The Auswine Forum

fred wrote:'twas I above.

fred

Yea right, as if that clarification post was necessary. Your posts are even more identifable than Martin C's And as for "subtlety" old stinky draws, which one of the new Pennies releases did I like best ~~~~ The Magill ~~~~~ you are a bad influence on me Mr Legal Eagle.

Compliments, compliments everywhere I see compliments....but you SOOOOO obviously needed defending......


magill 02 is bloody good (but I'm not convinced it will be better than the 98 which I would have picked as your preferred vintage of this wine anyway). You don't ike the genre anyway ("too wimpy" as I recall from the transcript).

Maybe there is truth in my old primary school headmaster's line: " You can't grow hair and brains at the same time" - of course he did not realise that it failed as a syllogism in that failing to grow hair will not guarantee brains.....speaking from experience of course.

What happened to the good old days of semi-intelligent banter....Martin, kris, Celia....I realise Adam & Murray jumped ship but fly-by-nights got blasted with your usual subtle sledgehammer.

Nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate but some semblance of intelligence is warranted or the moderator's tolerance may wear thin, and then force migration......


You see when one is the font of ALL knowledge, mere mortals fail to reply...

fred wrote:magill 02 is bloody good (but I'm not convinced it will be better than the 98 which I would have picked as your preferred vintage of this wine anyway).

Nope, absolutly prefer the 02, wasnt all that impressed with the 98.

You see when one is the font of ALL knowledge, mere mortals fail to reply...

Ummmmmmm; it looks like I should not have replied to this post after all.

Yep, now I remember why I "jumped ship" too - too much aggro here. Rather spend my time and money in a place where people get to air their opinions without being body slammed. Sorry Gavin.

Very brave, never anonymous, Lincoln jumped ship too unfortunately.

It is still my preferred forum.

I get sensitive when the 86 St Henri is raised, as it was the wine which got me "hooked" !

Since 1999, I have drunk at least 2 bottles of the 86 St Henri each year, and I concur with Fred, Fatboy et al. This is, to my palate, only just entering its "peak" and I will be leaving my remaining 2 bottles until circa 2010.

My two bob's worth .....

My original point was not an attack towards Ric, but an innocent remark in reference to JO's drinking windows, which IMHO are a wee bit too generous for the St. Henri and several other wines in his book.
He gives all those St. Henri vintages 20 years, not just the '86 - which has now become the poster child for everyone's argument.
Fine, I accept the '86, but let's be real here, every good vintage of these wines are not built to carry 20 years, and I think it is remiss to imply or suggest.

per Jeremy Oliver:

St.Henri
1990 - 96/100: 2002-2010
1996 - 95/100: 2008-2016
1998 - 94/100: 2018-2028
1999 - 95/100: 2011-2019

I'm just saying that that's not the advice I would want, especially pay for in concerns to wines I may not know in advance. I know St. Henri so I can safely say I would give this wine 10-12 years for my palate, especially the '98 and '99.
I can accept different tastes and preferences but I think the outside of JO's suggestions are deceiving to most people. I have his book and thought this with most of the wines he rates and I have tried.
I had nothing against Ric and he has been very helpful in the past, we've known each other in the virtual sense for many years, I would think he would show me some respect and less condescension based upon that. I'm just tired of that attitude on-line when someone posts a simple comment or question - it's not necessary, certainly and especially not with me.
I don't post idiot things on this forum or annoy people, my TNs are proper and due to that I hope I give as much as I take from here. I love Australian wines and 40% of my cellar is filled with them so I'd expect warmth and a little respect from the Aussie winos here, especially Ric. Obviously I expected too much.
I ask a lot of advice on forums, I just wish my questions or comments wouldn't be met with "you're an idiot or a troll" type responses, I guess I'm just bloody tired of it.
If I want to get shit on I simply go to work, here I just want to share my enjoyment of wine and get advice on what to buy and when to drink each next.

Mishy,

If I have got this right, the line that I wrote that seems to have upset you so much was “Glad to know that you know more about how Oz wines age than Jeremy Oliver.” If you got upset with me for saying that, I apologise.

Now letÂ’s put personalities aside and get back to the wine discussion.

I can accept different tastes and preferences but I think the outside of JO's suggestions are deceiving to most people. I have his book and thought this with most of the wines he rates and I have tried.

It looks like this is the central issue. Your palate and his are obviously different, that does not mean that he is wrong; it just means you like them younger.

FWIW, I agree with most of OliverÂ’s drinking windows now. Some years ago, that was not always the case and thought he was a bit generous but as time went on and I tried more older wines that he predicted a long life for, I realised he was on the money in most cases.

I'm just saying that that's not the advice I would want, especially pay for in concerns to wines I may not know in advance. I know St. Henri so I can safely say I would give this wine 10-12 years for my palate, especially the '98 and '99.

