2 separate questions.
1: What is the most expensive 100% Hunter Red?
2: What is the best Hunter Red?
by best I mean it's been around for a decent time and 80% + of vintages are very good or exceptional not just a wine that occasionally hits the heights but is usually average.
Duh, I just remembered Graveyard! I had forgotten all about that.
Oh well, I may as well keep going now I've started. Any other contenders or any rare high priced wines I'm not aware of.
Hunter Reds
Not sure on #1.
On #2 how about Lake's Folly? Been around since 1963. Not fashionable in these RPJ days ... but consistently fine wine. Also McWilliams Mt. Pleasant make some top Shiraz and Semillon.
Both old fashioned choices I know.
On the wines that really scale the heights, the Lindeman's Hunter Valley reds seem to be amazing from time to time ... like about one in eight-ten years. Bin 3110 and 3100 from1965 (?) may still be hanging in there. 2003 was good also (?). Hunter Valley is not my forte but that my 0.02.
On #2 how about Lake's Folly? Been around since 1963. Not fashionable in these RPJ days ... but consistently fine wine. Also McWilliams Mt. Pleasant make some top Shiraz and Semillon.
Both old fashioned choices I know.
On the wines that really scale the heights, the Lindeman's Hunter Valley reds seem to be amazing from time to time ... like about one in eight-ten years. Bin 3110 and 3100 from1965 (?) may still be hanging in there. 2003 was good also (?). Hunter Valley is not my forte but that my 0.02.
“There are no standards of taste in wine. Each mans own taste is the standard, and a majority vote cannot decide for him or in any slightest degree affect the supremacy of his own standard". Mark Twain.
-
Ratcatcher
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Hobart
How come Graveyard is the only very expensive Hunter red?
Surely Tyrrells and McWilliams and some other Hunter producers must have access to some vineyards equal to or better than Graveyard? Is Graveyard just good marketing?
Is Maurice O'Shea Shiraz dollar for dollar vintage for vintage a better wine than Graveyard?
ie: Is Graveyard consistently a better wine or does it occasionally have a vintage that exceeds anything the O'Shea has ever done or are they about equal and the O'Shea way out in front on QPR?
Who now owns the vineyards that the 1960's and 1970's Lindemans reds came from?
Surely Tyrrells and McWilliams and some other Hunter producers must have access to some vineyards equal to or better than Graveyard? Is Graveyard just good marketing?
Is Maurice O'Shea Shiraz dollar for dollar vintage for vintage a better wine than Graveyard?
ie: Is Graveyard consistently a better wine or does it occasionally have a vintage that exceeds anything the O'Shea has ever done or are they about equal and the O'Shea way out in front on QPR?
Who now owns the vineyards that the 1960's and 1970's Lindemans reds came from?
-
Gavin Trott
- Posts: 1864
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:01 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
Alex F wrote:Graveyard is pretty expensive...
90$ a bottle?
Mearea Park Hell Hole was 55$?
can't say i can think of any above 100$...
Andrew Jordan and I tried the new Mearea Park Hell Hole last Sunday evening in the Barossa.
We were (Andrew, jump in here) a bit disappointed.
Of course it was in the company of some Barossa heavy hitters, but we had this first.
Seemed to lack intensity and perhaps a little interest?
regards
Gavin Trott
Gavin Trott
Gavin Trott wrote:Andrew Jordan and I tried the new Mearea Park Hell Hole last Sunday evening in the Barossa.
We were (Andrew, jump in here) a bit disappointed.
Of course it was in the company of some Barossa heavy hitters, but we had this first.
Seemed to lack intensity and perhaps a little interest?
Was this 03 or 04?
-
Andrew Jordan
- Posts: 792
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:53 am
- Location: Sydney
Lincoln wrote:Gavin Trott wrote:Andrew Jordan and I tried the new Mearea Park Hell Hole last Sunday evening in the Barossa.
We were (Andrew, jump in here) a bit disappointed.
Of course it was in the company of some Barossa heavy hitters, but we had this first.
Seemed to lack intensity and perhaps a little interest?
Was this 03 or 04?
