Archives - a dead cellar

[GraemeG]

At some point I wanted to look up some wines I'd seen as part of this 'tasting', but realised that it was posted on the 'old' forum (pre-2003 I think) and was no longer net-available. (Well, I couldn't find it using the search function...) So I dredged this old essay off the C:drive. Apologies to those of you who've read it before - I don't normally make a habit of exhuming 5 year old notes (this was written in 2002) but given the specific circumstances, I don't think the passing of the years lessen the value of the lesson contained herein...


One of the side-effects of being a wine geek occurs when you are asked to help someone go through a few wines they have lying around to see if they are any good. Such an occasion was Sunday May 5, when Greg, one of my fellow Noble Rotter diners, sought my contribution in the evaluation of the contents of one of his friends' cellar. This friend’s father passed away and Michael was left with the job of sorting the cellar, something he was only getting around to 2 years after the bereavement. The cellar was of the passive type, a small hollow under a large stone house in Sydney’s eastern suburbs. Michael had sorted, opened, and ditched many of the bottles from the 50’s, but the newer wines awaited! We spent 5 hours sorting and tasting in the afternoon, and I have recorded a few notes (obituaries, really) here, just for the sake of interest.

I should point out that in general we opened the lowest fill bottles (in the case of multiple holdings), so the picture painted here is the bleakest possible one. Sometimes we opened a second example, and for single bottles that looked a bit dodgy we cracked the cork as well. Wines that looked in good condition we left, even if they were suspect in terms of drinkability (unless there were half-a-dozen plus bottles). So, for example, the cellar contained 2 bottles, in fine condition (bottom of neck) of the famous 1963 Mildara Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon “Peppermint Patty”, which, had I not opened my trap about the monetary value thereof, we may have opened! But, there’s a moral aspect to all this! Similarly, pristine single bottles of 1982 Pichon Lalande and 1982 Leoville Las Cases remained unbroached.

The single biggest lesson to come from this exercise, from my point of view, is the importance of not leaving wines way too long to drink. Many of the wines here would have been magnificent 10 or 15 years ago, but now serve merely as exotic Drain-o. Penfolds entitle their booklet of back tastings “Rewards of Patience”. This tasting could fairly be described as “Punishments of Inertia.” And so the three of us embarked on the afternoon quest, armed with a variety of spirals, Ah-So’s and sundry prongs to remove bits of ancient cork. The notes below are not in order of tasting – similar wines are gathered together, as often the tasting notes were the same!

The single biggest name represented in the cellar was Mildara. Due to multiple bottle holdings, we were able to assemble a vertical tasting of Mildara Cabernet-Shiraz (the intricate yellow&black label, similar to that still used for their quaffing sherries). The vintages & Bins were:1962 Bin 31, 1963 Bin 32, 1964 Bin 33, 1966 Bin 35, 1967 Bin 36, 1968 Bin 37, 1969 Bin 38, 1970 Bin 39, 1971 Bin 40, 1972 Bin 41. The label address is given as Coonawarra, but I don’t know whether these are exclusively Coonawarra wines. These wines were highly volatile, mouldy, with fruit gone, no tannins, only a vicious acidity remaining. Curiously, the earlier wines were slightly more palatable, although it’s clearly a matter of degree. Had the early wines been better, there might have been a case for a ‘closing-down’ at 30 years, followed by a bloom at 40, but that would be stretching the point! The wines were very consistent through the 60’s, though, but the differences in the later wines made me wonder if there were some changes to fruit components or fermentation at that time. The 1965, missing from the line-up above, was in fact in the cellar, but we judged the time & trouble to drag its mouldy box from the far corner wasn’t worth it! A marginally different wine was the 1958 Mildara Vintage Claret [Cabernet Sauvignon] (Hunter-Coonawarra), which in addition to the VA, had a ultra-earthy component to it’s bouquet. No-one was brave enough to taste it.