At the risk of incurring your rathe (and please rest assured I am not doing it intentionally or to bait you) do you want to hear an independent opinion or do you want to be told what you want to hear? The reason I say that is because a number of posters have all come out in support of OliverÂ’s windows but you have chosen dismiss those comments and to believe your own thoughts on these drinking windows. As I said previously, if you like them younger thatÂ’s fine but that does not mean that the people who disagree are incorrect; it just means palate differences and that you like them younger and your palate does not align with OliverÂ’s; or some of ours for that matter.

He gives all those St. Henri vintages 20 years, not just the '86 - which has now become the poster child for everyone's argument. Fine, I accept the '86, but let's be real here, every good vintage of these wines are not built to carry 20 years, and I think it is remiss to imply or suggest.

The interesting thing here is that in a good year, IMO (and many other people) St Henri will go 20 years and itÂ’s not just the 86. I would concur with the rating of those other vintages too. Like 90, 91, 96, 98 and 99. In poor vintages like 97 he has a maximum life of 12 years and once again I would agree with that forecast.

There has also been support from posters on OliverÂ’s predictions on Petaluma which also go out to the 20 year mark in some vintages. (If Grange can last 20-30 years, which is recognised as factual by most wine drinkers, why canÂ’t other Oz wines do it?) He also gives Cullen and Moss Wood 20 year windows in good vintages and in all honesty I would agree with those too.

If you do not wish to believe that, or to put it a more gentle way, prefer to drink your wines younger, that fine and there is nothing wrong with enjoying wine when you want to drink it, but that does not mean that Oliver’s drinking windows are “insane.”

The other key point here is that in previous posts you have said things like “I haven't had any St. Henri's over 20 years and I really wouldn't care to” and “I refuse to believe…”

Without wishing to upset you further, perhaps you should try some of these wines at 10-20 years of age instead of “refusing to believe.”

I am trying to play nice here and show you the respect you have asked for, hopefully you will take the points I raised in that fashion, but that does not mean that I can not disagree with you.

quoted by TORB:
FWIW, I agree with most of OliverÂ’s drinking windows now. Some years ago, that was not always the case and thought he was a bit generous but as time went on and I tried more older wines that he predicted a long life for, I realized he was on the money in most cases.

That's all you needed to say right from the beginning, I'd just appreciate checking that snotty 'attitude' at the door when sharing with me in the future.
I'm quite sure there are much more deserving arses here you can pick on.........

I'm still young and enthusiastic and so I tend to think that JO's drinking window are too lenient for the icon wines (he seems to be harsher on new brands), though even in that context, I find value in his drinking windows. All I do is take the starting point of his drinking windows as my "peak", where others might take the mid or end point. If you look at his drinking windows on st henri 90, 98 and 99, the window starts at around the 11 or 12 year mark, so that's when I do/will start hitting them. This means that both mischy and ric can get something from the window, just by concentrating on different ends of it.

other than that, I am not much of a fan of JO's ratings, but that is no reflection on JO, just on the fact that we have very different palates.

j.

Hello All, especially Mishy and Ric,

I always like reading posts like this simply for the entertainment of conflict, but I think we are getting to where the post probably should have been a while back without such amusements, so I though I may as well chime in.

A few points:

Over the past few years, on numerous occasions I have been truly amazed how well many high quality South Australian Shiraz and Shiraz/Cabernet blends, and Coonawarra Cabernets for that matter, have aged and even benefited from at least one decade but on many occasions two decades of proper cellaring, including Penfolds Bin 389 and St.Henri. However, the wines I have tasted are typically from the top vintages: 1965 (esp. Hunter), 1966, 1971, 1976, 1982, 1986. On the other hand, I suspect the lesser vintages would be hitting their drinking plateau in very few years, definitely way before a decade, but am not sure.

The other thing that is always in the back of my mind when drinking windows are discussed, is that I am not sure whether the more recent great vintages of wines that I have tasted as 2-decade old great wines are going to be as good as their previously great vintages when they are 2 decades old or (as Mishy is focusing on) whether they have continuously developed and benefited for the whole 2 decades of cellaring. I get the feeling that the way wines are made and/or wine-making philosophies these days are different to as they were 15+ years ago. My father, who has been an Australian wine enthusiast for probably as long as Ric although without the sheer tasting volume experience, every now and then mentions how "approachable" many young Australian reds are these days as compared to the 1970s and 1980s. Also, there has obviously been a rise in the average alcohol content of Australian wines and then there is the Parker effect on Australian wines. As such, I am not convinced that the approachability of young Australian wines is solely due to the consistently stated better understanding of tannins in the vineyard or, if it is due to this, whether this will result in Australian wines not benefiting from as much aging as their predecessors. So I might be agreeing a bit here with Mishy, however, I will let you know my final generalised stance on this topic in about 15 years when I taste the evidence in my cellar for myself.