Lincoln,
It was the 2003. I, like Gavin, was a bit underwhelmed by this wine, considering it has received some very good reviews, even here on the Forum. However, as Gavin did mention, it was paired with some pretty big Barossa fruit monsters, and then there was the afternoon of Kaesler barrel tasting that we also did prior to dinner ... so these things probably didn't help the Mearea Park wine. I do have a few more of these so will probably try another bottle soon by itself and give it a fair go.
Last edited by Andrew Jordan on Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Cheers
AJ
Cabernet is ... and will always be ... KING!
AJ
Cabernet is ... and will always be ... KING!
-
Ratcatcher
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Hobart
I'd forget about trying to find the Hunter Grange. Many winemakers, in the Upper Hunter in particular, realised that they were on a hiding to nothing trying to grow red grapes. The early rains in late February come before the reds ripen and mildew, grape splitting, floods! etc ruin the vintage. Whilst there is the odd good year when the rains come later it just isn't worth perservering. Andrew Margan has made some good reds in certain vintages but not every year. Too many great reds from down south to worry about the Hunter!
We're not here for a long time, we're here for a good time!
The most expensive current release Hunter red is Graveyard. Then of course you have things like the '65 Lindies 3310 going for $600+ at auction. That wine is as good as or better than ANY Grange. The old o'shea and other lindies 1590 etc are the best this country had made.
I get cross with ill informed blanket statements like Shadrach's.
What is the best red currently ? For me the following
Old School
_____
Tyrrells Vat 9
Mount Pleasant Rosehill, OH&OP, O'Shea
Lakes Folly
Graveyard
New School
____
Meerea Alex Munro
Meerea Terracotta
Meerea Hell Hole
Chateau Pato DJP
Thomas KISS
Graveyard is every bit as good as Grange in a good vintage...
there are others. Site specific. Vintage specific.
What you have to remember about the Hunter is that in many ways it is like Burgundy - i.e. you need a great vintage and there are only a handful of great sites (i.e. grand crus) on which to make red wine. These sites are the red volcanic soils that run down from the Brokenback Ranges i.e. Around Lindemans, Mount View, Tyrrells, Somerset Vineyard and some of the outcrops where Folly and Rosehill are. When the vintage is good...and the site is a 'grand cru' then Hunter reds can/will/and do eclipse just about any other red wine made in this country.
O'shea is a bit buggered by the oak they use IMO. I wish they would tone it down and use French. Then it would be at the very very top of the tree.
GW
http://www.winorama.com.au
I get cross with ill informed blanket statements like Shadrach's.
What is the best red currently ? For me the following
Old School
_____
Tyrrells Vat 9
Mount Pleasant Rosehill, OH&OP, O'Shea
Lakes Folly
Graveyard
New School
____
Meerea Alex Munro
Meerea Terracotta
Meerea Hell Hole
Chateau Pato DJP
Thomas KISS
Graveyard is every bit as good as Grange in a good vintage...
there are others. Site specific. Vintage specific.
What you have to remember about the Hunter is that in many ways it is like Burgundy - i.e. you need a great vintage and there are only a handful of great sites (i.e. grand crus) on which to make red wine. These sites are the red volcanic soils that run down from the Brokenback Ranges i.e. Around Lindemans, Mount View, Tyrrells, Somerset Vineyard and some of the outcrops where Folly and Rosehill are. When the vintage is good...and the site is a 'grand cru' then Hunter reds can/will/and do eclipse just about any other red wine made in this country.
O'shea is a bit buggered by the oak they use IMO. I wish they would tone it down and use French. Then it would be at the very very top of the tree.
GW
http://www.winorama.com.au
Ratchatcher's question was the interesting one. Who ownes the old Lindemans vineyards from the 50s and 60s. Tulloch were famous for 'Dry Reds' in the 60s - what became of those vines? You can see how much there is to be said for the Burgundian system as identified by Gary. I suspect too many of them were ripped up/replanted because of declining yields and other economic reasons. (I don't know, but I recall that's how similar questions have been answered in the past.) Which would be ironic, given the prices generally commanded by such wines nowadays...
cheers,
Graeme
cheers,
Graeme
Here is the drum on the Lindemans Hunter vineyards -
Stevens: The Stevens vineyard below Scarborough was developed by Lindemans and called Stevens. Now owned by Roche.