Slightly more prestigious wines were available from the same producer. We also tasted 1966 and 1967 Mildara Coonawarra Cabernet Shiraz Malbec [white label]. The 67 had gone to VA land, but the 66 was just holding together, if acid dominated. This was drinkable, but only at the end of a very long evening when most of the guests would be past noticing!

Mildara’s flagship wine, again with two vintages for sampling, was the 1966 and 1967 Mildara Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon. Here even the 67 was passable, with some stewed fruit, lots of acid, but a faint wisp of tannin just remaining. The finish was short, but it was alive. The 66 was a real wine. Very gentle, soft & aged, with velvety tannins keeping the balance just together. Quite pleasant, in context. Could certainly be served at the end of a meal, as a curio, perhaps. Levels on these two bottles were just below the neck, so vintage variation was presumably the difference between them. I suspect the untried 63s would be very good.

There was a white as well! The 1968 Mildara Coonawarra Rhine Riesling was well down the neck of the bottle, but a clear glowing gold none-the-less. Sadly, it was long gone, the faintest vestige of honeyed fruit overpowered by the decay of oxidation.

Other producers from Coonawarra were represented. Thoroughly over-the-hill, as the name suggests, were both the 1975 Hungerford Hill Coonawarra Shiraz, which I made the mistake of putting in my mouth, and the 1976 Hungerford Hill Coonawarra Cabernet, which was pretty much a bottle of ethyl acetate. I had higher hopes for the 1971 Wynns Cabernet Hermitage [shiraz], the old red stripe bottle. This had an almost liqueur-like quality on the palate, but with the fruit gone and the wine drying out fast, all that was left was a gentle astringent finish. Worse still was the 1972 Wynns Cabernet Sauvignon [black label] which was sour, & heading towards vinegar. Not good! But there was one wine which polarised tasters. Whereas we generally agreed on verdicts of ‘poisonous’, ‘very bad’, and ‘barely drinkable’ for most wines, the 1980 Rouge Homme Coonawarra Cabernet sparked lively debate. I couldn’t get past a nose of asparagus, but Michael & Greg felt capsicum was the dominant aroma. I remember the famous 1980 Lindemans St George, a wine (never tasted by me) which was supposed to epitomise the herbaceous, leafy, ‘elegant’ quality makers in Coonawarra were striving for in the early eighties. It occurs to me that this is probably exactly what the Rouge Homme makers were aiming for too. Although I personally disliked the wine, there’s no doubt it was still alive, though to me under-ripe, vegetal characters dominate the palate. Whether the wine could be described as faulty is therefore probably a matter of taste. There was some astringency too, and plenty of acid which was still holding everything together.

To the Clare Valley and two reds, of which the 1975 Taylors Cabernet Sauvignon was untasteably volatile, but the 1978 Leasingham Bin 49 Cabernet Sauvignon surprised us all. Certainly I found a under-ripe greenish quality to the fruit, but the palate was holding together, the acid & even a little tannin making a reasonably harmonious, if slightly decrepit, wine. Definitely drinkable though, something becoming a rare quality, as the empty bottles piled up and the wines etched their way into the finish of the sink’s plughole.

A numbers of makers failed to supply a decent wine on the day. Hardy’s deserves special mention, because so few of their offerings actually made it into anyone’s mouth. I assume these wines were all made from McLaren Vale fruit – it’s difficult to be certain with the claims on old labels. Their offerings were:
1974 Keppoch Estate Reserve Bin 322 Cabernet - dreadful earthy bottle stink won’t ever blow off
1975 Private Bin Hermitage [shiraz] – despite the French oak, it was tarry, flat, short, acidic & oxidised
1973 Private Bin C454 Claret – VA only. Go no further.
1962 Private Bin C454 Claret [shiraz] – unbearably rotten. Michael, who plies his trade as a forensic pathologist remarked “It smells like work…”
1981 Keppoch Pinot Noir - here was a surprise. Quite light in colour, the faint redness came as a change after so many brown wines. A little sweet berry fruit on the nose, with a very dry, slightly astringent finish on the palate. Almost a kind of cordial - just drinkable.

