X-Files? Why is Rosemount '01 tasting MUCH better than 2002?

[Jay60A]

Just to say hi to the forum as a newcomer. Have lurked a few weeks and want to get involved as a lover of all (well barring your Pinot ) things Oz and red. I'm English but was weaned on the Aussie stuff ...

Now - can someone help tell me why my taste buds (aka common sense) are telling me that both the Rosemount Show Reserve Shiraz 2001 (a snip at $17Nzd a bottle, and a gorgeous drop) and the Traditional 2001 (a bit more, but worth it) are a class up from 2002 ?

I thought 2001 is supposed to be a "good" Mclaren Vale vintage while 2002 is supposed to be an "excellent" one ??

In 2002 did Penfolds nick all the good juice for 389, 707 or Grange? Or am I just watching too much X-Files? (again) Am suspecting of Southcorp Corporate shennanigans right now.

[marsalla]

Or in 2001 was there a lot of southcorp wine pulled into rosemount, then next vintage it went back to its normal self,,

cheers

[Maximus]

Just to say hi to the forum as a newcomer. Have lurked a few weeks and want to get involved as a lover of all (well barring your Pinot ) things Oz and red. I'm English but was weaned on the Aussie stuff ...

Now - can someone help tell me why my taste buds (aka common sense) are telling me that both the Rosemount Show Reserve Shiraz 2001 (a snip at $17Nzd a bottle, and a gorgeous drop) and the Traditional 2001 (a bit more, but worth it) are a class up from 2002 ?

I thought 2001 is supposed to be a "good" Mclaren Vale vintage while 2002 is supposed to be an "excellent" one ??

In 2002 did Penfolds nick all the good juice for 389, 707 or Grange? Or am I just watching too much X-Files? (again) Am suspecting of Southcorp Corporate shennanigans right now.

Jay,

Let me start by welcoming you to the forum. It's great that you've joined up and I'm sure that you'll find this forum both enjoyable and resourceful, hopefully making friends along the way.

You raise a really valid question. Although I'd love to consider reasons beyond the scope of hard science (the Mulder approach), I'll try and tackle this with a Scully methodology. You're dead right with vintages, both McLaren Vale and Langhorne Creek (the two major regions for both aforementioned wines) had 'good' conditions in 2001 and 'excellent' conditions in 2002. In particular, 2001 saw an absolute scorcher summer (hottest in nearly a century I believe) whilst 2002 was far more settled, albeit cooler than normal throughout spring/summer.

Based on Rosemount being one of the lower tier labels under the Southcorp net, I'd suggest that the growers supplying fruit to Rosemount in 2001 were able to provide exceptional quality fruit based on their practice of high bunch:vine ratios. In other years the fruit may not reach optimum ripeness or first rate condition, but the heavy canopy cover (to prevent scorching) and considerable fruit coverage (vignerons concentrating on yield as per contract requirements for maximum return instead of maximum quality) ensured an ideal product given the vintage. Could this explain the difference between 2001 vs 2002? It's probably a leap of sorts, but a consideration nonetheless.

The other factor could simply be that the 2001 wines are for more approachable for immediate drinking whereas the 2002 wines are still tight and need a few years to evolve. This has been the case for a lot of wines, the d'Arenberg Footbolt and Bin 389 spring to mind.

The truth is out there Jay, and I'm less inclined to say anything more with the guy in the trenchcoat smoking a cigarette, cloaked in shadow, peering with cold eyes through the smoke and mirrors from the corner of the forum...

Cheers,

[Decca]

The other factor could simply be that the 2001 wines are for more approachable for immediate drinking whereas the 2002 wines are still tight and need a few years to evolve.

In many instances I think it is this simple. I really like 01's as a drink now proposition, especially McLaren Vale.
I have no problem with them being short term as, like a few other forumites, I need to move a few through and out of the cellar.

[707]

In the regions these grapes were sourced, the 2001 growing season was one of the hottest ever, the 2002 growing season was THE coolest ever.

In 2002 this meant places like Coonawarra, already a coolish climate were even cooler but places like McLaren Vale and Barossa, normally warm climates became cool climates for the vintage. The grapes ripened very slowly and perfectly which has generated the hype around 2002. As we've already seen, the 2002s are generally excellent across the board and IMO will be long lived.