The other Stevens vineyards, one next to Howard (Somerset) and one next to Ivanhoe are still owned by George & Neil Stevens. They have supplied Lindemans fruit in the past, probably in the 1970's as did Howard. The fruit is used for Tyrrells.
Ben Ean: This is the one behind the winery. Is still owned by Lindemans and was more than likely the sole fruit source for the 3110 and 3100.
Sunshine : Was 100% white with the majority being Semillon. Was grubbed out due to nematode infestation. Now owned by Scarborough.
GW
PS. Who is that stern looking librarian chick in your avatar or are you a trans-sexual?
http://www.winorama.com.au
Stevens: The Stevens vineyard below Scarborough was developed by Lindemans and called Stevens. Now owned by Roche.
The other Stevens vineyards, one next to Howard (Somerset) and one next to Ivanhoe are still owned by George & Neil Stevens. They have supplied Lindemans fruit in the past, probably in the 1970's as did Howard. The fruit is used for Tyrrells.
Ben Ean: This is the one behind the winery. Is still owned by Lindemans and was more than likely the sole fruit source for the 3110 and 3100.
Sunshine : Was 100% white with the majority being Semillon. Was grubbed out due to nematode infestation. Now owned by Scarborough.
GW
PS. Who is that stern looking librarian chick in your avatar or are you a trans-sexual?
http://www.winorama.com.au
-
Baby Chickpea
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:17 pm
Gary W wrote:
PS. Who is that stern looking librarian chick in your avatar or are you a trans-sexual?
Don't you watch moofies?
PS - Gary's Old school list is spot on.
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
Gary W wrote:Here is the drum on the Lindemans Hunter vineyards -
Stevens: The Stevens vineyard below Scarborough was developed by Lindemans and called Stevens. Now owned by Roche.
The other Stevens vineyards, one next to Howard (Somerset) and one next to Ivanhoe are still owned by George & Neil Stevens. They have supplied Lindemans fruit in the past, probably in the 1970's as did Howard. The fruit is used for Tyrrells.
Ben Ean: This is the one behind the winery. Is still owned by Lindemans and was more than likely the sole fruit source for the 3110 and 3100.
Sunshine : Was 100% white with the majority being Semillon. Was grubbed out due to nematode infestation. Now owned by Scarborough.
GW
PS. Who is that stern looking librarian chick in your avatar or are you a trans-sexual?
http://www.winorama.com.au
The reds at least, then, seem clearly subject to freak years. I'd infer from what you write that the Ben Ean grapes go into the present HR shiraz sold at CD, but they don't seem of a kind likely to product even another Bin 6600, never mind the famous 65 pair! And although I've never been bowled over by 'Stevens' wines under either the Lindemans or Tyrrell's labels I'll assume that's only because I've only had spotty exposure to both.
Nematodes, eh. Bastards.
The avatar is the lovely and classy Diane Lane. You never quite escape from your first teenage movie-heart-throb, do you? It's good that she still works. And she can act too, which is more than can be said for a number of better-known names...
cheers,
Graeme
Andrew Jordan wrote:Lincoln,
It was the 2003. I, like Gavin, was a bit underwhelmed by this wine, considering it has received some very good reviews, even here on the Forum. However, as Gavin did mention, it was paired with some pretty big Barossa fruit monsters, and then there was the afternoon of Kaesler barrel tasting that we also did prior to dinner ... so these things probably didn't help the Mearea Park wine. I do have a few more of these so will probably try another bottle soon by itself and give it a fair go.
You had a Kaesler barrel tasting beforehand! I am surprised you could taste anything after that. I had the 2003 Old Bastard and 2004 WOMD yesterday. I am lucky I had them after I went to Rockford and not before. If I actually bought any (which I did not), I would serve them after the ports and muscats.
Adair
Wine is bottled poetry.
