2002 Balmoral is crap

[Grand Cru]

Thought I'd succumb and slip into Dans and grab a bottle.

Didn't like it at all, nose was unattractive green/herbal/dirty offensive characters that no amount of airing could disipate, palate was ugly, dirty almost burnt bitumen character and felt hot in the mouth. Left it overnight to see if time would improve it, no better next day, in fact worse so we tipped it down the sink. The sink didn't appreciate it!

I would almost rate this a faulty wine, I wonder why it's only being released now at five years of age, Surely cash flow sensitive Southcorp would have had this on the shelves two years ago. Is it because there is something wrong with it and they've left it to see if it would look better with age? Did it sit in an unconditioned warehouse over summer?

They must have had great fruit arrive at the winery in 2002. How can they stuff up such a wonderful vintage when just about every other winery in McLaren Vale has produced wines well above their station in 2002.

Forget the label, this is not a bargain, it's just crap wine with a Balmoral label, I wouldn't buy any more even at $10, just not attractive to drink.

Where does this leave Balmoral in the future, is it now just a $20 wine? What will happen to Balmoral vintages at auction now this new low benchmark has been set?

[707]

I got excited when I heard about this supposed bargain but didn't follow up when two Blacktongues had seperate bottles and both thought it faulty/undrinkable.

Looks like a lot of the knowledgable wine community is of the same opinion.

Does make you wonder what went wrong though.

[Red Bigot]

The random bottle I tried wasn't overtly faulty, but it was very lean and angular with a green undertone, Andrea described it as being "stark". It was a lot more drinkable with a T-bone steak, but even then the lack of decent fruit, green undertone and hard finish clashed a bit. I wasn't at all tempted to go back and buy some more.

Pity, I guess the result of more bad decision-making in the Rosecorp era. From the Rosemount web site: According to Rosemount Winemaker Charles Whish - "2002 in McLaren Vale is right up there with the great '98 vintage. The wines are more elegant but equally powerful".
....
Shiraz was a standout, showing distinct varietal clarity with a depth of ripe plummy fruit and no signs of over-ripeness. A fantastic Rosemount Balmoral will be made in 2002 and McLaren Vale Shiraz will be a key component in the Penfolds Grange and Bin 389 wines."

There is already someone flipping a 6-pack at Cellarit for $34.50...

BTW, does anyone know what has happened to the 2001 Balmoral? The prior vintage on sale here before the 2002 was the 2000. I've seen the 2001 at the NWS, it won a Gold in 2004, the only listings on wine-searcher are USA and Canada so maybe it all went overseas.

[n4sir]

I got excited when I heard about this supposed bargain but didn't follow up when two Blacktongues had seperate bottles and both thought it faulty/undrinkable.

Looks like a lot of the knowledgable wine community is of the same opinion.

Does make you wonder what went wrong though.

I heard last week that Winky thought it was undrinkable and was returning the rest of his bottles, but I also heard Martin thought his bottle was okay - drinkable, but still not up to Balmoral standard. These guys are regular buyers/fans of Balmoral, but it's also been pretty typical of most of the comments to date - either completely undrinkable sink cleaner, or okay for a BBQ wine but doesn't deserve the label/price. I haven't tried it, and I'm not in a terrible hurry either from the above impressions.

As to what could have gone wrong we can only speculate at this stage, and it's pretty easy to suspect that corporate/resource management strategy may have had a role. Even prior to Fosters taking over there was a mad scramble for resources to ensure each winery's future in the event of a possible carve up, and that's still happening - Wolf Blass, Penfolds, Seppelt & Wynns Winemakers are still staking claims over various resources in an effort to solidify/improve their outputs and position in the giant corporate.

I suspect Rosemount has significantly dipped in the perceived chain of importance to Fosters, and my guess is the best fruit from McLaren Vale would have gone to Penfolds (something virtually confirmed by Winemaker's comments in Brian's post). The resulting wine may have looked suspect from the start and possibly they held on to it for this long to see if it ever came around - from the various comments/reviews, it hasn't.

Another possible reason for a blanket drop in quality could be because they held on to it for too long and released it in an advanced state or flat spot, similar to the disasterous 1998 Orlando Centenary Hill. The official reason for the discounting is because of the change in bottles to the new diamond design - maybe the delay in release was caused due to waiting for the new bottles? (which as it turned out weren't used for this vintage anyway)

Whatever the cause, the widely reported drop in quality and/or bottle variation for a flagship wine is unacceptable whatever it's sale price, and it can't be doing the Rosemount brand any favours, a brand that really needs all the help it can get right now.

