The Auswine Forum

2 notes, same writer, same wine, very different undertones. I did email GK to see if he could clarify but received no reply. Anyone care to comment?

2007 Te Mata Estate [ Cabernets / Merlot ] Coleraine 18 + ()
Havelock Hills, Hawkes Bay, New Zealand: 14%; $72 [ cork – superb 55 mm costing c.$2 each; hand-harvested CS 52%, Me 34, CF 14; de-stemmed, extended cuvaison; average vine age 20 + years; 20 months in French oak 75% new; http://www.temata.co.nz ]
Ruby, carmine and velvet, a notch less dense than the top wines, about midway in depth, more a match for the Cheval Blanc, but the hue fresher. Bouquet stands apart from the New Zealand wines mentioned so far in this tasting, in that it is more subtle, more restrained, more integrated, perhaps less oaky, and more Medoc-like. The actual quality of the cabernet-influenced bouquet reminds me of some lesser Margaux classed growths. Palate does not quite match the bouquet, however – there is often this worry in the Te Mata claret styles, that in pursuing elegance they lose sight of the old American truism, that a good big one will always beat a smaller good one. So here there is not quite the richness of ripe berry, and there is the slightest undertone of leaf, as characterises many fine Medocs in sub-optimal years. But, 2007 was a fine year in Hawkes Bay, and 2007 Coleraine doesn't quite show that. The quality of oak is good, though, adding to the resemblance to Bordeaux. In terms of finesse, Coleraine is at best unmatched in New Zealand, and this leads to high praise from visiting European wine critics habituated to standard Bordeaux – which is the unashamed model for both Coleraine and Awatea. But this wine in a great Hawke's Bay year is not quite as ripe as the Cheval Blanc in a fairly standard year. So, the tide has come in around Coleraine, and if it is to regain its place as New Zealand's top Bordeaux blend, rather than resting on its laurels, it needs to be both riper and richer. Hopefully cropping rate will be the place to start, in correcting this. Cellar 5 – 25 years. GK 01/10

2007 Te Mata [ Cabernets / Merlot ] Coleraine 19 ( )
Havelock Hills, Hawkes Bay, New Zealand: 14%; $72 [ cork – superb 55 mm costing c. $2 each; hand-harvested CS 52%, Me 34, CF 14; extended cuvaison; average vine age 20 + years; 20 months in French oak 75% new; http://www.temata.co.nz ]
Ruby, carmine and velvet, a classic youthful claret colour, fractionally deeper and clearly younger than the 2005, but not a huge wine. Bouquet is sweetly floral, more floral than 2007 Craggy Range Sophia, with great cassisy berry reflecting the higher cabernet percentage, still very primary alongside the 2005. Palate is delightfully fleshy for a high-cabernet wine, every bit as good as the 2005 and probably better in the long run, with wonderfully subtle and integrated cedary oak. These two Coleraines are reminiscent of the before-their-time '82 and '83 wines, but now exhibiting more finesse, ripeness, richness and technical control. The Margaux analogy is even more apposite here. They show exactly why British winewriters increasingly say the best Hawkes Bay cabernet / merlot is the closest competitor Bordeaux has. Cellar either of these wines with great confidence for 10 – 20 + years, and open them only for people who appreciate fine wines sculpted in a classical style. Even so, that means buying two cases, to have only one bottle a year over their cellar-life (less than 20 years north of Taupo). Coming back to the wine at the re-tasting against notes stage, it is the best Coleraine ever, I think. Dry extract seems greater than the 2005. The whole wine is in a much more classical and understated Bordeaux / Medoc style than the matching blend 2007 Craggy Range The Quarry. Good too that Te Mata have reduced their price c.7% on their 2007 range, reflecting current economic vicissitudes. VALUE GK 03/09

Yes, I think this is interesting, not because he rated the same wine differently on two separate occasions (Te Mata seal with cork, afterall), but because he makes general comments about Coleraine that are inconsistent. How can it be the best example of the label yet made on the one hand and be a label that's going off the boil on the other? Particularly as he rated it as "the best Coleraine ever" 4 months before declaring that "the tide has come in around Coleraine". Had he forgotten that when he wrote the later note? Curious. Tells us as much about Mr Kelly's memory as it does about bottle variation, I think! Choosing to compare it only to Cheval Blanc is a bit rich too.

I know nothing about Coleraine (which is a shame obviously!), but he may have been influenced by the fact that he was tasting the 07 side by side with another vintage in the earlier note. Comparison certainly affects perception.

Just a thought

Michael

I know nothing about Coleraine (which is a shame obviously!), but he may have been influenced by the fact that he was tasting the 07 side by side with another vintage in the earlier note. Comparison certainly affects perception.