-
Andrew Jordan
- Posts: 792
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 11:53 am
- Location: Sydney
Adair wrote:You had a Kaesler barrel tasting beforehand! I am surprised you could taste anything after that. I had the 2003 Old Bastard and 2004 WOMD yesterday. I am lucky I had them after I went to Rockford and not before. If I actually bought any (which I did not), I would serve them after the ports and muscats.
Adair
Adair,
Yes they are big wines ... I had too look twice when I tasted the Hell Hole as I thought I might have picked up my water glass by mistake.
What did you think of the 2004 WOMS? I thought it was a fair bit riper than the 2002 and really not to my tastes. The just bottled 2004 OB was exceptional!
Cheers
AJ
Cabernet is ... and will always be ... KING!
AJ
Cabernet is ... and will always be ... KING!
-
pokolbinguy
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:37 pm
Ok ok ok this is my take... i live on a vineyard in the hunter valley.
What is consitantly good??
The hunter is a harsh place to grow grapes... every vintage is so different. for example 2000, it was the only vintage of its type since about 1956. other vintages are generally at one end of the scale or the other.... really hot and dry or bloody wet. this means consitanty is hard to come across.
generally the wineries who have access to older vines.... McWilliams, Tyrells, Linemans, brokenwood etc (and more than im sure are out there, just using these wineries as they are familiar for most ppl) will have more consistantly better wines.... the older the vines the more consistant the fruit. this is why old root stock is so important.
What is the most expensive?
not to sound rude or anything, but why the heck would you want to know this?? remember 2000 o'shea was selling for $38.50 while 99 grange was selling for $399, o'shea was rated 97/100, grange 95/100.... just because it is expenisive does not mean it is fantastic? many wineries in the region have outstanding reds at a reasonable cost. McWilliams Mount Pleasant rosehill is $32. and from memory you can pick up tyrells steven block for about $25.. (i think)... go to cellar door, try the wine, talk to the staff... and if you like it buy it.. simple as that... thats how i work on it... dont even look at the price of the wine until after you have tried it... looking at the price with change your perception of a wine, its just natural.
Well that is just my 2c... any one else??
Cheers,
Woody
What is consitantly good??
The hunter is a harsh place to grow grapes... every vintage is so different. for example 2000, it was the only vintage of its type since about 1956. other vintages are generally at one end of the scale or the other.... really hot and dry or bloody wet. this means consitanty is hard to come across.
generally the wineries who have access to older vines.... McWilliams, Tyrells, Linemans, brokenwood etc (and more than im sure are out there, just using these wineries as they are familiar for most ppl) will have more consistantly better wines.... the older the vines the more consistant the fruit. this is why old root stock is so important.
What is the most expensive?
not to sound rude or anything, but why the heck would you want to know this?? remember 2000 o'shea was selling for $38.50 while 99 grange was selling for $399, o'shea was rated 97/100, grange 95/100.... just because it is expenisive does not mean it is fantastic? many wineries in the region have outstanding reds at a reasonable cost. McWilliams Mount Pleasant rosehill is $32. and from memory you can pick up tyrells steven block for about $25.. (i think)... go to cellar door, try the wine, talk to the staff... and if you like it buy it.. simple as that... thats how i work on it... dont even look at the price of the wine until after you have tried it... looking at the price with change your perception of a wine, its just natural.
Well that is just my 2c... any one else??
Cheers,
Woody
woodwardbrett wrote: dont even look at the price of the wine until after you have tried it... looking at the price with change your perception of a wine, its just natural.
Cheers,
Woody
Amen. FWIW, I try and do this with unfamiliar wines at tastings. I also regularly give my wife wines to taste blind and she has to guess the value as part of our own assessment process at home. A good way to estimate QPR.
Don't have anything significant to add on the main topic. Although I was weaned on Hunter wines, and I still have a soft spot for them, they don't constitute a big part of my cellar these days. (However, I think every person interested in Aussie wine owes it to themselves to at least become familiar with the pleasures of aged Hunter shiraz and semillon.)
"It is very hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Samuel Goldwyn
not to sound rude or anything, but why the heck would you want to know this?? remember 2000 o'shea was selling for $38.50 while 99 grange was selling for $399, o'shea was rated 97/100, grange 95/100....