The 2001s however I bought in tiny amounts, they were full of forward fruit and IMO will not stand the test of time.

So getting back to the Rosemount question, I don't drink much Rosemount but would say at four years of age the 2001s are peaking and may be ordinary within two to three years but the 2002s will slowly evolve into something special IF Rosemount used the same fruit sources.

This is where it's much better to collect small producers who's fruit source stays the same year by year, their own fruit. That's what I now buy, labels like Majella, Parker, Balnaves, in Coonawarra, Kay Bros, Marius, Noon in McLaren Vale, Kaesler, Glaymond, Dutschke, Kalleske, Rockford, Torbreck, Massena in Barossa, Kilikanoon in Clare, Jasper Hill in Heathcote. Probably missed a few amongst that lot but all small to tiny in production and mostly home grown or tightly controlled long term contract fruit.

[The lone gunmen]

You've stumbled onto the truth... Penfolds did indeed steal all the good juice for the 707....hence the price we are all forced to pay

[n4sir]

Welcome to the forum Jay.

Firstly I agree with your observation that the 2001 JWT winning Traditional is significantly better than the 2002 in all aspects. Tasting the latter was quite a shock, lacking the fruit power and tannin structure of the previous vintage. I wouldn't call the 2001 an early drinking style (it's quite the opposite), and describing the 2002 as "watered down" in comparison seems close to the mark.

As to the reasons why I like Max's line of thinking here, although given the amount of wineries in the Vales who got the 2002 vintage right I'd limit his theory's application to Rosemount and maybe a few others. Any other thoughts guys?

Cheers,
Ian

[Jay60A]

In the regions these grapes were sourced, the 2001 growing season was one of the hottest ever, the 2002 growing season was THE coolest ever.

In 2002 this meant places like Coonawarra, already a coolish climate were even cooler but places like McLaren Vale and Barossa, normally warm climates became cool climates for the vintage. The grapes ripened very slowly and perfectly which has generated the hype around 2002. As we've already seen, the 2002s are generally excellent across the board and IMO will be long lived.

The 2001s however I bought in tiny amounts, they were full of forward fruit and IMO will not stand the test of time.

So getting back to the Rosemount question, I don't drink much Rosemount but would say at four years of age the 2001s are peaking and may be ordinary within two to three years but the 2002s will slowly evolve into something special IF Rosemount used the same fruit sources.

This is where it's much better to collect small producers who's fruit source stays the same year by year, their own fruit. That's what I now buy, labels like Majella, Parker, Balnaves, in Coonawarra, Kay Bros, Marius, Noon in McLaren Vale, Kaesler, Glaymond, Dutschke, Kalleske, Rockford, Torbreck, Massena in Barossa, Kilikanoon in Clare, Jasper Hill in Heathcote. Probably missed a few amongst that lot but all small to tiny in production and mostly home grown or tightly controlled long term contract fruit.

Hi Steve -

BTW to all - wow! Thanks for the replies. Thought I was nuts about Aussie Reds until I started reading TORB's site!!

Agree 100% about the small producers, as you know where the juice is coming from ... have invested in 2004 Mitolo, Kalleske and Glaetzer since my return from the UK. Bank Account is ... Alas earning NZ dollars these days so have to supplement with Rosemount et al. Had Parker Terra Rossa 1990 but sold it in one of my many worldwide moves. Sigh and deep regrets ...

Yep the Rosemounts are generally not for long aging, ShowReserve Shiraz 2001 is a drink now-2 years proposition, Traditional 2001 maybe quite a bit longer ... lot of hidden fruit/tannin I feel, and will dumb down for a few years then develop?

BTW, talking of Corporates and the X-Files, did any one else read this link?
http://ak1.sommnet.com/public/sommnet.d ... on=WINENET

I think it sums up the Corporate world which (alas) supports my wine purchasing habit (s.b. addiction )

Cheers -- Jay.

[Craig(NZ)]

Jay

I think I have to agree

I was a bit underwelmed by the 02 show reserve shiraz

save em for a cold winters friday night drink in front of the rugby

prefer the saltrams mamre at the same price point