The Auswine Forum

Samuel's Gorge Shiraz 2005
Everything one could want in McLaren Vale shiraz, silky/creamy texture, fruit forward yet balanced, some spice and earth... excellent. Wish I had decanted for an hour or two rather than pouring a glass and leaving the bottle for a while, the fruit was really starting to sing loudly as I poured the final glass.

Rosemount Estate Show Reserve Shiraz 2002
Something seemed not quite right, my initial reaction was perhaps some mild cork taint... still not sure - it was drinkable.

Luke W wrote:When were the Wendouree's drinking at their peak / how did you treat them?

I very carefully (much love) poured half the bottle of 2006 Shiraz in a decanter and left the other half in the bottle. The decanter sample took 3 hours to sing, after which it was consumed quickly. I did not touch the other half of the wine in the bottle until 7 days after... I needed to get over the cold in the meantime. It was still gorgeous!

With regard to the 2006 Malbec, I have now had a few bottles and reckon it is ready after 2 hours in the decanter.

These 2006s don't seem as overtly tannic (relatively), although still very high in natural acid, to the extent that I might actually open a Cabernet Malbec before the big sleep.

Adair

2002 Petaluma Shiraz - this bottle has aged prematurely. Nothing like the previous ones.

2005 Abadia Especial - decent tempranillo at a reasonable price. Lots of violets and good length.

1990 Krug - lots of yeast, though a tad disjointed on the palate. Will come good in a few years. That having been said, I personally prefer my champers to have gone through some malo.

2004 Sassicaia - not worth the tariff, though one of the better wines from this label in the past decade. For mine, wines like Ornellaia are far superior.

Mike

Mike Hawkins wrote:1990 Krug - lots of yeast, though a tad disjointed on the palate. Will come good in a few years. That having been said, I personally prefer my champers to have gone through some malo.
Mike

Mike, you seem to get through a bit of quality champers. I've got one bottle of 92 Dom left (bought a dozen to celebrate the millenium back in the last century) and was thinking of drinking it soon. Do you think it's good to go or should I leave it a bit longer? I do have other NV champagne I can celebrate with but my 45th is coming up so thinking of pulling out some better bottles. (God forbid and where the hell does the time go???)

Open to anyone else's opinion too.

Can't help Kris with the 92 Dom question (when to drink a wine I think is always a nice question to ponder upon) but it has reminded me to post some wines we have had on holidays so far as we had a nice champagne.

1996 Charles Heidseck Millesime
Yellow gold with steady bubbles that were slightly corse. Nose of white flowers (jonquils, jasmine) with toast. Rich and weighty palate finishing crisp. Some may say it could be slightly disjointed (perhaps needs time?) but Excellent nevertheless.

2006 Domaine Schlumberger Riesling les Princes Abbes
Slightly broad palate of pear. Good but lacking minerality to rise any higher.

2005 Luzon Monastrell
I love a good Mataro and this is a beauty. Dark red. Smoky licorice and meat on the nose and similar on palate with a slightly warm finish. Fine tannins suggesting a year or three aging possible but I suspect marginal improvement. Very good to Excellent.

A few Late bottled vintage ports from memory

1998 Grahams LBV
Mid-red. Has aged. Loosed its grip on the fruit and has gained some extra savoury character. Still quite sweet. Very good.

2001 Dows LBV
Dark red with purple. Berries on the nose with orange zest. Sweet fruity palate. Tannins are fine and in balance here. Very Good.

2000 Noval LBV
hello. Almost too young here. Intense dark red with purple. Fermented Lemon on nose along with spice and savoury plums. Sweet and savoury palate with a decent amount of tannin for a LBV. Should age (indeed needs age for the elements to get it together). Excellent with potential.

2006 Rudera Chenin Blanc
South Africa is so hot in the UK right now! Lemon curd on the nose. Creamy textured palate. Excellent but fell apart somewhat the next day. Excellent on the night however.

