The Auswine Forum

Decanted an hour or so prior to service.

Obviously a powerful wine in its prime. Tannins now reduced and primary fruit reduced to simple plum and blueberry.

Having said that, the basic characters of the wine held up well in conbination. Although unbalanced, still some strong indications of what the wine had been, and it wasn't that far 'past it'. I'd really like to look at the 2002.

Cheers

Allan

Did you decant it too early?

Apart from a question of balance, we seem to be in agreement:

1996 Yarra Yering Shiraz Underhill - Australia, Victoria, Port Phillip, Yarra Valley (9/10/2012)
{cork, 12.5%} A delicious wine somewhat past its best. The nose is deliciously seductive; cinnamon, leather, furniture polish, a touch of raspberry jam. But very aged. Quite intense, and does rather leap out of the glass. The palate has impeccable balance, in the sense that everything is fading away simultaneously; the tannins are mirror smooth, acid is soft, and the fruit flavours have degenrated to a gentle compost-reminiscent note. It's really light-medium bodied, but the gorgeous balance gives it a longer finish than you expect. Still it's not hugely complex; with the flavours following from the aged nose; the low alcohol keeps it wonderfully drinkable, and all parts of the tongue, right to the back palate are engaged. There's a nagging sense that this would have been gorgeous at ten years old, so the enjoyment is really tempered by the sense of faded glory you get. Ah well. It's still nice, but don't wait any longer.

cheers,
Graeme

I tend to agree these aren't for long keeping. The 2009 is delicious and remarkably complex now--so why wait? There's no rule that says wines have to get better with age.

I think given the bushfire effects on the 2009 vintage, they're definitely for short-term drinking.
GG