Oh dear, lets prove how unreliable price is at demonstrating quality by using ratings points
There is more than one cliff lemmings can jump off
-
Michael McNally
- Posts: 2091
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:06 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Craig
I hope you aren't suggesting that price is a good determinant of quality? I know you post doesn't, but criticism of criticism often (but not always) indicates support for the thing first criticised (in this case the price correlating with the quality of the wine).
I would merely point to the number of highly valued listed companies that go belly up, the tulip bulb craze of 1634-1637, IT shares in the 90s and a million other indicators of the regular failure of the market to determine the true value (if such a thing exists) of something. This is perhaps better evidence of how unreliable price is at demonstrating quality (though I fully support Roscoe's statement).
Michael
PS Roscoe, on our obligations to find out how great Hunter semillon is, my local had a tasting today of the 2005 Lost Block, 1999 Belvedere, and 1994 Vat 1. I tried, but did not 'get' these wines. The Lost Block was nice and fresh, I didn't like the Belvedere, and while I could tell the Vat 1 was quality, I did not really like it. Sigh.
I hope you aren't suggesting that price is a good determinant of quality? I know you post doesn't, but criticism of criticism often (but not always) indicates support for the thing first criticised (in this case the price correlating with the quality of the wine).
I would merely point to the number of highly valued listed companies that go belly up, the tulip bulb craze of 1634-1637, IT shares in the 90s and a million other indicators of the regular failure of the market to determine the true value (if such a thing exists) of something. This is perhaps better evidence of how unreliable price is at demonstrating quality (though I fully support Roscoe's statement).
Michael
PS Roscoe, on our obligations to find out how great Hunter semillon is, my local had a tasting today of the 2005 Lost Block, 1999 Belvedere, and 1994 Vat 1. I tried, but did not 'get' these wines. The Lost Block was nice and fresh, I didn't like the Belvedere, and while I could tell the Vat 1 was quality, I did not really like it. Sigh.
Bonum Vinum Laetificat Cor Hominis
Kilgore Trout wrote:
PS Roscoe, on our obligations to find out how great Hunter semillon is, my local had a tasting today of the 2005 Lost Block, 1999 Belvedere, and 1994 Vat 1. I tried, but did not 'get' these wines. The Lost Block was nice and fresh, I didn't like the Belvedere, and while I could tell the Vat 1 was quality, I did not really like it. Sigh.
Michael
Don't worry. See it as a blessing. It means there is a style of wine you don't like, so you can concentrate on spending your money on the styles that you do. If you like too many styles, you have to spread your money too thinly.
If you persisted with aged Hunter semillon, you might get it, but then you might not and you might have spent a lot of money in this failed attempt. I have the same issue with Burgundies and Pinot Noir. I've had a few very reputable Burgundies from good years, and the earth didn't move. If I made the effort to persist, I may eventually get it but I may not. So I console myself with the thoughts of the money I've saved by not "getting" Burgundy and Pinot Noir. This is what psychologists call rationalisation- a psychological defence. It works for me.
I apologise if this advice is gratuitous.
"It is very hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Samuel Goldwyn
Kil
No I agree that price isnt always a good detrmination of quality. Most often it is a case of diminishing returns, but often there is a classic rip off or classic bargin to be had.
However it is a general yard stick which to be honest may be just as good as using some glorified 100 point scale.
Just seemed Ironic that someone criticising the faults in one 'system of determining quality' backs up the arguement using another 'system' which is just as riddled with assumptions
However generally, If you spend $100 on a shiraz, odds on you will get a better one than if you spent $20
No I agree that price isnt always a good detrmination of quality. Most often it is a case of diminishing returns, but often there is a classic rip off or classic bargin to be had.
However it is a general yard stick which to be honest may be just as good as using some glorified 100 point scale.