A few sundry South Australian bottles – but nothing pleasant. Yalumba made great mileage years ago out of a Galway wine that then prime minister Sir Robert Menzies took a great shine to. I can’t believe it would have been the 1959 Yalumba Special Reserve Galway Show Blend (Cabernet-Shiraz), which was oxidised to the point of mustiness and not to pass the lips. More dreadful still, and a serious contender for ‘Negative Wine of the Day’ was the Southern Hills Wine Co 1963 Adelaide Hills Cabernet Sauvignon. Absolutely dead in the glass, and I’m sure the makers suffered the fate they so clearly deserved.

One unexpectedly good wine was the 1975 Pewsey Vale Cabernet Sauvignon. From the eponymous vineyard on the edge of the Barossa, this had a muted nose, and carried old wine characters onto the palate, only to be spoiled at the finish by a massive dose of astringency. With the right food, it might be passable, despite trembling on the very edge of drinkability.

The single biggest disappointment for on the day was the wines of Seppelt There were a number of cuvees, but levels (invariably in Burgundy-shaped bottles) were quite low, though often corks & capsules appeared in reasonable condition. Reds opened were:
1962 Great Western Burgundy CH.20 [shiraz]
1962 Great Western Claret S.114 [shiraz]
1958 Great Western Burgundy O.52 [shiraz] – red wine vinegar!
1970 Chalambar Burgundy [shiraz] – smelt like varnish, dreadful
1965 Lyndoch Hermitage Bin BW7 – dry, dead & quite hideous
1966 Private Bin U36 Pinot Noir - who could have imagined that someone would go to the trouble of draining the gearbox of a WWII German Submarine and bottle the contents! According to the label, the wine saw no oak as a youngster, so there was a chance we might find something to like here. But it had no varietal quality at all, just a thin acid, and was almost entirely unrecognisable as wine.
The two 1962 wines above presented a tarry bitumen nose, tinged with some decaying stench – really they were just awful. I assume by the early 60s that the legendary Colin Preece was retired from winemaking at Great Western, because it’s frightening to think that these could be his wines! The one drinkable red was the
1977 Seppelt Old Keppoch K404/77 Pinot Noir. Incredibly, this was still alive, some strawberry fruit on the nose, and a soft gentle palate. It was a kind of gentle alcoholic cordial, but it was drinkable!

Alarmingly, there were also some white wines under the Seppelt name. These were:
1963 Great Western Chasselas T.19 - bravely described on the label as a “very interesting style”, this was a very depressing wine. A dirty gold, even sniffing it was a trial.
1956 Great Western Hock Type M.45 - again oxidised beyond recognition!
1958 Great Western Riesling O.47-51 (Clare Valley) – apparently real riesling, not that there was any way of telling!
1961 Great Western Hock R.30 - getting tough to call this a white wine – a sort of off-gold murky colour (Greg – “I’d rather drink white paint…”), it was never-the-less the most drinkable of the sorry collection of whites. All the whites had an… aroma (not a bouquet – more a kind of stench) that was a cross between TCA and oxidation. It was a trial to even taste one or two, and quite impossible to swallow any of them.

The Victorian flag was also waved by a 1974 Brown Brothers Milawa Shiraz Mondeuse Cabernet. If you got past an overly tarry nose, the palate was not that bad. Still only marginal, but a bit of a surprise none-the-less. A real masochist’s wine was the 1976 Brown Brothers Cabernet Malbec. My notes on this mention a vicious acid back-hander just when you thought the wine had done its worst. A wine I was expecting better from was the 1968 Chambers Rosewood Cabernet Sauvignon. This was lethally astringent and quite undrinkable. It was the most tannic of the day’s wines, without question. I wonder how ‘big’ a wine it was in its youth?

