Theme: Aged Riesling profiles

[Jay60A]

I'd just like to get people's comments on the profiles of aussie riesling with a bit of age on it ... what is it like / should it be like, especially on the nose?

HERE'S THE SCENARIO: I have opened a couple of Crawford River rieslings from 2003 (under screwcap) from a case just obtained at about $AU10 each from the Justerini & Brooks sale here in London. Now I know a bit about Aussie rieslings when young i.e. Seppelt, Grossets, Florita 1-3 years, but have had just a few examples when they start to develop - all Crawford River actually ('99, '00, '01, '03).

Some of these are still primary i.e. the '01s are all still pups. What I do find is the initial impact of these developed wines (the assumption here being that the wines are well stored so the development curve depends basically on the vintage, and the cork) is that the nose is very muted as the wine leaves it's primary fruit - it loses all the lovely florals of a younger primary riesling.

Really just "hints" of melon, lemon, and lanolin (?) on the nose but only if you stick your nose into your glass and look for them! Colourwise it's a light honey ...

When I opened first the bottle my initial reaction to the nose was "nope, it's gone, all over" and I poured the glass down the sink undrunk as prematurely developed or heat-affected. I unscrewed a second bottle - it was the same very muted nose. At this point I rationalise that it's under screwcap and as both bottles are the same, it's developing on it's normal curve (for a vintage which was not great I believe). So I decided to have a glass and see what gives.

To my surprise this is fantastic wine. It is a riesling tapestry, layers of honeysuckle and toast, crossweaving with bits of honeydew melon and all thrillingly underpinned by citrus with a mouthwatering acid line providing a very lengthy and integrated finish. The palate is silk, seriously butch and heavyweight for a riesling but normal for CR. After 2 days open, it is still the same. Great wine. After the 1999 this confirms for me that Crawford River, aged, is not just very good ... it is great.

I just don't have the experience to know if the muted nose is normal for a wine developing secondary characteristics?
Also I suspect if I served this to non-winos, most of them will not like it at all?

What are your thoughts and experiences on aged riesling ...

[daz]

It's what ya gob enjoys that really counts.

About the oldest riesling I've had was a Wilson Vineyard Polish Hill at about 8yo several years ago, though a Tahbilk riesling I had quite a few years ago may have been 10-12 yo.

But I prefer younger whites, fresh, with some fruit characters.

Cheers

daz

[Softie]

Jay,

Hope you get some input from Red Velvet, he's an enormous fan of aged Rieslings (and our Sydney tasting group has a Riesling tasting night coming up ).

My limited experiences of aged examples (mostly via Red V) corresponds with your notes. Last week when visting WA I had a Castle Rock 2004, and it is fantastic already.

I'll be interested to see other replies. I think your experience with Crawford River will apply generally with quality Rieslings - of which Great Southern WA has many elite producers.

Kind regards,
John

[griff]

Australian riesling is sometimes thought to undergo an adolescent phase where the primary fruit has dropped away yet the tertiary development of flavours like toast, honey (and kero) have yet to emerge. Generally about 3-4 years out from vintage to about 7-8 or so. From my small amount of experience not all of them do it but I have seen it. I am starting to look at 2002's now (a stunning year for riesling in Clare and Eden by the way) and some are still hibernating like the St Helga whereas the Jim Barry has emerged. Maybe your 2003 Crawford is still a chrysalis at present?

cheers

Carl

[GraemeG]

What you really need is a bit of experience with Crawford River rieslings at various ages to know if this is typical.
I don't but commenting generally, I'd say;
Just because it has no nose doesn't mean you shouldn't drink it! And, anyway, almost no wine should be discarded without half an hour's consideration. Sometimes they get worse, sometimes they get better. Only wines that are actively toxic should be discarded immediately, and even then it's worth keeping in the glass for a while to see what happens. You have another glass to use for a second wine, surely?
The 'dumb phase' is rieslings (certainly Oz riesling) is fairly widely acknowledged. Since the introduction of screwcaps I've heard theories that the screwcap will: a) shorted the dumb phase, b) delay the dumb phase, c) keep the dumb phase not so dumb - ie. the developmental trough is not so deep.
I don't have enough experiencial evidence to say whether any of a), b), or c) are true. And it's all likely to be triumphed by the individual producer's approach and the vintage conditions.
Last year I had a 2001 Taylors St Andrews riesling. It was staggeringly good - better than any Grosset I've tasted (although a 2001 Watervale was remarkable too, but that was only 3 years post-release). I've not yet had that many older rieslings under screwcap - the odd Pewsey Contour has been good, though.
As I think about it, the only disappointment with aged screwcapped rieslings has been the 2000 Grosset Polish Hill, which was uniformly dark, flat, and oxidative. Three bottles drunk since 2006 have been consistent - I have one left for scientific purposes.
I'm nearly ready to start broaching some of these earlier screwcapped wines - both Grossets from 01-02, Knappstein 02s, Leonay 03. Certainly if they can replicate that Taylors wine, then the jackpot has been hit, so to speak.
Sorry, I've forgotten your question...?
cheers,
Graeme

[pizzler]

I had a 98 Watervale late last year. It was under screwcap. Here are my notes:

"This Riesling held up impressively....good acid, good balance...now it's aging the vines to get complex tastes. Given the vibrancy of the wine, I suspect that it was never a great wine in the first place, but it was good. Very pleasantly surprised."