Cheers,
Ian

[Red Bigot]

The official reason for the discounting is because of the change in bottles to the new diamond design - maybe the delay in release was caused due to waiting for the new bottles? (which as it turned out weren't used for this vintage anyway)

This one would have been bottled in mid-late 2003, well before the new bottle shape decision. I wonder if there is a 2003 Balmoral or even a 2004 in the old bottle shape too?

[JONZIE]

The Show Reserve Label has been Discounted alot here in Nz and I have brought a few to put away. So has the quality changed over the whole Rosemount Range or just the Balmoral
Has anyone had the a Shiraz or Cab Sav out of this Range Latley.

Nick.

[Gregoire]

Jeez. Better try one of my dozen quick smart. If it's that bad, the rest are going back!

[roughred]

I see one e-tailer has the 2002 listed at $57.95 with a supposed RRP of $75...wonder where they got theirs from???

[Gregoire]

Well, here goes... Opened up OK. Cork came out a little too easily, but seemed OK.
Nose alright, palate simple but OK ... for a $10 wine, and for about ten minutes.
Then it just fell apart. Simple, one-dimensional, ordinary in every respect. Short, dull, lifeless. Lacking fruit. Even seemed tanninless!
Definitely NOT a Balmoral, and definitely going back.
Clearly, the winemaker knew there was something wrong with the wine, not that the blurb on the label gives any clue at all.
And to think that 2002 in the Clare was supposedly top-notch.
Not sure what Rosemount/Southcorp have in mind here, because even at 1/3 the "normal" price, they are only going to lure in the sorts of drinkers who are going to be mighty pissed off, and put off the label forever!

[Red Bigot]

I see one e-tailer has the 2002 listed at $57.95 with a supposed RRP of $75...wonder where they got theirs from???

I'll mention it next time I'm in there, but they often order in when a customer orders, don't think they'll get too many on this one. This is my local independent retailer, they survive by selling single bottles at case prices and having some much sharper deals than this in store and on their primitive web site.

It's still a crazy old wine market at the moment, the glut is a long way from over yet, but the lazy/stupid/rich people still manage to let themselves be ripped off.

[n4sir]

Well, here goes... Opened up OK. Cork came out a little too easily, but seemed OK.
Nose alright, palate simple but OK ... for a $10 wine, and for about ten minutes.
Then it just fell apart. Simple, one-dimensional, ordinary in every respect. Short, dull, lifeless. Lacking fruit. Even seemed tanninless!
Definitely NOT a Balmoral, and definitely going back.
Clearly, the winemaker knew there was something wrong with the wine, not that the blurb on the label gives any clue at all.
And to think that 2002 in the Clare was supposedly top-notch.
Not sure what Rosemount/Southcorp have in mind here, because even at 1/3 the "normal" price, they are only going to lure in the sorts of drinkers who are going to be mighty pissed off, and put off the label forever!

2002 in Clare was top notch, as was McLaren Vale where the Balmoral gets it's fruit (not Clare). I'm not particularly surprised at your reaction though - it looks like something's gone seriously wrong down the line with this wine.

I thought of something else that hasn't been mentioned - have all of these sub-par bottles everyone's tried come from DM, because while we're pointing the finger at Fosters/Southcorp there's also the possibility the retailers could have stuffed them up in storage too if that's where everyone is sourcing them.

I would assume Jeremy Oliver's bottle (I think he canned it for being over-oaked with dead fruit/green streak) would have been direct from the distributor, but I'd like to know if anyone else has struck a dud bottle bought directly from the cellar door or somewhere other than the retailers who are discounting it so heavily.

Cheers,
Ian

[Red Bigot]

And to think that 2002 in the Clare was supposedly top-notch.

And also in McLarenVale where this one comes from...

[Gregoire]

Oops. Must have drunk too much of it before I posted. I did manage to drink the better part of half a bottle. Must have been the "C" ... Clare ... McLaren ....

Either way, it was verrrrry ordinary. Noted comments re possible retailer issues. Have contacted Rosemount and await a reply, but I suspect returning them to the retailer is what I'll end up doing.

[Alex F]

interesting... I wonder whether it will be on tasting at the rosemount cellar door in the Hunter... if and when I go I will pop in and have a look.

[Gregoire]

As said, I contacted Rosemount and advised the poor showing of the 2002 Balmoral Syrah. Here is part of what they had to say ...

"I noted from your comments that you found the wine to be thin, short, one-dimensional, dull and uninteresting. This wine is currently at the stage where the primary characteristics (rich fruit, high tannin, strong oak) are beginning to mellow and the tertiary characteristics (complexity, balance, integration) are just beginning to show. This wine is very much caught in the phase between youth and maturity, hence it is less interesting that in its youth or than it will be after a few years cellaring.