1967 Krohn Colheita
Outstanding! Like a fresh 20 year old yet with deeper nuances.

A couple of wines brought over

2005 Leeuwin Estate Art Series Chardonnay
Has tightened up now when compared to the last two times I have had this. Excellent/Outstanding with potential. Best young Australian chardonnay I have had I think.

Houghtons Sweet White
Medium brown with yellow/olive rim. Fruit cake on nose. Very rich and sweet palate with long aftertaste. Not quite up there with Rutherglen rares and perhaps overly sweet but still a great sticky. Excellent/Outstanding

cheers

Carl

p.s. off once again to the wine sales in Paris

EDIT: spelling

Pepperjack Shiraz 2004
Very mildly cork tainted I reckon, but only just there. Rich, syrupy, heavy duty red wine in the varietal Barossa mould and a reminder that I'm not entirely enraptured with this style anymore. But probably quite good for the price which I'm sure wasn't a lot.

Luke W wrote:Thanks to advice from some of you on this forum, I've tried this week to really taste my wine rather than just swill it. the interesting thing has been that I'm exhausted after just one or two glasses but I have enjoyed the process immensely. Here goes:
Classic McLaren la Test Blend 2003 (Shiraz/Grenache and Cabernet)
Clear brick red, persistent long legs. A nose of licorice, black olive, tar and soy. Rich, balanced, velvety cigar box mouthfeel with complex, strong, jammy blackcurrant, licorice and aniseed flavours that explode in the mouth. An aftertaste of chocolate and berries leaves the taster wanting more. Four and a half stars

Tarrawarra Pinot Nois 2002
Clear plumb red softening to terracoota on the rim. A warm, balanced wine with a nose redolent of rhubarb, plumb, violet - some gamey and peaty overtones. Although thin at first became supple and silky with exposure in the glass. Harmonious and smooth. Three and a half stars.

Nice notes Luke. It can be a bit daunting at times trying to assess a wine and put one's impressions into words. I think most of us soemtimes struggle to convey those thoughts effectively.

Cheers

daz

Tamar Ridge Pinot Noir 2000

Interesting wine, which might have been better in another four or five years.

It was overflowing with raspberry, and blackcurrant cordial flavour, and although it developed some complexity after about an hour, it should have been decanted for about two.

I'd give it 86 pts but it was on the improve by the time it was finished.

Kris,

Yep, I drink the champers here that I can't afford to buy in Oz due to WET, GST and other factors !! They end up being almost double the price in Australia.

I had the 92 DP earlier this year and for my tastes, I can't see it getting much better. I guess the key is whether you like the fruitier characters such as citrus (younger), or whether you like qualities such as caramel, coffee, sherry and cognac (aged). From my perspective, 92 would be considered reasonably young given it was probably only released 7 years ago.

To be honest, aged champagne can be an acquired taste. I recently had the 1970 and 1983 DP (admittedly not the greatest years). I really enjoyed both, but most people preferred the 98 we had alongside it (and the 98 is nothing to write home about).

The other thing I'd throw out (and some will disagree) is that champagne seems to require near perfect cellaring conditions or it will age very quickly. This may influence your drinking decision too.

Cheers

Mike

Thought I will pop one of the wines I have bought (if only I could bring them back!)

1990 Chateau de La Preuille Tete de Cuvee Muscadet Sur Lie
Soaked cork and a bit of bottle stink. Would love to know when this was bottled or how many year on lees. Still a clear white gold colour. All that lees contact makes me think of a Chablis on the nose. Bit of smoke too although no oak use as far as I am aware. A weighty, salty palate. Musk melon (the flavour; not fruit addition ) providing some funk to the saline minerality. Finishing very crisp. Very good and surprised how youthful this is.

Hmmm...I better open the oysters before I drink too much or I may never play the piano again

cheers

Carl

If a 4 year old plays with an 8 year old a football will end up in a tree. To get the football down one throws another football up the tree, so that one gets down and the other gets stuck higher up. A gale blows and the football wedges comfortably 20 foot high.
No hurricane will dislodge a footy kicked in humour, stupidity or spite.

It will not come down.