Just a thought

Michael

That was my first thought, yet when you compare the two occassions, the 07 coleraine was both time tasted alongside similar high quality wines and many were the same (im thinking sophia,church rd res??). This would hardly concern me as it simply is the sum of the failings of subjective tasting, occassion, rating and description (we all have discussed endlessly on wine forums since the year dot). I myself have written up some wines twice - once favourably, once less so

My angle is more to Bick's point, it is more the underlying "conclusions" re Te Mata as a winery, or coleraine as a 'label' which are highly inconsistant. Everyone who tries one label many many times over one year does not let the odd 'flat' experience influence ones opinion to such a wildly varying degree.

I have many wines which I have tried way way above the average rate over the last decade whether it be neudorf moutere chardonnnay, coleraine, unison selection, fromm spatlese or whatever. Sure on some occassions for whatever reason, they dont quite meet expectations. on the majority of occassions they do. One lesser experience need not bring out a proclamation that someone is 'resting on laurels' ! I guess without the advantage of a reply (which was invited) from GK to help explain we can only speculate (which we will)

Seems also very inconsistant with other opinion including Sam Kim, Raymond Chan, Bob Campbell etc which all seem to think 07 is the best ever. I am in the camp that it is 'one of the best' along with 91,95,98,00,05.

Curious

Hmmm, all interesting, but bottom line is that this is a bloody good wine!

Nuff said...

Monghead.

A storm in a teacup IMO. He rates it once at 18+/20 and the other time 19/20 so fairly consistent and I'm sure we are all aware how wines can taste different on different days and different surroundings.

The other point of interest is that the notes come from different tastings - in the higher pointed one all the comparisons were only with NZ wines, whereas the lower pointed note comes from from a pre-Pinot 2010 tasting that involved Bordeaux wines from all over the world, including Cheval Blanc (hence the very apposite comparison).

Kelly's notes really only make sense in the context of the tasting they come from, and if one reads through all the wine notes in each tasting his it's easier to understand what he is getting at, rather than the truncated presentation here.

Of note he rates the 07 Coleraine higher than previous Coleraine vintages, but when tasted later vs 07 Tom, Sophia, Brokenstone, Declaration and Church Rd he scores those wines similarly, and the point I think he is making is that the pack have caught up, and Te Mata need to raise their game if Coleraine wants to remain NZ's premier Bordeaux blend.

Paradox wrote:A storm in a teacup IMO.

Hardly a storm, Paradox, just an interesting little discussion. Personally, I still think there's a clear inconsistency here that cannot be explained away simply by context. Indeed, GK always goes out of his way to write notes that (a) can stand alone - the search function on his site enables comparisons across tastings and he encourages this - and (b) are always judged in a worldy context regardless of immediate comparators. Of all the wine critics I read he compares to old world and other benchmark wines far more than any other.

Hardly a storm, Paradox, just an interesting little discussion. Personally, I still think there's a clear inconsistency here that cannot be explained away simply by context. Indeed, GK always goes out of his way to write notes that (a) can stand alone - the search function on his site enables comparisons across tastings and he encourages this - and (b) are always judged in a worldy context regardless of immediate comparators. Of all the wine critics I read he compares to old world and other benchmark wines far more than any other.

agree

there is no scandel, its just a discussion driven mainly by curiousity. once again i have to underline i am not concerned with the judgements/ scores/ descriptions resulting each tasting of the wine. Just curious re the big general conclusions driven by them ('resting on laurels' vs 'best ever')

Hardly a storm, not even a breeze. It could be as simple and trivial as being missed off the xmas card list

Of note he rates the 07 Coleraine higher than previous Coleraine vintages, but when tasted later vs 07 Tom, Sophia, Brokenstone, Declaration and Church Rd he scores those wines similarly, and the point I think he is making is that the pack have caught up, and Te Mata need to raise their game if Coleraine wants to remain NZ's premier Bordeaux blend.

This is perhaps a fair enough comment in the context of new releases (especially for those who get off on something plush, plump and ripe vs backward and reserved), but in the context of a bottle with 5-15 years age on it the pack is yet to catch up. Coleraine has the pedigree and the numbers

Im sure there are plenty of tastings where on release an upstart shiraz foots it with Grange (ive been at them), but we all know what the result is going to be after 10-20 years in the bottle

I tasted the wine at the winery on two different days soon after release, and found the second sample a bit greener and leaner (as GK notes) than the first sample, which was absolutely gorgeous. So I can see both sides!

This debate is all rather academic now, as I see Bob Campbell reckons the 2008 is better than 2007

This debate is all rather academic now, as I see Bob Campbell reckons the 2008 is better than 2007

2008 vs 2007 will depend a lot on when you want to drink it. 2007 definitely will be the one to keep for 15-20 years, though the 2008 isn't a short termer either. Both lovely wines. A situation where you need not make a choice, buy both. Coleraine to me is definitely wine of the vintage from 2008 for Hawkes Bay. No other comes even close.