The fact that this wine is caught between youth and maturity, along with the fact that Rosemount is currently changing bottles designs, is one reason why some retailers such as Dan Murphy's have heavily discounted this wine in the past few weeks.

I recommend you leave this wine to cellar for another few years before re-attacking it. "

[Ian S]

As said, I contacted Rosemount and advised the poor showing of the 2002 Balmoral Syrah. Here is part of what they had to say ...

"I noted from your comments that you found the wine to be thin, short, one-dimensional, dull and uninteresting. This wine is currently at the stage where the primary characteristics (rich fruit, high tannin, strong oak) are beginning to mellow and the tertiary characteristics (complexity, balance, integration) are just beginning to show. This wine is very much caught in the phase between youth and maturity, hence it is less interesting that in its youth or than it will be after a few years cellaring.

The fact that this wine is caught between youth and maturity, along with the fact that Rosemount is currently changing bottles designs, is one reason why some retailers such as Dan Murphy's have heavily discounted this wine in the past few weeks.

I recommend you leave this wine to cellar for another few years before re-attacking it. "

I hadn't realised they were fluent in talking 'bollocks'. In fact they appear to be highly proficient in the specialist 'utter bollocks' dialect.

[Gregoire]

Yes, my initial thought was that any 2002 full-bodied red might by now be starting to develop some secondary characteristics - BUT the fruit, tannins and power should all still be there in spades. If anything, I'd say that this wine will look even worse in a few more years.

[qwertt]

My bottle was fine and good value at the $18.50 mark. On looking at the wide range of tasting notes on this and other fora, it seems to me that bottle variation may also be a big part in Fosters quitting stock quick time.

[McLaren Vale Vine Doctor]

$18.50!

Balmoral used to be a reason to get out of bed in the morning... and Rosemount Traditional and GSM.

[Mark S]

I too found it unimpressive after buying a couple of cases based on the astoundingly cheap price - but it was not defective in any recognizable way, and came up better alongside a lamb roast - I don't believe it's fair asking the winery/retailer to acknowledge that it's a poor wine, let alone asking them to replace or refund it. I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt, and it may well be in the proverbial hole, with the prospect of improvement in a year or five.

[aj_syrah]

similar to the disasterous 1998 Orlando Centenary Hill

Hi, this is my first post. I recently bought a bottle of 98 centenary hill assuming good vintage, good wine. I'm quite a novice, and don't have much experience with aged wine. The wine was barely drinkable (actually it was undrinkable). I took it back to the merchant, they tasted it and said it was fine, but i had difficulty believing that. Can anyone enlighten me as to what occured? I assumed that i just didn't like aged wine (and i'm sure that's a horrendous thing to think).

[griff]

similar to the disasterous 1998 Orlando Centenary Hill

Hi, this is my first post. I recently bought a bottle of 98 centenary hill assuming good vintage, good wine. I'm quite a novice, and don't have much experience with aged wine. The wine was barely drinkable (actually it was undrinkable). I took it back to the merchant, they tasted it and said it was fine, but i had difficulty believing that. Can anyone enlighten me as to what occured? I assumed that i just didn't like aged wine (and i'm sure that's a horrendous thing to think).

Hi and welcome!

The 1998 Centenary was a poorer effort than expected from this vintage. Having said that I wouldn't call it undrinkable.

The key is to describe what flavours you smelled and tasted. Was it sour? Was it like nail varnish? Was it sulfurous? Was it bitter? Was it mouldy? Was it like a wet Hessian sack? Was it metallic? Do the flavours change over time i.e. get worse or get better?

All these descriptors can help you work out what was going on. The above descriptors are usually ascociated with wine faults. On the other hand if you didn't like it because it wasn't fruity enough then you might have to stick with the conclusion that you might not like aged reds (until you try the next one of course)!


cheers

Carl

[Ian S]

And there's me who likes aged reds and still can't help thinking most of my 98's are still too young

[Gregoire]

The 2002 Balmoral was not flogged off at $18.50 for no reason, and that reason was not the bottle shape. It may well have been "drinkable" and "OK", but what-I-expect-from-Balmoral Syrah it was not.

So, I returned mine to the retailer, who gave me a credit against other purchases, no questions asked. They said the demand was high, that lots of customers wanted more - so taking them back was no problem, as they would sell quick-smart. I suspect a big bunch of consumers out there confuse "dead and dull" with "smooth".