Wendouree hits $53 a bottle on mailing list and Lehmann Brothers goes into liquidation. Neither Darren, nor Peter, and certainly not wine.

Richo gets an All Australian and Lids gets a $10,000 travel grant and an Army award:i.e. does not get killed in Afghanistan, nor at the MCG. Deledio is a good thing. [And 50:1 at Cheltenham

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhYZHhBObHU

Delusion never had a chance]


How does one get the footy down and where is Aussie John?

Neville K wrote:
How does one get the footy down

A good sized rock

GRB

Mike Hawkins wrote:Kris,

Yep, I drink the champers here that I can't afford to buy in Oz due to WET, GST and other factors !! They end up being almost double the price in Australia.

I had the 92 DP earlier this year and for my tastes, I can't see it getting much better. I guess the key is whether you like the fruitier characters such as citrus (younger), or whether you like qualities such as caramel, coffee, sherry and cognac (aged). From my perspective, 92 would be considered reasonably young given it was probably only released 7 years ago.

To be honest, aged champagne can be an acquired taste. I recently had the 1970 and 1983 DP (admittedly not the greatest years). I really enjoyed both, but most people preferred the 98 we had alongside it (and the 98 is nothing to write home about).

The other thing I'd throw out (and some will disagree) is that champagne seems to require near perfect cellaring conditions or it will age very quickly. This may influence your drinking decision too.

Cheers

Mike

Thanks for all this Mike. Agree about the acquired taste thing. I strongly suspect the folks I drink this with will all screw up their noses. But I tend to agree that it probably won't get much better either so it seems like a fit occasion to drink it regardless.

And yes, the difference between Australian champagne prices and those elsewhere is nothing short of diabolical. I've previously bought Dom in Singapore for $120 a bottle compared to the $240 on sale here. I actually paid $110 a bottle for these at auction but I know they came from Singapore so the cellaring could be interesting. The ones we drank at the turn of the century were all good and I've had a couple since then which have been fine. For this final one, it's now pretty close to 8 years since I've had it in my possession. My cellar's pretty good but does have yearly variation of probably 5 degrees but it takes quite a while to go up and down so no sudden movements.

I'll post a note when I drink it anyway. Thanks for the advice.

Neville K wrote:If a 4 year old plays with an 8 year old a football will end up in a tree. To get the football down one throws another football up the tree, so that one gets down and the other gets stuck higher up. A gale blows and the football wedges comfortably 20 foot high.
No hurricane will dislodge a footy kicked in humour, stupidity or spite.

It will not come down.

Wendouree hits $53 a bottle on mailing list and Lehmann Brothers goes into liquidation. Neither Darren, nor Peter, and certainly not wine.

Richo gets an All Australian and Lids gets a $10,000 travel grant and an Army award:i.e. does not get killed in Afghanistan, nor at the MCG. Deledio is a good thing. [And 50:1 at Cheltenham

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhYZHhBObHU

Delusion never had a chance]


How does one get the footy down and where is Aussie John?

Shouldn't this go in the 'How many bottles of wine do you drink per day' section? (The answer for Neville K is 6 bottles per day)

Also the 8 year old should throw the 4 year old into the tree to get the footy down.

Neville K wrote: A gale blows and the football wedges comfortably 20 foot high.
No hurricane will dislodge a footy kicked in humour, stupidity or spite.

It will not come down.

Neville,

Chainsaws are great for fixing that problem.

Neville K wrote: A gale blows and the football wedges comfortably 20 foot high.
No hurricane will dislodge a footy kicked in humour, stupidity or spite.

It will not come down.

Neville,

Chainsaws are great for fixing that problem.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cut the kidss in half and then you won't need to worry about getting the ball back.

Jules wrote:Tamar Ridge Pinot Noir 2000

Interesting wine, which might have been better in another four or five years.

It was overflowing with raspberry, and blackcurrant cordial flavour, and although it developed some complexity after about an hour, it should have been decanted for about two.

I'd give it 86 pts but it was on the improve by the time it was finished.

Hi Jules - I'm not familiar with this specific vintage of Tamar Ridge Pinot, but I've found there wouldn't be too many Aust pinots that need more than 8 years to reach their peak, in fact an awful lot of them would be past their peaks at that age. Have found that the following day (I often pour half the bottle into a 375 ml & stopper it up tight as I can't get thru an entire 750 ml in one night) even old pinots can develop fascinating flavour profiles that weren't there day 1. Lots of other wines do that too.

Another wine last night

2000 Le Cedre Cahors
Intense purple still. Gamy meaty nose with oak and some menthol in the background. Chewy, rich palate with the wall of tannin starting to be chipped away. Should last and improve over a decade and more. Excellent/Outstanding.

Had a few wines at Racines Wine bar and one that I thought quite interesting was the Le Mazel Saint-Philippe didn't catch the vintage but a good syrah with perhaps a bit of carbonic maceration to boot. Very funky.

Just wish the Aussie dollar would stay up!

cheers

Carl

Here is as good a place as any.

2001 Pierre Andre Volnay 1er 'en chevret'
See through ruby with amber paling at edge. Typical spicy aromatic wood spices. Savory now yet firm finish making a lovely food wine. Starting to drink well but another 3-4 years will repay. Doesn't reach any heights but a strong reminder of how far Australia/NZ still need to come when Burgundy can knock this out for under $50. Very Good.

2005 Yves Cuilleron "Les Serines" St-Joseph Cote-Rotie wannabe here. 100% Syrah. Intense dark purple-red colour. A lovely nose of white flowers overlaying a licorice styled cool climate shiraz nose with a whiff of cocoa and smoke (no pepper though). On the palate; an elegant style with black fruit and licorice with a fine mineral streak running through. Forward mouthfeel at present. Very fine yet copious chewy tannin. Excellent/Outstanding with potential plus. Wow!

cheers

Carl

seddo wrote:Majella Cabernet 01 - youthfull colour beautiful palate of blackcurrants WOTW.

Yalumba Barossa Shiraz 02 - nice rich shiraz without being OTT - great wine.

Houghtons Margaret River Cab 01- first thing that was noticed when tasting this wine was a capscium flavour which was not bad but dissapated after some airing.

Pirramimma Petit verdot 03 - appeared very aged in colour and flavour - drink up.

cheers
Seddo

Surely the Pirramimma was a bad bottle?

Hi Bob
I don't think so as I have had three over the last 7-8 months and there seemed to be a progression - if that makes sense


cheers
Seddo

man, you guys list so many winemakers i never even heard of or see

i just opened a Taylors Cab 06 won a couple of silver awards somewhere. On the nose, it quite pleasant, doesn't smell amazing. had a couple of sips, a bit flat, light flavour, no lingering aftertaste at all, bit of fruity wine taste in the middle. first impression that hit me was kind of sour.

it wasn't nice like the Promised Land, but not as off putting and offensive like the Hyland Cab 06, and the Bin 128 06

i'll let it sit for an hour and see how it develops

man, you guys list so many winemakers i never even heard of or see

i just opened a Taylors Cab 06 won a couple of silver awards somewhere. On the nose, it quite pleasant, doesn't smell amazing. had a couple of sips, a bit flat, light flavour, no lingering aftertaste at all, bit of fruity wine taste in the middle. first impression that hit me was kind of sour.

it wasn't nice like the Promised Land, but not as off putting and offensive like the Hyland Cab 06, and the Bin 128 06

i'll let it sit for an hour and see how it develops


EDIT: okay an hour later

nose: still very alcoholic
palate: light body, bit dull in the middle, goes down easy, not tannic or bitter, can taste the oak quite well. smooth long aftertaste. no big bursts of flavour here. good fruity lingering taste

an easy going wine

more flavours definately open up after an hour. i reckon itll be better tomorrow night

nose: still very alcoholic
palate: light body, bit dull in the middle, goes down easy, not tannic or bitter, can taste the oak quite well. smooth long aftertaste. no big bursts of flavour here. good fruity lingering taste

its one thing ive found with taylors, ive never got the shiraz because of alc and charry oak. seems 'cheap'. (some vintages are ok but talking generally). prefer wynns

cab i like better but can be a bit 'warm' for my tastes

its not a wine i ever buy but do get the chance to try it as you bump into it socially

lordson wrote:man, you guys list so many winemakers i never even heard of or see

i just opened a Taylors Cab 06 won a couple of silver awards somewhere. On the nose, it quite pleasant, doesn't smell amazing. had a couple of sips, a bit flat, light flavour, no lingering aftertaste at all, bit of fruity wine taste in the middle. first impression that hit me was kind of sour.

it wasn't nice like the Promised Land, but not as off putting and offensive like the Hyland Cab 06, and the Bin 128 06

i'll let it sit for an hour and see how it develops


EDIT: okay an hour later

nose: still very alcoholic
palate: light body, bit dull in the middle, goes down easy, not tannic or bitter, can taste the oak quite well. smooth long aftertaste. no big bursts of flavour here. good fruity lingering taste

an easy going wine

more flavours definately open up after an hour. i reckon itll be better tomorrow night

I am not being sarcastic here, but a newbie he is a damn fast learner

was that tasting note alright?

i wrote as much as i can, alot of notes mentioned tasting oak, but i never got it

but drinking this wine, i was like "ohhh yeah... oak!"

i still can't pick out the other substle stuff, like cherry, chocolate, spice, etc

i'm still not sure what tannin and cassis is. i assume its the bitter gritty kinda taste

lordson wrote:was that tasting note alright?

i wrote as much as i can, alot of notes mentioned tasting oak, but i never got it

but drinking this wine, i was like "ohhh yeah... oak!"

i still can't pick out the other substle stuff, like cherry, chocolate, spice, etc

i'm still not sure what tannin and cassis is. i assume its the bitter gritty kinda taste

Cassis is blackcurrant. Common/typical flavour in Cabernet, less so in other red grapes.

Tannin comes from grapes or oak barrels. They may leave a furry feeling in the mouth or may be bitter (which suggests the tannins are too strong or under-ripe).

lordson wrote:was that tasting note alright?

i wrote as much as i can, alot of notes mentioned tasting oak, but i never got it

but drinking this wine, i was like "ohhh yeah... oak!"

i still can't pick out the other substle stuff, like cherry, chocolate, spice, etc

i'm still not sure what tannin and cassis is. i assume its the bitter gritty kinda taste

Yeah, pretty good. Cherry, chocolate and spice aren't the subtle stuff, elderberry, guava, rose petals in the evening, river pebbles and other exotic stuff is the subtle stuff, often too subtle for me too.

Cassis is a blackcurrant liqueur, it's often used to describe ripe cabernet, but possibly more people have tasted nicely ripe cabernet than they have real cassis.
Tannin is the stuff you feel when drinking strong tea without milk or sugar. The finer and riper (no hard, bitter or green flavour/feel) the better.

yeah tannin. i get that with tea

i always thought it was a bit of sediment in my mouth or something

im drinking the same bottle a day later, been in the fridge

tastes about the same. alcohol dominates the nose, its rather off putting

very harsh tannins, like eating raw banana. rather bland and tasteless, alot like the other cab i had and the Bin 128

very average. i'm not enjoying it very much. i dont know how it won those two silver awards at the LA show

87 points

lordson wrote:very average. i'm not enjoying it very much. i dont know how it won those two silver awards at the LA show

I can't comment on the wine but in regards to shows and medals. I remember when starting out I used to pour over the NZ and the Easter Show wines results in kiwiland. Not a bad idea as at least you get *some* ideas. However -

1) Not all shows are born equal. And anyone can have one and print medals. You can have the "Lordson Wine Show" if you want.

2) They are a bit of a lottery anyway. Judges have very little time. Many or most of the really good reds are designed for the long haul and show poorly.

You might want to try some good-value / easy drinking reds that might be a touch easier on the palate ... Kalleske Clarry's Red blend for example. Others will have suggestions ...