Hello! My first post from deepest Doncaster, England.
Thought I'd share with you what I've enjoyed from my cellar recently ( I say cellar, Its part of my double garage that I've had built as an air conditioned room.
Started getting into wine when I spent a year in oz in the early 90's. Anyway, this is what I've popped the cork from in the past month or 2.
Primo Estate Joseph 1994 - Exqusite, perefect conditon, fantastic raisiny fruit, tremendous length, different style of wine. One of my most memorable wines that I'd been looking forward to opening ever since I got it.
Penfolds 707 1991 - Thank you Mr Duval, everything I hoped it would be. All the comments are true, ready to drink just now, perefect balance
Pirra Mirra Petit Verdot 1996 - Bought fairly cheaply, wasn't expecting much but has a beautiful central core of fruit again in perfect balance. For an inexpensive wine, this was just amazing
St Hallet Old Block 1994 - Everything you would hope that a good Barrossa shiraz would be. Definately an upper class of wine, just keeps going and going. The length was amazing and just so pure.
Next few wines will be:
Petaluma Coonawarra 1995
Xanadu Reserve Cab 1995
Brokenback Shiraz 1998
Any tasting notes appreciated.
Thanks for your hospitality!!
The best aussie wines I've had recently
-
Doncaster Andy
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:19 am
Hi Andy,
Welcome to the forum. This was a not I posted in Sept 02 on www.torbwine.com in relation to the Petaluma 1995 Coonawarra.
As a result of CampbellÂ’s less than glowing report in the August edition of WineWankers Monthly on the 1995 Petaluma Coonawarra and the Red Bigot Data Base telling me it was predicted to peak in 2003 I decided to open a bottle to see for myself.
Campbell’s note said “Good dense colour but lacking expression – on both the nose and the palate. OK, yes its quite a complex drop – its earthy, minty, slightly chocolatey – but for me it’s all so dominated by vegetal characters that’s its simply not at all attractive. Drink Now 83 points.
My take on the wine is a little different. I had the benefit of pouring some off into a glass a 10 this morning and then coming back to it after 1, so it had loads of time to breath. The nose was dominated by chocolatey tannins and black berry fruit; and whilst there was some herbaceous tobacco like aromas, they we no cause for concern.
On the palate the expected huge powdery tannins were there the palate followed the nose. Not a huge amount of complexity and a fairly simple wine considering the price point. Very enjoyable with hot bread, a stinky ripe runny brie and an apple. No sign of the dominant vegetative characters Campbell found (prise be) and one I wont be ditching them at auction but I will be enjoying it with strong food over the next couple of years. Rated as Highly Recommended with ** for value, itÂ’s the weakest Petaluma I have drunk since the mid eighties.
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 that’s not bad for JO – I just had a look at ONWine and he predicted the 1992 would be best drunk after 2012. – It’s at its peak now, and has been for awhile.
Welcome to the forum. This was a not I posted in Sept 02 on www.torbwine.com in relation to the Petaluma 1995 Coonawarra.
As a result of CampbellÂ’s less than glowing report in the August edition of WineWankers Monthly on the 1995 Petaluma Coonawarra and the Red Bigot Data Base telling me it was predicted to peak in 2003 I decided to open a bottle to see for myself.
Campbell’s note said “Good dense colour but lacking expression – on both the nose and the palate. OK, yes its quite a complex drop – its earthy, minty, slightly chocolatey – but for me it’s all so dominated by vegetal characters that’s its simply not at all attractive. Drink Now 83 points.
My take on the wine is a little different. I had the benefit of pouring some off into a glass a 10 this morning and then coming back to it after 1, so it had loads of time to breath. The nose was dominated by chocolatey tannins and black berry fruit; and whilst there was some herbaceous tobacco like aromas, they we no cause for concern.
On the palate the expected huge powdery tannins were there the palate followed the nose. Not a huge amount of complexity and a fairly simple wine considering the price point. Very enjoyable with hot bread, a stinky ripe runny brie and an apple. No sign of the dominant vegetative characters Campbell found (prise be) and one I wont be ditching them at auction but I will be enjoying it with strong food over the next couple of years. Rated as Highly Recommended with ** for value, itÂ’s the weakest Petaluma I have drunk since the mid eighties.
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 that’s not bad for JO – I just had a look at ONWine and he predicted the 1992 would be best drunk after 2012. – It’s at its peak now, and has been for awhile.
Andy, welcome!
I can offer a couple of comments:
THe 94 St Hallett Old Block didnt show so well as a youngster, but it sounds like its improved a lot!On the 95 Petaluma Coonawarra, I attended a vertical tasting from 91 to 2001 in January, and these wines are quite consistent from year to year. The 95 However was one of the weaker wines. If you like it, you'll be able to look forward to the stronger vintages (92, 96, 99, and we suspect 98 but the bottle was in poor shape)
I can offer a couple of comments:
THe 94 St Hallett Old Block didnt show so well as a youngster, but it sounds like its improved a lot!On the 95 Petaluma Coonawarra, I attended a vertical tasting from 91 to 2001 in January, and these wines are quite consistent from year to year. The 95 However was one of the weaker wines. If you like it, you'll be able to look forward to the stronger vintages (92, 96, 99, and we suspect 98 but the bottle was in poor shape)
TORB wrote: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 that’s not bad for JO – I just had a look at ONWine and he predicted the 1992 would be best drunk after 2012. – It’s at its peak now, and has been for awhile.
Can't agree with your comments on the 92: had it early this year, and it took so long to open up I can't help but think that a few more years in the bottle might have helped. This was later confirmed by an independent bottle drunk by a coworker here.
I think JO is probably on or close to the mark here. I wish I had more, lovely wine, vastly superior (with breathing time) to the 1990 ...