Serafino 2002 McLaren Vale Cabernet Sauvignon

[Chuck]

Hi all.

This wine was rated best Cabernet in Winestate's recent Wines of the Year awards. Pretty high praise for a wine sub $20.00. Whilst Cabernet is currently out of favour the price seems rediculous. Has anyone got impressions or TN's?

Chuck

[Staybaker]

Hi Chuck,

I'm a rank beginner in the wine world, and don't feel qualified to post tasting notes yet. Nevertheless, I can give you my impressions: a very full and fruity wine, full of flavour, that my wife and I both loved. We bought a bottle, liked it, then bought a few more to cellar. It cost us $22 though, not sub-$20 ...

Cheers, Staybaker.

[Guest]

A good mouthful of wine for those starting out but more educated palates find it too full of charry oak.

I'm always worried when Winestate award a gong like "Best Cabernet" to a wine that is clearly just a crowd pleasing quaffer without any real class to it.

[Guest]

Thanks guys. Sounds like it is worth trying. On special in Adelaide for $15.99 by the dozen.

Chuck

[Staybaker]

... clearly just a crowd pleasing quaffer without any real class to it.

Hmmm, that seems a bit harsh. Anyway, did a search of this site and came up with an earlier tasting note for this wine from n4sir (Ian):

2002 Serafino McLaren Vale Cabernet Sauvignon (Cork): Dark to inky purple colour. Decanting using the breatheasy filled the room with coffee oak, and yet there wasnÂ’t a trace in the glass; an open and complex nose of cassis, beetroot, iodine, and hints of chalk, rose petals, coal, dried herbs and malt. The medium-weight palate is equally open and spicy on entry, with what appears to be a large slice of malty oak completely enveloped in glorious cassis/cherry fruit, powdery tannins and a hint of VA, finally appearing on the long finish with a trace of vanilla. Recently named Winestate magazineÂ’s Cabernet Sauvignon of 2004, and a gold medal winner at the 2004 Royal Adelaide Wine Show; itÂ’s so true to the variety it could have come from anywhere, and itÂ’s easy to see how it won these accolades. Maybe itÂ’s even worth a ring-in appearance at the upcoming Blacktongues 2002 Barossa Cabernet taste off if thereÂ’s the space Steve!

Definitely a worthwhile bargain at $16 a bottle!

Cheers, Staybaker.

[Red Bigot]

... clearly just a crowd pleasing quaffer without any real class to it.

Hmmm, that seems a bit harsh. Anyway, did a search of this site and came up with an earlier tasting note for this wine from n4sir (Ian):

2002 Serafino McLaren Vale Cabernet Sauvignon (Cork): Dark to inky purple colour. Decanting using the breatheasy filled the room with coffee oak, and yet there wasn’t a trace in the glass; an open and complex nose of cassis, beetroot, iodine, and hints of chalk, rose petals, coal, dried herbs and malt. The medium-weight palate is equally open and spicy on entry, with what appears to be a large slice of malty oak completely enveloped in glorious cassis/cherry fruit, powdery tannins and a hint of VA, finally appearing on the long finish with a trace of vanilla. Recently named Winestate magazine’s Cabernet Sauvignon of 2004, and a gold medal winner at the 2004 Royal Adelaide Wine Show; it’s so true to the variety it could have come from anywhere, and it’s easy to see how it won these accolades. Maybe it’s even worth a ring-in appearance at the upcoming Blacktongues 2002 Barossa Cabernet taste off if there’s the space Steve!

Definitely a worthwhile bargain at $16 a bottle!

Cheers, Staybaker.

Gosh, which one should I believe? Anon, who I maybe don't know and have no palate correlation for, or n4sir whose palate is well known from frequent and detailed TN? Decisions, decisions...

[707]

That was me earlier not logged in. In fact I think n4sir may have a second and not so good opinion on this wine as we tried it together just a couple of weeks ago, come in Ian.

I've only tried The Cabernet once and that was recently so will be interested to see if Ian's notes/opinions do in fact differ to the detriment of a later sampling.

It may be a case of second bottling to extend the supply after winning a gong? It's been done frequently in the past.

I'm giving it a run in an upcoming Blacktongues tasting so it will be interesting to see how the current release/bottling run fares then.

[n4sir]

That was me earlier not logged in. In fact I think n4sir may have a second and not so good opinion on this wine as we tried it together just a couple of weeks ago, come in Ian.

I've only tried The Cabernet once and that was recently so will be interested to see if Ian's notes/opinions do in fact differ to the detriment of a later sampling.

It may be a case of second bottling to extend the supply after winning a gong? It's been done frequently in the past.

I'm giving it a run in an upcoming Blacktongues tasting so it will be interesting to see how the current release/bottling run fares then.

I remember trying this with you Steve, and at the time the question whether the later batch (with the gold medal stickers) was significantly different came up.

The original tasting note was for a bottle from the first run, and more importantly it was flushed through a breatheasy/decanted. I think I noticed the char you were referring to when I took a brief whiff to test it wasn't corked, and thought it needed a good flush of air to shake that off - it certainly did the trick, and whenever I tell anyone about the wine I suggest they must do the same to get the best from it.

The second time was from fresh bottle without decanting; it wasn't as good and the oak was very obvious, but I still got the general feeling with a lot more air/time it would come around. In that tasting I had it in the glass a lot longer than anyone else, and thought apart the lack of breathing/more obvious oak at first it was reasonably consistent.

I noticed similar differences in obvious oak between bottles when our group knocked off four 2002 Mamre Brook Cabernets at the Greedy Goose after trying it at an instore down the road. Instore (after the 2002 MB Shiraz & 2001 No1 Shiraz) there wasn't a sign of oak, but at the restaurant (after a 2002 Schliebs Block that has vitrtually no oak) all of the four bottles were really dominated by vanillan/bubblegum oak.

I look forward to seeing how the Serafino goes in the blind line-up - just do it a favour and double-decant it first though Steve!

Cheers
Ian

[707]

I'll keep the double decant in mind Ian, I'll be interested to see how it fares blind.

BTW, do remember much about the Greedy Goose? I heard you were seen being poured into a taxi quite late????

[n4sir]

BTW, do remember much about the Greedy Goose? I heard you were seen being poured into a taxi quite late????

No taxi - got a lift home from the girl in the group who wasn't drinking.

It ended up being quite a session for the other four of us (well only three of us were really drinking). Three bottles went in the waiting room during the two and a half hours it took them to find us a table, with only a couple of nibbles (which we had to ask for) to match.

I got home okay, but really paid the price the following day at work.

I wouldn't recommend the Greedy Goose based on this experience. The food was okay, but the service was sloppy and unattentive, finishing the night almost overcharging our table (by adding an additional main course to the bill). For the prices they're charging, they wouldn't survive without the cameras - there's a lot better in Adelaide (as you well know Steve!)

Cheers
Ian