Up in NSW, the royal family has not fared well at the hands of McWilliams – at least the male side hasn’t. Elizabeth continues to this day, an excellent wine, although the ‘Anne Riesling’ morphed into the Lovedale Semillon some years ago. I don’t know when Philip was at it’s apogee, but the examples on show today proved that even 15 years across vintages make no difference when a wine is this bad. Two indistinguishably dirty wines were the 1970 and 1972 Mt Pleasant Philip Hermitage. Difficult to even sniff was the wine in its earlier incantation as 1957 Philip Pinot Hermitage [yes, pinot noir + shiraz!]. It’s hard to imagine a wine worse than this, but the wine of the heir was coincidentally, the last and worst wine of the day. This was the 1962 Mt Pleasant Charles Hermitage. Just vile.

All was not lost in NSW. We did unearth a drinkable wine in 1964 Tulloch Pokolbin Dry Red. This presented a sweet if raisiny bouquet followed by a drying palate, but is still OK. This is more the style of wine the Hunter is better known for, perhaps. The youngest wine of the day waved the flag for Australian pinot. It was a 1984 Huntingwood Estate Mudgee Pinot Noir. How’s that for a surprise? It showed some sweet, if dry fruit, although it must be said it tasted more shiraz than pinot. Elsewhere in the Hunter, 1966 Tyrrells Vat 65 Dry Red [shiraz] was oxidised beyond recognition, but didn’t give up its cork without a struggle.

And so we come to Penfolds. Everyone’s eyes gleam when it comes to old cellars and Penfolds. And this cellar held an extraordinary treasure - a low-neck-fill, 1953 Grange Hermitage. It also held a very-high-shoulder 1955 Grange, several high-to-very-high 1959 Grange, 8 vhs of the 1961, some 63s, 64s, 3 of the 1971 (2 of them at the base of the neck), and a pair of 72s. Some levels were a bit dodgy, so we took a 61 and 63 upstairs to test.

I should point out that, had I been confronted with a 53 Grange in a cellar, my first instinct would certainly have been to sell it. And indeed, after sampling some of the others, probably most of them as well. What do you do when a wine is worth so much as an ‘investment’, and yet (probably) so little as a drink? Tricky question. And if you try, say a 59, and its rubbish, as it almost certainly would be, do you just ship the others off to auction? I guess so – after all, its no secret that the 59 Grange is pretty much shot. Yet people still pay over $1000 for them. Why? It’s got me stumped, I have to say.
But first, we sampled a badly ullaged 1967 Penfolds Bin 128 Coonawarra Shiraz. This almost reflects Mildara’s experience in the same region & vintage. The fruit was largely gone, and it finished short and dry, but the components of the wine were all there. Skeletel at best. We also tried some 1964 Bin 389 Cabernet Shiraz of varying levels. Condition was, unsurprisingly, in line with the fill level. The best of them was still astringently dry, and exhibiting no real fruit or other redeeming features! I was hoping the 1966 Bin 389 Cabernet Shiraz might be better, but again, it was betrayed by its fill level. It was fairly heady with VA – it’s possible the remaining, better-looking bottle, might be healthier, but really, it took quite an imagination to accept this as a good wine. Really verging on wine was the 1966 St Henri Claret [shiraz]. This was quite leathery, meaty & tarry – overall rather tawny-like. It was still balanced, with some tannin, but it was definitely drying out. I think 10 years ago it would have been a fine wine.

The 1961 Bin 95 Grange Hermitage proved that not even the mighty Grange can stave off the effects of oxidation. We all wanted to like it, but really, it was dead. I would have liked to try one of the 62s, given the condition of the bottles and the vintage reputation, but it was not to be . But we did broach the 1963 Bin 95 Grange Hermitage. This was a real wine. There was a quite manurey bottle-stink to start, and it retained something of a rotten-vegetable quality about it even after half an hour or so. Tannins were persistent, and volatility seemed under control. The finish, though, remained obstinately short. So, it was wine, it was drinkable, but it was clearly tired. Perhaps the higher fill bottles would have been better. There are indeed no great old wines, only great old bottles…

Cheers,
Graeme

[Red Bigot]

Very interesting Graeme, I remember this from the first time around. Not a recommendation for passive Sydney cellars and long-term cellaring though.