Fine I said. A win-win situation. Swapped mine for a bunch of 1999 Wynns (Black Label) Cabernets at the same price, and I'm satisfied. The 1999 Wynns is a decent drink, and it is a Wynns Cab. It's not another wine dressed up as a Wynns Cab. That was my problem with the Balmoral.

Problem now is - what's next for Balmoral, because there's no reason why a flagship wine from McLaren Vale in 2002 should have been anything other than top-notch!

[aj_syrah]

The key is to describe what flavours you smelled and tasted. Was it sour? Was it like nail varnish? Was it sulfurous? Was it bitter? Was it mouldy? Was it like a wet Hessian sack? Was it metallic? Do the flavours change over time i.e. get worse or get better?

All these descriptors can help you work out what was going on. The above descriptors are usually ascociated with wine faults. On the other hand if you didn't like it because it wasn't fruity enough then you might have to stick with the conclusion that you might not like aged reds (until you try the next one of course)!

Thanks carl,

I'm probably not very good with descriptors, but i'd describe the wine as stale with characteristics of an old shoe and an absence of fruit or good flavours.

'Undrinkable' may have been too strong a word for it, just that it wasn't a pleasure to drink and i wouldn't have persevered with it but for my curiosity. It certainly wasn't undrinkable in the way an oxidized wine is for example. I've also had wines that reeked before, and were undrinkable, and it wasn't like that either. It just seemed washed out and dead.

Probably the next oldest wine I've tried recently was an 02 Yalumba signature, which I really enjoyed and had some characteristics which I put down to age (as I haven't noticed them in young wines).

Would anyone be able to recommend some not too expensive aged wines that are easily obtainable, so that I can get an idea of what they're supposed to taste like?

cheers,

Andrew

[707]

I strongly suspect your wine had mild cork taint.

Where are you located, that will help with providing suggestions.

[Jay60A]

Probably the next oldest wine I've tried recently was an 02 Yalumba signature, which I really enjoyed and had some characteristics which I put down to age (as I haven't noticed them in young wines).

Would anyone be able to recommend some not too expensive aged wines that are easily obtainable, so that I can get an idea of what they're supposed to taste like?

cheers,

Andrew

Andrew ... sounds like you need to drink more aged wines indeed as 02 Signature is just a baby, and a very nice one! For me I'd age most goodish Shiraz from good vintages about 8 years, Cab-Shiraz blends over 10.

At the end of the day it's a matter of taste and I was the same as you a few years back.

Why don't you look for '96 wines from Penfolds and Yalumba e.g. Signature, Bin 389, Bin 28. Should all be lovely ... Bin 389 is very very young btw. Wynns Black label 'worth hunting down. Only mentioned these as they should be fairly easy to source via auction or wine-ark or similar and not too ex-y. Stick with good vintages whatever you do i.e. if SA then 90, 91, 96, 98 ... well that's my advice

Cheers -- Jay.

[aj_syrah]

Thanks Steve and Jay,

Where are you located, that will help with providing suggestions.

I'm in Melbourne's eastern suburbs

I saw some Wynns and Penfolds cellar releases at a discount chain earlier tonight, so I might try some of those, I think they were all 99,00 or 01. I also had a look in JO's wine annual, which they had there. He gave the 98 Centenary Hill 88 points, but the 99 and 02 got 95 and 97 points respectively. I might try the 99, they had it there for I think $31 or $34.

I do hope I like aged wines though, I quite like the idea of building up a collection to cellar and returning to the wines years from now.

Cheers, Andrew

[707]

If you're buying older wines just be careful of vintages and storage.

Bottles that have lay on shop shelves unsold for a couple of years have been subjected to very ordinary conditions of too much warmth, varying temperatures and light, all factors in rapid ageing.

Whilst there are always eptions, only buy from the stronger vintages and be aware vintages vary from region to region. Easy to take note of what's available and ask the forum, lots of great knowledge here for free!

The 1999 Centenary Hill is good, the 2002 superb. You could do much worse than tucking away a few 202 Centenary Hill for later but also try one now, you'll be hard pressed to find a better wine.

Avoid 2000 Penfolds, a terrible vintage, 1999 was quite good, 2001 was a hot vintage and will mature quickly.

[griff]

You should be able to pick up some 2001 houghton's which are still around that are a good drink at a lesser price but the 2002 centenary hill is the goods.

White is easy. Try a reserve riesling like the Pewsey Vale Contour or the Lehmann reserve which are all older. Likewise there are some aged hunter semillons like the Mcwilliam Elizabeth that are somewhat older.

cheers

Carl