you've opened (like me) multiple bottles. .

Hi David

Not sure if you meant the '96 or '86. I presume the latter. I've only had this '86 twice now and luckily both have been excellent bottles.

I think a lot of bottle variation still comes down to the tree bark we close these wines with. Last night opened a '91 Tyrrell's Vat 1 Semillon - flat, oxidised - the cork was saturated. :twisted:

Then opened a '93 Tyrrell's Vat 1 and it was fresh ,lemony, nutty - in excellent condition. Cork was dry.

Cheers

Paul

707 · Post by **707** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:08 pm

Forget the TCA problem with tree bark, which we can at least get a replacement for even if not the same vintage, bottle variation can be a nightmare.

It seems that no two old bottles will be alike and even quite young wines can already have variation. How many times have you heard someone say "the bottle I had the other night was better than this".

At least with screw caps every bottle is consistent.

The other closure I'm excited about is Zork now that I've sen it and touched it. I'm hoping that the McLaren Vale makers who are giving it a push can get the momentum going and maybe it might prove better than screws?

David Lole · Post by **David Lole** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:47 pm

PaulV wrote:Not sure if you meant the '96 or '86. I presume the latter.

My reference was to the '96, Paul. I've booked the appointment with the optometrist next week. :oops: