This is a big call, but I am finding my 96's absolutely thrashing most the 98 vinatge, I have opened this year.
Even after allowing for the extra 2 years of bottle age, the 96's are proving to be far more balanced, structured and elegant wines. My 98's are proving to be more one dimensional and lacking, the palate layers of the 96's.
In particular I have been blown away with the following 96's
Rosemount Balmoral
Zema Family Select C/S
Dalwhinne Shiraz
Tatachilla Foundation
Is anybody else having similar experiences????
96 v 98
I don't think it's such a big call, actually. 96 got a fair bit of hype, and I remember asking this very question when the 98s arrived. On WLDG chat one night Rolf Binder agreed with your assessment as well.
It's true I bought a heap of 98s - mostly with quaffing in mind - and the Moondah Brook cabernet, Rosemount SR shiraz & Ingoldby cabernet need drinking now, in my opinion. A few pricier wines I'm a bit worried about - 98 Chapel Hill Vicar is a concern, as the one bottle I opened so far was not encouraging.
I'm letting most of my 96s sleep further though. 96 Bin 389 was commonly regarded as one of the best ever, and I don't recall too many folk calling the 98 a better wine. I think most of the South Australian areas will call 96 over 98 for most of their wines...
cheers,
Graeme
It's true I bought a heap of 98s - mostly with quaffing in mind - and the Moondah Brook cabernet, Rosemount SR shiraz & Ingoldby cabernet need drinking now, in my opinion. A few pricier wines I'm a bit worried about - 98 Chapel Hill Vicar is a concern, as the one bottle I opened so far was not encouraging.
I'm letting most of my 96s sleep further though. 96 Bin 389 was commonly regarded as one of the best ever, and I don't recall too many folk calling the 98 a better wine. I think most of the South Australian areas will call 96 over 98 for most of their wines...
cheers,
Graeme
Hello All,
Great topic Pana. I was not a wine nut when the vast majority of the 1996s were released and as such only have, from memory, PL Stonewell and Rockford SVSs in my cellar - and I bought a Balmoral at auction.
However, I am most interested in the 1998s v 1999s arguement as I have been enjoying the 1999s structure and complexity more than the 1998 ripeness. So maybe 1998 is not better than the 1996 or 1999 and it was another example of great hype!
My musings anyway.
Kind regards,
Adair
Great topic Pana. I was not a wine nut when the vast majority of the 1996s were released and as such only have, from memory, PL Stonewell and Rockford SVSs in my cellar - and I bought a Balmoral at auction.
However, I am most interested in the 1998s v 1999s arguement as I have been enjoying the 1999s structure and complexity more than the 1998 ripeness. So maybe 1998 is not better than the 1996 or 1999 and it was another example of great hype!
My musings anyway.
Kind regards,
Adair
GraemeG wrote:I don't think it's such a big call, actually. 96 got a fair bit of hype, and I remember asking this very question when the 98s arrived. On WLDG chat one night Rolf Binder agreed with your assessment as well.
It's true I bought a heap of 98s - mostly with quaffing in mind - and the Moondah Brook cabernet, Rosemount SR shiraz & Ingoldby cabernet need drinking now, in my opinion.........
cheers,
Graeme
I think we must be careful about dragging other regions into this discussion when these particular vintages are discussed as they basically refer to South Australia. 98 was not a particularly flash year in WA, and the 98 Moondah Brook range was the first of this label to have the best of its blend removed and bottled as Crofters. The 97's were better wines because of this and the 99's were better also because 99 was perhaps the "vintage of the millenium" in WA.
Just my 2c
Davo wrote:99 was perhaps the "vintage of the millenium" in WA.
Hello Davo,
Agree with your comments - we are discussing South Australia.
With regard to WA, how does 1999 - the vintage of the old millenium - compare to 2001 - the vintage of the current millenium?
This question is very relevant to me as I will be tasting and comparing the Great Estates of WA, Cabernet (& Chardonnay) against each other in the next 4 hours!
Adair
Agree with most of what 's been said above - I think it is a bit early to make a final statement between 98 & 96. My gut feeling is that a lot of the better made and balanced 98's are currently going through their adolescent period - lost their full fruitiness but not yet gaining the secondary complexities - while the 96's have come through their adolescence with flying colours.
Cheers
Paul V
Cheers
Paul V
[quote="Davo
I think we must be careful about dragging other regions into this discussion [/quote]
Yes Davo, of course, you are right. In fact, the Moondah Brook cabs were just about the only WA reds I have from 98, and I shouldn't have mixed them with what were, essentially, comments about SAust wines.
Warming to the theme, I don't find Lehmann shiraz, Bin 61, or Tintara shiraz from 98 drinking particularly well at the moment either, and am waiting for them to pick up in future years. They're all fairly high alcohol wines, so I'll be interested to see what becomes of them.
My Penfolds from that year are all around 14% as well (389, 28) but I tend to have more confidence with them at least.
As for WA, well. Small quantities of pricy Cullen sitting there, waiting for 20 years to pass...!
cheers,
Graeme
I think we must be careful about dragging other regions into this discussion [/quote]
Yes Davo, of course, you are right. In fact, the Moondah Brook cabs were just about the only WA reds I have from 98, and I shouldn't have mixed them with what were, essentially, comments about SAust wines.
Warming to the theme, I don't find Lehmann shiraz, Bin 61, or Tintara shiraz from 98 drinking particularly well at the moment either, and am waiting for them to pick up in future years. They're all fairly high alcohol wines, so I'll be interested to see what becomes of them.
My Penfolds from that year are all around 14% as well (389, 28) but I tend to have more confidence with them at least.
As for WA, well. Small quantities of pricy Cullen sitting there, waiting for 20 years to pass...!
cheers,
Graeme
Adair,
99 and 01 were both pretty damn good vintages in WA. At this stage I am leaning towards 99 as being the better of the two but must temper that by adding that not all the 2001 reds have been released yet.
Oh, you wanted to know about whites? Sorry, but who cares
To be honest I don't really take that much notice of WA whites unless they are undrinkable. Most producers over here turn out their whites pretty well and most E.States visitors I have taken around the CDs (TORB being the exception) have remarked on the consistently good quality of WA whites.
Have fun tonight.
99 and 01 were both pretty damn good vintages in WA. At this stage I am leaning towards 99 as being the better of the two but must temper that by adding that not all the 2001 reds have been released yet.
Oh, you wanted to know about whites? Sorry, but who cares
To be honest I don't really take that much notice of WA whites unless they are undrinkable. Most producers over here turn out their whites pretty well and most E.States visitors I have taken around the CDs (TORB being the exception) have remarked on the consistently good quality of WA whites.
Have fun tonight.
I think in 15 years time, 96 will probably be holding up better than 98. In saying that they are both unbelievable vintages. I don't believe all the banter that 98 won't hold up. Jeremy Oliver said the same about 90 and I haven't had too many duds.
cheers
anthony
cheers
anthony
Good wine ruins the purse; bad wine ruins the stomach
Spanish saying
Spanish saying
Anthony wrote:I think in 15 years time, 96 will probably be holding up better than 98.
Anthony,
You may well be right, but I won't be worried as I will have drunk all my 96 and 98 reds within the next 10 years (God and liver willing)
Cheers
Brian
Life's too short to drink white wine and red wine is better for you too! :-)
Brian
Life's too short to drink white wine and red wine is better for you too! :-)