1992 Henschke Cyril Henschke Cabernet Sauvignon (Eden Valley)
A glowing brick red from a bottle still into the neck. Classic new world aged cabernet aromas of brambly fruit, a whiff of herbaceousness, cedary blackcurrant aromas with a little vegetal, yet not unripe note. The palate is cool and refreshing, the medium body finish carrying faint, fine tannins, gentle aged fruit, and a good balance across the palate - no holes, spikes or other protrusions. Even, persistent, and very more-ish. I don't think there's anywhere much to go; it may even be too developed for those addicted to lots-of-everything, but really it's a terrific medium-weight cabernet. Great wine, and interesting to compare to
1989 Chateau Meyney (St Estephe)
A bit less red than Cyril, the nose here is a lot more restrained. Secondary notes are more prominent - cedar, graphite; fruit is reticent here in comparison. The palate is considerably more astringent here, yet stops well short of harshness, although perhaps the tannins do dominate just a fraction. Length of finish is pretty much line ball with Henschke; neither wine is especially long, but the Bordeaux has a thickness about it which Henschke counters with purity of fruit.
It might have been interesting to drink them side-by-side; as it was they went down in the order shown. My preference was slightly for Cyril, but that could just be my general palate conditioning showing through. Two fine wines - and neither that expensive if you source carefully.
cheers,
Graeme
TN: 92 Cyril Henschke, 89 Meyney
Graeme,
Thanks for the notes. Having just mentioned I'm yet to try Cyril in another thread, I'm always interested to hear about the wine. Must wrap my hands around a bottle soon. Would you suggest my virgin Cyril palate best to try an aged or newish bottle first?
Secondly, if one was weighing up whether to purchase a magnum of 2002 Bin 707 or a magnum of 2002 Cyril, how would the ageing potential and quality differ do you think?
Thanks a lot,
Thanks for the notes. Having just mentioned I'm yet to try Cyril in another thread, I'm always interested to hear about the wine. Must wrap my hands around a bottle soon. Would you suggest my virgin Cyril palate best to try an aged or newish bottle first?
Secondly, if one was weighing up whether to purchase a magnum of 2002 Bin 707 or a magnum of 2002 Cyril, how would the ageing potential and quality differ do you think?
Thanks a lot,
Max
-----
Avant d’être bon, un vin doit être vrai
-----
Avant d’être bon, un vin doit être vrai
Maximus,
In my experience, the choice on buying either wine would come down to a style preference. The 707 is aged in American oak, a lot of people have issues with cabernet and American oak and it is often a criticism directed at this label. I also find that that the 707 takes a long time to reach a point of drinkability, a 94 tasted last year was tight, tannic and unyielding, still the best part of a decade away from its zenith. How much patience do you have?
From memory, the Cyril is aged in predominantly French oak( I stand to be corrected on this) and has a history of being approachable sooner whilst at the same time showing a propensity to age. I havn't tried either of the 2002 wines so I can't comment specifically, but this is a basic overview of how I view the situation.
Cheers
In my experience, the choice on buying either wine would come down to a style preference. The 707 is aged in American oak, a lot of people have issues with cabernet and American oak and it is often a criticism directed at this label. I also find that that the 707 takes a long time to reach a point of drinkability, a 94 tasted last year was tight, tannic and unyielding, still the best part of a decade away from its zenith. How much patience do you have?
From memory, the Cyril is aged in predominantly French oak( I stand to be corrected on this) and has a history of being approachable sooner whilst at the same time showing a propensity to age. I havn't tried either of the 2002 wines so I can't comment specifically, but this is a basic overview of how I view the situation.
Cheers
Max,
Actually had very few Cyrils myself; the 96 at CD a few years ago, can't specifically remember many others. Generalising, I'd say that it's a lighter-bodied wine, tending more toward the herbaceous end of the spectrum. 707 is more inky dark, meaty, heavy and tannic. Less cabernet & more Penfolds.
Generalising of course, vintage exceptions will overrule all the above statements. At auction these days, Cyril is a good 30% cheaper (again, vintage is the exception, ie. 1990).
cheers,
Graeme
Actually had very few Cyrils myself; the 96 at CD a few years ago, can't specifically remember many others. Generalising, I'd say that it's a lighter-bodied wine, tending more toward the herbaceous end of the spectrum. 707 is more inky dark, meaty, heavy and tannic. Less cabernet & more Penfolds.
Generalising of course, vintage exceptions will overrule all the above statements. At auction these days, Cyril is a good 30% cheaper (again, vintage is the exception, ie. 1990).
cheers,
Graeme
-
Craig(NZ).
Cyril
Cyril to me is a bit up and down compared to many aussie cabernets but in top vintages like 93,94,96 and 98 it is truely sublime with an elegance, balance and purity seldom seen in most of the top south aussie cabernets.
In New Zealand it is expensive, the distibutor no doubt makes a killing but i pick the odd bottle up when it is occassionally heavily discounted.
I have drunk the 93 3 times and every time I have been astounded at the quality. That vintage may now be on the slide, but wont forget it in a hurry.
I tried it blind next to many international superstars including the 100 pt 86 Lafite. I thought the Cyril was the best wine in the tasting
In New Zealand it is expensive, the distibutor no doubt makes a killing but i pick the odd bottle up when it is occassionally heavily discounted.
I have drunk the 93 3 times and every time I have been astounded at the quality. That vintage may now be on the slide, but wont forget it in a hurry.
I tried it blind next to many international superstars including the 100 pt 86 Lafite. I thought the Cyril was the best wine in the tasting
-
Baby Chickpea
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:17 pm
Cyril during 1990 - 1994 was on fire. The 1990 and 1991 and potentially 1994 are three of the greatest Australian cabernmets you will ever taste IMO. The 92 and 93, from poor years, are excellent examples and would put many top vintage cabernets from other wineries to shame.
Danny
The voyage of discovery lies not in finding new landscapes but in having new eyes. We must never be afraid to go too far, for success lies just beyond - Marcel Proust
The voyage of discovery lies not in finding new landscapes but in having new eyes. We must never be afraid to go too far, for success lies just beyond - Marcel Proust
Meyney seems to be regarded as being among the top echelon of Cru Bourgois, and it seems a pretty good vintage - I wouldn't be opening it for 10 years. I've not drunk a lot of Meyney, though, so I'm hardly gospel on the subject.
Cyril is a different style. I've rarely had a cabernet from Australia that could be mistaken for a Bordeaux - especially a South Australian one. You might say a specific bottle of Cyril is better than a specific Meyney - but it would depend on your personal preference, the food, etc. Any generalisation is pretty useless.
cheers,
Graeme
Cyril is a different style. I've rarely had a cabernet from Australia that could be mistaken for a Bordeaux - especially a South Australian one. You might say a specific bottle of Cyril is better than a specific Meyney - but it would depend on your personal preference, the food, etc. Any generalisation is pretty useless.
cheers,
Graeme