2001 Mt Edelstone?

Alan Rath · Post by **Alan Rath** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:35 am

Has anyone tried this? Any thoughts on the wine in the vintages following the controversial '98?

Thanks,
Alan

Aussie Johns · Post by **Aussie Johns** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:06 pm

Had the 2001 last weekend. Masses of everything, not integrated or subtle at this stage, but should develop well.
Haven't purchased this wine since the 94 vintage, and was a regular buyer prior to that. A good marque in the $30-40 range, I don't see any value in this wine at $65. In fact, I see that as totally ridiculous.
The 98 was tasted the same evening- reminds me of the 93 Eileen Hardy, flamboyant upon release and for the first 2-3 years, but now really pedestrian, and seemingly going no-where. The 96 Fox Creek Reserve shiraz is another example of this type of wine. They could, however, all be goiung thru a prolonged "flat" phase, so I wouldn't give up all hope.

2001 Mt Edelstone Shiraz
Black and inpenetrable. Nose of black fruits, vanilla, licquorice and a touch of menthol. Palate similar, with harsh tannins at present, but good, persistent length. Difficult to fully asses at this stage.
Drink....2008-2015+,..........89pts (on potential)

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:20 pm

Aussie Johns wrote: Haven't purchased this wine since the 94 vintage, and was a regular buyer prior to that. A good marque in the $30-40 range, I don't see any value in this wine at $65. In fact, I see that as totally ridiculous.

You see a single vineyard wine with this amount of care in the winery being ridiculous value at $65. How do you work out the relative value of these wines. Is Cullen ridiculous at 75. Grange madness at 350? Rockford excellent value at 45?

Ed · Post by Ed » Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:22 pm

Always try the Mt.Edelstone but haven't bought since 1996. I think the price hike suddenly put it into VERY SERIOUS class and I don't think it's good enough unless you drink labels.

Many better wines around $30-45 IMO.

Ed

BA · Post by BA » Wed Mar 17, 2004 2:45 pm

I'd given up on this as the price got away on me several years ago.
I did however taste it at a Barossa tasting late last year and thought the 2001 superb. Rated it amongst the best wines tried that day. It nearly made me take the step up and pay the price, but I haven't as yet. If I do see it on special at all, I'll probably put a couple away.
I agree with Aussie Johns that it cannot be rated now, only on potential. If you're not put off by the price, give it 10 years.

BA

JamieBahrain · Post by **JamieBahrain** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 3:53 pm

Allan

The Henschke website has some good notes on the 01. It is rated as an excellent vintage ( below the exceptional on the winemaker's rankings ) with the typical post-94, recommended optimum drinking at 10 years.

I had the 99 recently. Good wine, riper than usual, and my impression was that it was not unlike a commercial blockbuster from the Barossa floor-great but not special, pushing the envelope of QPR.

The 94 a superb experience. Decanting essential.

For posterity, will put some Mt Ed 01 in the celler.

Aussie Johns · Post by **Aussie Johns** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:19 am

Anonymous wrote:
Aussie Johns wrote: Haven't purchased this wine since the 94 vintage, and was a regular buyer prior to that. A good marque in the $30-40 range, I don't see any value in this wine at $65. In fact, I see that as totally ridiculous.

You see a single vineyard wine with this amount of care in the winery being ridiculous value at $65. How do you work out the relative value of these wines. Is Cullen ridiculous at 75. Grange madness at 350? Rockford excellent value at 45?

If Rockford charges $40 for, IMO, a superior Barossa shiraz, why wouldn't I think the Mt. Ed is fiendishly over-rated??
There are just so many better or equivalent shiraz wines available at significantly less price, I just don't bother with it any more. Happy to taste it, not happy to buy it.

simm · Post by **simm** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:13 am

Aussie Johns wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Aussie Johns wrote: Haven't purchased this wine since the 94 vintage, and was a regular buyer prior to that. A good marque in the $30-40 range, I don't see any value in this wine at $65. In fact, I see that as totally ridiculous.

You see a single vineyard wine with this amount of care in the winery being ridiculous value at $65. How do you work out the relative value of these wines. Is Cullen ridiculous at 75. Grange madness at 350? Rockford excellent value at 45?

If Rockford charges $40 for, IMO, a superior Barossa shiraz, why wouldn't I think the Mt. Ed is fiendishly over-rated??
There are just so many better or equivalent shiraz wines available at significantly less price, I just don't bother with it any more. Happy to taste it, eot happy to buy it.

Agree with you AJ. What bugs me is I don't get to taste it unless I buy it, so I have to settle with 1 for 2nd-5th yr and the 2nd for whenever the 1st indicated it will be at its best. If I can scrape the $'s together, or don't find the better deal constantly in the way.

cheers,