Just seemed Ironic that someone criticising the faults in one 'system of determining quality' backs up the arguement using another 'system' which is just as riddled with assumptions
However generally, If you spend $100 on a shiraz, odds on you will get a better one than if you spent $20
-
Ratcatcher
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Hobart
woodwardbrett wrote:
What is the most expensive?
not to sound rude or anything, but why the heck would you want to know this?? remember 2000 o'shea was selling for $38.50 while 99 grange was selling for $399, o'shea was rated 97/100, grange 95/100.... just because it is expenisive does not mean it is fantastic?
Woody
I guess the point of my original post was to find out what people thought the best Hunter red was. What Hunter red holds a candle to some of the icons of SA like Grange, Hill of Grace etc.
The question about the most expensive was to see if price influenced people's opinions.
So given that it appears that the most mentioned wines with a history of high quality are Brokenwood, Lake's Folly and the Mount Pleasant trio how about a hypothetical.
You're stranded on a desert island with a plentiful supply of meat and herbs and vegetables growing wild for cooking.
A case of wine washes up on the beach. It's a mix of Hunter reds from various vintages from 1980 to 2000. Obviously the wines are not going to be kept for selling off in the future. What would you rather see stamped on the box?
Brokenwood Graveyard or
A mixed case of Maurice O'Shea, OP & OH and Rosehill or
Lakes Folly or
Meerea Park?
I would like to see a mixed dozen...for now and later.
1x83 Lindies 6600 Shiraz (in immaculate condition)
1x98 Graveyard
1x00 Graveyard
1x98 Lakes Folly
1x00 Lakes Folly
1x91 Rosehill
1x00 Rosehill
1x98 Rosehill
1x03 Meerea Park Alex Munro
1x03 Meerea Hell Hole
1x03 Chateau Pato DjP
1x91 Tyrrells Vat 9
I just had to cut the list short...bummer. Can I have 2 cases?
GW
http://www.winorama.com.au
1x83 Lindies 6600 Shiraz (in immaculate condition)
1x98 Graveyard
1x00 Graveyard
1x98 Lakes Folly
1x00 Lakes Folly
1x91 Rosehill
1x00 Rosehill
1x98 Rosehill
1x03 Meerea Park Alex Munro
1x03 Meerea Hell Hole
1x03 Chateau Pato DjP
1x91 Tyrrells Vat 9
I just had to cut the list short...bummer. Can I have 2 cases?
GW
http://www.winorama.com.au
GW,
I must bring a bottle of the 2000 Tower Estate Hunter Shiraz for you to try sometime. Quite prostigious, to borrow a phrase. One of the best Hunters I have tried for some time. Got into a taste-off for Wine of Show at the Hunter Show in 2003(?)against the infamous " wine that wasn't", the McGuigan Genus 4. The chairman got asked to make a call, went for the McGuigan. Of course the Chairman was Len Evans, meaning that he went against his own wine!
A very good wine, all the fruit from the Howard vineyard which to my way of thinking consistently produces some of the best fruit in the valley.
GD
I must bring a bottle of the 2000 Tower Estate Hunter Shiraz for you to try sometime. Quite prostigious, to borrow a phrase. One of the best Hunters I have tried for some time. Got into a taste-off for Wine of Show at the Hunter Show in 2003(?)against the infamous " wine that wasn't", the McGuigan Genus 4. The chairman got asked to make a call, went for the McGuigan. Of course the Chairman was Len Evans, meaning that he went against his own wine!
A very good wine, all the fruit from the Howard vineyard which to my way of thinking consistently produces some of the best fruit in the valley.
GD
-
BoozeHound
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 4:15 pm
GraemeG wrote:Ratchatcher's question was the interesting one. Who ownes the old Lindemans vineyards from the 50s and 60s. Tulloch were famous for 'Dry Reds' in the 60s - what became of those vines? You can see how much there is to be said for the Burgundian system as identified by Gary. I suspect too many of them were ripped up/replanted because of declining yields and other economic reasons. (I don't know, but I recall that's how similar questions have been answered in the past.) Which would be ironic, given the prices generally commanded by such wines nowadays...
cheers,
Graeme
The old vines are still in action, and the wine being produced from them is the Tulloch Limited Release Hector Shiraz. They've also commenced production of a "Pokolbin Dry Red" again with the 2003 vintage, which is an absolute cracker!