Finally, I can't resist commenting about Ric's perceived attitude. I think the only truly condescending comment from Ric is the one above for which he apologised, and I am pleased that he did so. All other comments are consistent with a person who does not, or has at least given up, worrying about how others might take his comments, in order to just focus upon saying/stating hios view on a particular topic. This is fine with me as I know where Ric is coming from and if I ever feel that Ric is addressing me or another person's character, I am able to read the comment again from Ric's viewpoint and see that this is not the case, having read much of Ric's comments (and having dined with him on a number of occasions). However, it is also obvious that this style and mindset can be a bit too blunt for others, and that is also fine by me except for that their absence doesn't make topics as interesting as they could be.

Kind regards,
Adair

Right - jumping in on this bandwagon here with both feet and straight on to Mishy's side, I'm afraid. I was also offended by what Ric said and his attitude towards Mishy who is a long time poster here. How anyone can construe that that was trolling, I have no idea. Do you actually know what trolling is?

Mishy simply put foward an opinion and then was gunned down and seriously attacked on all fronts. Her responses were amusing and not personal and I also can't believe that anyone construed those as anything but that. Old farts, tertiary characteristics, paying for it - can't you guys get a joke. Almost unaustralian!

Personally, I do believe that in a good vintage St Henri's can easily go 20 years and in exceptional vintage will last 30 but that really is beside the point. Ric's initial attack was personal and aggressive and should not be tolerated. I know you've been here a long time Ric but it does not give the right or authority to talk to people like that. You certainly have the right to disagree with someone's opinion, as everyone does, but it's just an opinion and, like arseholes, everyone has one. Thankfully, Ric did apologise and I do believe he needed to.

I'd also like to point out that Mishy said she didn't believe that many wines, other than bordeaux from good vintages and vintage port, will go much beyond 30 years and then Ric and everyone else proceeded to argue how australian wines last 20 years. Of course the 30 years thing was a generalisation and there are exceptions to every rule and I'm sure Mishy is very open to finding examples of that as evidenced by the willingness to attend a taste off.

Mishy also said she hadn't tasted those wines being discussed which is as much an admission of inexperience in those wines as you're likely to get yet still she was agressively attacked rather gently educated, which is what she had asked for right throught the thread.

Time for a little introspection, I think.

The 83 Grange is not ready yet, IMO. Most of the Baileys dry reds from the 70's and early 80's are only ready now, and the reserve Tahbilks usually take around 20+ years to peak.

Yes, it is a matter of personal taste, but don't be fooled by the "fruit bombs" being short-lived. Parker is quite correct in his opinion of their longevity, the Greeenocks and the Three Rivers will be around for a long, long time if well cellared. My father always told me of the low acid, soft 1953 Baileys Hermitage as a youngster, and it still drinks brilliantly as a 50+ year old wine.

Trouble with the "fruit bombs" is they will always go thru a weird phase between 5-=10 years of age, and are often interpreted as "past it" when nothing could be further from the truth. Watch the 1998's shine in another 5 years or so, and the good ones will continue to improve for at least a decade after that.

hello all

I normally delete posts that become 'personal', that is, aimed at a person or personality rather than a topic.

I've decided not to because both TORB and Mishy are long term and valued auswine forum posters.

Both, please, keep the discussion to wine, there's a bit too much aggression being shown, some insensitivity and a bit of jumping in based on an 'assumption' of what the other person meant, rather than the reality.

Remember, the web is like email, flat, no body language and so typing what you think needs to be tempered with what others will perceive.

This is what seems to have happened here.

I see no problem with TORB's view, I see no problem with Mishy's view. They are different, but the debate has perhaps moved off the issues into personal feelings.

Let's get back to the issues and wine please.

So I'm not barred yet ? Thanks Gavin , I really appreciate that.
Does that mean I talk a bit about Ric's hairy arse now.................. ?
(no 'cracks' eh Ric ? )

Quoted by Adair:
Over the past few years, on numerous occasions I have been truly amazed how well many high quality South Australian Shiraz and Shiraz/Cabernet blends, and Coonawarra Cabernets for that matter, have aged and even benefited from at least one decade but on many occasions two decades of proper cellaring, including Penfolds Bin 389 and St.Henri. However, the wines I have tasted are typically from the top vintages: 1965 (esp. Hunter), 1966, 1971, 1976, 1982, 1986. On the other hand, I suspect the lesser vintages would be hitting their drinking plateau in veryfew years, definitely way before a decade, but am not sure.

I really appreciate your response Adair, it makes a great deal of sense in terms of wine-making in the early years from certain 'key' producers.
I take note..........
BTW - I have not met bacchaebabe in an SUV..... Unless she was carrying that '90 Dom in LA pre 9-11 (jus' kidding..)
Cheers,
Mishy