I just rec'd an email from Giaconda stating that the 2002 reds are out and 2001 Chardonnay. prices seem high for the chrdonnay - is it worth $93 and has anyone tatsed these Giaconda wines and if so are they worth it pls?
TIA
Giaconda - worth the prices?
Tim
Although we may think they are stretching the price with the Chardonnay at $93, I suspect it won't matter. There are enough people out there with plenty of money who will mop up his tiny production irrespective of whether we buy it or not.
You could probably mount a similar argument for Bass Phillip, perhaps Mt Mary and almost certainly plenty of "upstart" Parkerised wines.
regards
Although we may think they are stretching the price with the Chardonnay at $93, I suspect it won't matter. There are enough people out there with plenty of money who will mop up his tiny production irrespective of whether we buy it or not.
You could probably mount a similar argument for Bass Phillip, perhaps Mt Mary and almost certainly plenty of "upstart" Parkerised wines.
regards
Tim - here's a report on my recent tasting of the Giaconda wines, held in Auckland. It was posted in the 'What have you been drinking thread' started Sunday 26th Oct thread. Hope it is of interest to you. Cheers,
Sue
Went to a Giaconda tasting this week and quite honestly I was totally underwhelmed with the famed Giaconda Chardonnay 2001. Two bottles were opened and both so different. The first quite lean, pale straw in colour with perfumed, delicate, mealy barrel-ferment aromas, quite spicy in the palate but very very restrained, very very dry, so ethereal it was almost not there. It was quite salty and showed the acidity and nutty mineral notes that the supplied tasting notes referred to, but no real fruit depth. Very long in flavour, lingering with a touch of hotness, it's a wine to develop in the bottle and hopefully let that fruit emerge.
Others in the room that knew Giaconda thought this wine was faulty, so another bottle was opened. This second bottle to me had a suggestion of cork taint as it did to some others, but it was a wine that left the room divided as to whether it was faulty or not - others said it was simply sulphides. It had more colour and more flavour, an underlying textural richness and long, lingering nutty notes. I had to wonder, though, does this wine ever show fruit?
I thought the first was the better, opening up well in the glass over time.
To me the Nantua Les Deux, a blend of 84% Chardonnay and 16% Roussanne, was the better wine on the day. The pale gold Nantua Les Deux 2001 had a subtle smokiness on the nose with hints of smoky bacon, apricot and other stone fruit. Very dry but as soon as the wine went in the mouth I knew it was something special. Very fine oak in the background, savoury, smoky and refined mealy nuttiness and oak spice marrying to the lovely fruit. Great weight, concentration, balance and length - Burgundian in style though Chardonnay not as obvious as in the 2002. There's a floral honeyed lift to the finish. A beautiful wine with a white satin texture.
Nantua Les Deux 2002 is more overt in its aromas, smelling of creamed nuts and mellow oak overlain with spice. It's more generous in its flavour showing a typically Chardonnay full body with creamy, mealy, nutty characters, the dry core of Roussanne emerging mid-palate and a lovely dry smoky, nutty, slightly spicy finish, which is long, lifted and bready. A lovely cool-climate Burgundian/Rhonish wine with a fat unctuous, harmonious texture, still very youthful and seemingly a little sweeter with more obvious honeyed oak than the 2001. This will appeal more to Chardonnay drinkers.
We also tasted the Aeolia (100% Roussanne) 2001 and 2002, very dry wines with incredible roundness, body and concentration - I would love to see these with some age (say at least 5 years), the harmonious 2001 already promising signs of great things to come. The 2002 a little chardonnay-like in some respects, needing the vanillin oak and malolactic characters to integrate more and let the Roussanne speak.
The Giaconda Pinot Noir 2001 is a bit tough and tannic, with jarring acidity right now - a wine 'well poised' for aging, perhaps.
The Giaconda Shiraz 2000 - was it Shiraz? I really failed to see what the fuss was about. I found the acid in this wine quite high and this bottle seems to be fading and drying out. 'Different and individual' said someone. Mmmmm. You can't argue with that.
But redemption with the Giaconda Shiraz 2001 - at least it had varietal characters I could identify. Pepper and spice intertwining with earthy savoury characters, blackberry and plum fruit, vanillin oak and the wonderful leather and rose petal that cool climate Syrah does so well. An impressive array of flavours - a merge of Aussie Shiraz and Rhone Syrah backed up by sound tannins, a terrific grainy texture and an impressive length that becomes almost chocolately as it lingers with a peppery signature that remains. I liked this.
Wine with hype. Very expensive wines. Interesting to taste and see what all the fuss is about. I think that once the Nantua Les Deux raises it Chardonnay levels to 85% so it can be labelled 'Chardonnay', this could be become one of Aussie's superstar wines.
