TN: Wynns Cabernet vertical 90-00, +86

[GraemeG]

The Noble Rotters gather in Sydney for the November 2003 dinner. A Wynns Coonawarra Estate Cabernet Sauvignon vertical is on the cards. Wines were not decanted. Drinking from oldest to youngest in brackets of 3, the wines are (alcohol % in brackets):

1986 (12.9%)
Brick red, with a little fading at the edges. Lots of cigar box and pencil shaving aromas – very much secondary characters to the fore here. There are some herby eucalypt fruit notes remaining, but this is essentially a mature experience. It’s still wonderfully alive – the fruit and tannins very soft, acid still plentiful. Its medium bodied, wonderfully drinkable, and grows almost sweet in the glass. Unlikely to improve, but great drinking now.

1990 (14.0%)
This is a much darker red – hard to believe its 13 years old. Clean prune & blackcurrant fruit, some light vanilla oak on the nose. Plenty of spicy, yet smooth & powerful tannins on the palate. The fruit is rich and full with much less development than 86. This is lovely, but needs years yet to reach its optimum, I feel. In context, it’s almost brutal in its power. Carries 14.0% alcohol with narry a shudder.

1991 (13.5%)
Another deep red wine, though less dark than 90. The aromas are similar, but a bit more rounded and integrated. The fruit is the same clean Coonawarra blackcurrant, but it’s more subtle somehow. The palate is almost polished, with a more elegant balance of primary fruits and development than its older brother. – treading a fine aging line. I find this slightly more pleasurable than the 90 at the moment – but the 90 will live longer, and should perhaps surpass this wine? Power or elegance emphasized – that’s the difference between these two. Remarkable drinking for wines that were barely $10 when released…
______________

1992 (13.5%)
A quite bright red, this has some bricking at the edge. The nose is almost a little sweet, with blackcurrant candy aromas. It’s somewhat astringent on the palate – evenly so, but the finish fades quickly. Acidity is fair, but this feels like much work has been done in the winery to compensate for weaker fruit. It’s a perfectly acceptable wine, but falls well short of the standards established by 90 & 91.

1993 (13.5%)
Dark red. The fruit is a bit more generous than 92 but cloves and gentle oak stand out on the nose. It has a medium weight palate, although lacks the complexity of the first bracket wines. The finish is somewhat astringent perhaps, and although this is in no way a deficient wine, I canÂ’t see any improvement left. Drink now, or hold without expectation!

1994 (13.5%)
Deep red – no bricking here. This is a bit closed in some ways, presenting a monolithic nose of mint and vanilla – as though the American oak was dominating in the winery. There’s some sourness of fruit – which is more pronounced than the last 2 wines. It’s endearing somehow, and gets a little better sitting in the glass. It’s relatively big and brutal – could be a less successful version of the 90. Hard to call for me - will it look more like 93 with time or gain richness? A sleeper?
________________

1995 (12.5%)
Crimson red, but the colour didn’t glow like its contemporaries. The fruit has a simplistic, candied quality to it. Rather one-dimensional on the palate – relatively astringent, fruit reticent, with a phenolic, hard-pressed, macerated quality to it. This isn’t going anywhere, and is the least of the wines so far. Drink up.

1996 (13.0%)
Deep black-red. The wine is a bit closed at first. It eventually opens with rich ripe blackcurrant fruit over underlying subtle spicy oak. Lots of aroma layers here. The palate, too, is restrained, but eventually builds, with plenty of ultra-fine tannins, but itÂ’s still reluctant to open up and sing. A bit quiet, but has all the hallmarks of a great wine, given a little time. Patience. Elements of 90 & 91 here. One to keep.

1997 (13.5%)
Deep red. A diffuse, blurry nose (or is it me?). Much less focused than the 96, this reminds me most of the 92 in some ways. Not a great deal of interest here.
_________________

1998 (13.5%)
Dark, dark red. Intense black & red fruit, powerful toasty vanillan oak, and yet there’s still some authentic cabernet herbaceousness here as well. There is tremendous depth of aroma. This is an imposing, balanced, yet still unintegrated wine. Iron tannins, fine-cut acid and ripe fruit all attack in uncoordinated fashion. I think this will be a great wine, but I find little pleasure in it at this early stage – it needs about 10 more years. Only drink now if you’re a young-wine junkie…

1999 (13.5%)
Deep crimson red, but sadly corked. Under the TCA thereÂ’s a hint of decent fruit aroma remaining, but the palate is utterly stripped, and remains an astringent shell.

2000 (13.5%)
Surprisingly simple nose of cherry-sweet strawberries. Totally different to the previous wines. Still tannic on the palate, but otherwise quite light, with a desperately short finish. Not faulty that I can see, but vies with the 95 as the clunker of the night.
_________________

2001 Miranda Golden Botrytis (Griffith)
Golden yellow. A low acid, sharply botrytis-flavoured wine. A bit simple in its confected presentation of apricot fruit. One glass is enough, and I donÂ’t think this is for keeping.

The consistency of the Wynns is remarkable. Even the least of the vintages (92, 95) are respectable drinking after a few years, and the great vintages (86,90,91,96 and maybe 94?) represent enviable value for their modest cost. The back label, which changes very little from year to year, claims both new and used US and French oak is used – it may be that this flexibility the winemakers have, together with the large Coonawarra resources they can access, enables them to achieve such continuity of style. Even in 1998, the urge to let the alcohol levels rise has been resisted. It’s almost as though the black label wine is intended to vary as little as possible, while John Riddoch sees the full orchestra treatment.

I think a lot of this wine is drunk too early. By themselves, the 96 & 98 are very impressive, but only by tasting them alongside 90 & 91 does their great potential become obvious. For a $25 wine these days, itÂ’s a terrific buy (2000 excepted!).