[n4sir]

Thanks for reposting this Grahame - it's a very interesting read and well worth having here again.

Cheers,
Ian

[Paullie]

Would be interesting to see similar tastings of wines kept in ideal conditions.

[n4sir]

Would be interesting to see similar tastings of wines kept in ideal conditions.

It would also have been interesting to see if one or two of the bottles with better fill levels had fared any better too. There's always a slight element of doubt here because they purposely chose the worst looking ones to assess.

These wines are extremely old, and I'd wonder if ones in a similar condition (ie. dodgy fill levels) at a professional storage facility would actually be much better anyway.

Cheers,
Ian

[Paullie]

indeed.

[GraemeG]

These wines are extremely old, and I'd wonder if ones in a similar condition (ie. dodgy fill levels) at a professional storage facility would actually be much better anyway.
Cheers,
Ian

Yes, a lot of the wines could have been considerably better yet still virtually undrinkable! But cellaring makes such a difference. At this age, fill level means everything...
Graeme

[Baby Chickpea]

Yes, a lot of the wines could have been considerably better yet still virtually undrinkable! But cellaring makes such a difference. At this age, fill level means everything...
Graeme

Not sure fill level is be-all and end-all. I've seen far too many wines with low levels show very well still. After 25 years, the majority of wines will have below leck level fills and are still OK. I think what is most important is temperature and humdity optimal conditions at a constant rate over the cellaring period. But if the cork is not optimal, not even perfect provenance can help the wine's level.

[GraemeG]

Yes, a lot of the wines could have been considerably better yet still virtually undrinkable! But cellaring makes such a difference. At this age, fill level means everything...
Graeme

Not sure fill level is be-all and end-all. I've seen far too many wines with low levels show very well still. After 25 years, the majority of wines will have below leck level fills and are still OK. I think what is most important is temperature and humdity optimal conditions at a constant rate over the cellaring period. But if the cork is not optimal, not even perfect provenance can help the wine's level.

Actually, even after I posted I wondered if I said what I meant. I don't disagree with you - but let me put another slant on it. If the cellaring is a bit dodgy, a good fill level is almost your only chance. Mediocre cellaring and a low level spells doom.
I don't deny that you can get fine lower-level bottles out of a good cellar, although the risk is higher, of course.
cheers,
Graeme

[Craig(NZ)]

lets all quit with the excuses.

“Punishments of Inertia.”

good summary. if ya wine gets too old ya cellar is too big or you dont drink enough

[Grey Ghost]

Thanks N4sir, the names took me back - Hardy's 454 - that was a seminal and new wine style in its day. I had them at 15 yo in my cellar and drank them in time to enjoy them.

And so it goes for so many of the wines you reviewed - to the point I feel both pleased and sad. Pleased that I drank so many great Aussie wines at their peak; sad that they didn't keep up with the years.

Now, had they been bottled under Stelvin ............

Eh, TORB?

GG

[n4sir]

Thanks N4sir, the names took me back - Hardy's 454 - that was a seminal and new wine style in its day. I had them at 15 yo in my cellar and drank them in time to enjoy them.

And so it goes for so many of the wines you reviewed - to the point I feel both pleased and sad. Pleased that I drank so many great Aussie wines at their peak; sad that they didn't keep up with the years.

Now, had they been bottled under Stelvin ............

Eh, TORB?

GG

You should be thanking Graeme instead of me for this one GG, it's his story and notes.

[Grey Ghost]

You are right!

Graeme ... I apologise ...

My thanks.

GG