Cheers,
Sue
Sue
Went to a Giaconda tasting this week and quite honestly I was totally underwhelmed with the famed Giaconda Chardonnay 2001. Two bottles were opened and both so different. The first quite lean, pale straw in colour with perfumed, delicate, mealy barrel-ferment aromas, quite spicy in the palate but very very restrained, very very dry, so ethereal it was almost not there. It was quite salty and showed the acidity and nutty mineral notes that the supplied tasting notes referred to, but no real fruit depth. Very long in flavour, lingering with a touch of hotness, it's a wine to develop in the bottle and hopefully let that fruit emerge.
Others in the room that knew Giaconda thought this wine was faulty, so another bottle was opened. This second bottle to me had a suggestion of cork taint as it did to some others, but it was a wine that left the room divided as to whether it was faulty or not - others said it was simply sulphides. It had more colour and more flavour, an underlying textural richness and long, lingering nutty notes. I had to wonder, though, does this wine ever show fruit?
I thought the first was the better, opening up well in the glass over time.
To me the Nantua Les Deux, a blend of 84% Chardonnay and 16% Roussanne, was the better wine on the day. The pale gold Nantua Les Deux 2001 had a subtle smokiness on the nose with hints of smoky bacon, apricot and other stone fruit. Very dry but as soon as the wine went in the mouth I knew it was something special. Very fine oak in the background, savoury, smoky and refined mealy nuttiness and oak spice marrying to the lovely fruit. Great weight, concentration, balance and length - Burgundian in style though Chardonnay not as obvious as in the 2002. There's a floral honeyed lift to the finish. A beautiful wine with a white satin texture.
Nantua Les Deux 2002 is more overt in its aromas, smelling of creamed nuts and mellow oak overlain with spice. It's more generous in its flavour showing a typically Chardonnay full body with creamy, mealy, nutty characters, the dry core of Roussanne emerging mid-palate and a lovely dry smoky, nutty, slightly spicy finish, which is long, lifted and bready. A lovely cool-climate Burgundian/Rhonish wine with a fat unctuous, harmonious texture, still very youthful and seemingly a little sweeter with more obvious honeyed oak than the 2001. This will appeal more to Chardonnay drinkers.
We also tasted the Aeolia (100% Roussanne) 2001 and 2002, very dry wines with incredible roundness, body and concentration - I would love to see these with some age (say at least 5 years), the harmonious 2001 already promising signs of great things to come. The 2002 a little chardonnay-like in some respects, needing the vanillin oak and malolactic characters to integrate more and let the Roussanne speak.
The Giaconda Pinot Noir 2001 is a bit tough and tannic, with jarring acidity right now - a wine 'well poised' for aging, perhaps.
The Giaconda Shiraz 2000 - was it Shiraz? I really failed to see what the fuss was about. I found the acid in this wine quite high and this bottle seems to be fading and drying out. 'Different and individual' said someone. Mmmmm. You can't argue with that.
But redemption with the Giaconda Shiraz 2001 - at least it had varietal characters I could identify. Pepper and spice intertwining with earthy savoury characters, blackberry and plum fruit, vanillin oak and the wonderful leather and rose petal that cool climate Syrah does so well. An impressive array of flavours - a merge of Aussie Shiraz and Rhone Syrah backed up by sound tannins, a terrific grainy texture and an impressive length that becomes almost chocolately as it lingers with a peppery signature that remains. I liked this.
Wine with hype. Very expensive wines. Interesting to taste and see what all the fuss is about. I think that once the Nantua Les Deux raises it Chardonnay levels to 85% so it can be labelled 'Chardonnay', this could be become one of Aussie's superstar wines.
Cheers,
Sue
-
Guest
I was on the Giaconda mailing list for many years, but left several years ago, because in my opinion, the wines just represented very poor value.
I have had these wines blind many, many times, and both the pinot and the chardonnay are always middle of the road. Consistently out-performed by premier cru and village WB, and left for dead by good vintages of Leeuwin.
The 1998 Chard was tasted blind on cup eve against two wines of the age- the 1998 D'Angerville "Santenots" and a chardie from Macedon whose name escapes me. The Giaconda was a distant last, and amazed half those present when the wines were revealed. The pinot is close to swill. Only a freakish 1992 vintage established its reputation, with the rest very ordinary indeed.
There are heaps of better wines to spend your money on at the moment.
I have had these wines blind many, many times, and both the pinot and the chardonnay are always middle of the road. Consistently out-performed by premier cru and village WB, and left for dead by good vintages of Leeuwin.
The 1998 Chard was tasted blind on cup eve against two wines of the age- the 1998 D'Angerville "Santenots" and a chardie from Macedon whose name escapes me. The Giaconda was a distant last, and amazed half those present when the wines were revealed. The pinot is close to swill. Only a freakish 1992 vintage established its reputation, with the rest very ordinary indeed.
There are heaps of better wines to spend your money on at the moment.