Cheers,
Graeme

[PaulV]

Great notes Graeme. Agree with just about every vintage. I absolutely adore the 1986 and while it won't get any better I think it will remain on that plateau for another 5-10 years if will cellared. The 94 is a bit like the Bin 389 i wrote on. I think it won't get any better - good wine again the fruit intensity doesn't seem to fit with the size and structure of the wine.

Cheers

paul V

[Guest]

Graeme,

Somehow I'm sure we had this discussion before but your one-off tasting is largely in line with my thoughts:-
1986: was lovely but I thought the last couple were past their best - but individual bottles (and palates) are just that;

1990 arguably heading towards the edge of its drinking window but good for at least another few years improvement before plateau;

1991: weird 2 cases cellared next to each other and they seemed 3-5 years apart in development. Still a lovely wine but one case far more youthful than the other which is "in the window";

1992: for the vintage well -made but a wine to skip generally;

1993: perhaps the worst of the BL for the period - relatively thin.

1994: hailed after the previous 2 years with ype but only a medium BL for all that. This is not to denigrate a very pleasant wine entering its window now but it will never rise to the heights of 90 (potential), 91 - or even 96 or 98 (potential)

1995: tribute to winemaker in dog of vintage and drink up earlier with primary fruit to get some pleasure...always finished relatively short.

1996: all potential, relatively closed

1997: early drinking cannonfodder not for cellaring - drink now pleasantly

1998: huge potential with fruit to rival 90 - and likely to be longlived. however I think a conscious decision was made to make this more approachable than the 90 was, and although it may hold as long I'm betting it will hit maturity at only about 11-12 years as opposed to the 90 which is taking longer. Big fruit but in a relatively unattractive period of its life for me.

1999: much more of a "classic" BL which will be more in the style renowned, and less obvious fruit size, so expect it to mature a bit earlier and be somewhat more elegant as opposed to brutal. THis is an underrated wine for medium cellaring and the fact that it was available until recently for $18.50 per bottle (and still under $20) makes it a great bargain. expect hitting its straps 2007+

2000: not a patch on 1999 but almost universally more expensive..is it the alleged millenium year or a case of "but it was a good year in Coonawarra"....

2001: not yet released to my knowledge but a (very) pre-release showed rather huge extractive flavours from very ripe grapes. Don't know that this has the quality to cover itself but not really together and want to taste the finished product.

Oddly enough I remember the BL as a wine which peaked shortly after its 8th birthday (or at least was in its window then) but maybe the vintages of the 60s and 70s were more consistent (?).

Obviously there were exceptions: the very great 1971 being a prime wine, but now for the better vintages we are saying 10+ years to hit the window. Certainly the weaker vintages of the 90s passed their peak at that point (92,93, 95 already and 97) but the good vinrtages are taking longer.

Given its discount price in Oz it is hard to think of a better value CS for the money anywhere in the world, and even the really poor vintages drank pretty reasonably in their youth - and really so much of this is made and consumed in its youth that it should be regarded asa tribute to winemakers that it is as good as it get in many vintages.

It is fashionable to disparage the large wineries (after all they don't represent a "discovery") but not so many of the smaller wineries can come close to matching the good BL - and certainly not at the price.

fred

PS I thought the price for the 90 & 91 was about $12-12.50 from my records on release not "barely $10" but maybe your sources were better than mine!

[Paul T]

Great notes on the tasting Graeme. The 2001 Miranda Golden Botrytis i also found dissapointing (compared to others they have done) and concur with your thoughts entirely.

Thanks for such an imformative post.

Cheers

Paul T

[GraemeG]

Graeme,

Somehow I'm sure we had this discussion before...

1999: much more of a "classic" BL which will be more in the style renowned, and less obvious fruit size, so expect it to mature a bit earlier and be somewhat more elegant as opposed to brutal. THis is an underrated wine for medium cellaring and the fact that it was available until recently for $18.50 per bottle (and still under $20) makes it a great bargain. expect hitting its straps 2007+
...
PS I thought the price for the 90 & 91 was about $12-12.50 from my records on release not "barely $10" but maybe your sources were better than mine!

hi fred,
It's the first real vertical I've done of these but we may have considered one or two in the past. And I've drunk most of these wines separately at some time or other in the last 2 years - the wines were generally in line with my expetations (though not tasted blind...)

I was really disappointed that the 99 was corked because I wondered how much it will compare to the 98 as the 91 compares to the 90. I'm also thinking that perhaps the 99 John Riddoch might be a wine worth buying(I have a few 96s but no 98s).

Agree with your comments about the VFM of the Wynns - I've reckoned it the best straight cabernet in the world for the price - but conceded I've not tasted every $20 cab in the world...! Someone at out dinner confirmed the $10 price figure - I know I was buying the 93 for $12 in 1996 so it sounded right to me, but of course back then there weren't such rampant price rises from vintage to vintage... (but didn't black label take a big price cut sometime in the 80s?...)

cheers,
Graeme

[Attila]

Graeme I must congratulate you. Very well written notes. The 1986 Wynns Cabernet Sauvignon brings back fond memories. According to my tasting notes, I've drunk it August 1992. I paid $13 for it and had this, back then 'inky, black wine that is alrady throwing a lot of sediment' with a steak (medium, salted) in the good company of friends.
I quit eating meat in 1993 and I don't miss that. The one thing I miss is an other bottle of the 1986 Cabernet Sauvignon.
Cheers,
Attila

[Mike Hawkins]

Graeme,

Thanks for these - very timely. I'm jointly hosting a vertical of the following vintages - 66, 71, 76, 82, 86, 90, 91, 94, 96, 98 & 99 on NYE. Your notes have indeed whetted the appetite !