The Auswine Forum

Tonight we had the first of two blind (as we always do) tastings featuring current "Super Shiraz".

Seventeen experienced tasters faced ten glasses and prepared to vote on their best three wines. We do at least one of these Super Shiraz tastings every year but this year was arguably the most impressive yet, probably for a number of reasons.

The sheer quality was as high as I've ever seen it, the 2002 vintage is proving to be one of the best and 2001 is no slouch either

Despite slight style differences, the eveness in quality was incredible, most people had trouble deciding on their placings

Compared to even a few years ago, the oak handling is much better, more subtle and better integrated.

The line up -
2002 Australian Old Vine Collection by Gibson
2002 Dead Arm
2002 Summerfield Reserve
2002 Dalwhinnie
2001 E&E Black Pepper
2002 Kaesler Old Vine
2002 Veritas Hanisch
2000 Houghton Gladstones
2001 Rockford Basket Press
1999 Lehmann Stonewell (very slightly corked)

I agonised over my voting before splitting them by whiskers, Dalwhinnie, Kaesler, Aust Old Vine, Hanisch.

You want notes? Well you'll have to wait for Ian aka n4sir, who was the official TN taker, to put finger to keyboard.

Right now I'm enjoying a blend of nine of the above which I poured into the remaining dregs of Hanisch - now this IS a good wine!!

Next week we've got all 2002s including some of my finds of the year

Tin Shed Single Wire
Yering Station Shiraz Viognier
Liebich Darkie
Kaesler W O M S (Weapon of Mass Seduction)
Kays Hillside
Kilikanoon Oracle
Buller Calliope
Fox Creek Reserve
Magpie Estate The Election and maybe the 99 Stonewell for another run

Looking forward to your notes. I had the 2002 Dead Arm the other day, and found it undrinkable. In fact, at least half the bottle was left, everyone thought it terrible.

Sulphur, monolithic, rasping tannins, subtle green streak- too much of everything. This may settle down in a few years, but I for one won't be taking the gamble.

I am not even sure the Yanks will bite at this one, unless, of course, Jesus has annointed it with 98pts

I'm also really look forward to the TNS - hurry up boys!

AJ,

Agree with the 02 Dead Arm - seriously "in your face" stuff. Way too much fruit, oak, alcohol - just the way certain Americans like it. I wont be looking at it agian for 10 years - I just hope it has calmed down.

We opened this straight after a 1988 Rockford BP - the differences could not have been more stark.

Regardless of whether you like the style of the Dead Arm, it seems more than a bit obnoxious to imply that only yanks could stomach it. I recall a well-respected Aussie's TN of "Excellent (with room to improve as it matures" for the '01, with not unsimilar TNs for some earlier vintages.

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of whether you like the style of the Dead Arm, it seems more than a bit obnoxious to imply that only yanks could stomach it. I recall a well-respected Aussie's TN of "Excellent (with room to improve as it matures" for the '01, with not unsimilar TNs for some earlier vintages.

Try reading the post, my friend. I actually said that the Yanks probably wouldn't go for it.

Despite the fact that some nameless critic has tasing notes for the 02 that are not "unsimilar" (sic) to the 01, I still think the stuff is absolute rubbish, and I am entitled to my opinion. Please feel free to ignore it!!!

That is what a discussion board is for- an exchange of ideas and opinions!!!!

Chester has got this one horribly wrong, IMO, and I think he will suffer in the long-term for producing such rubbish. If he had produced that sort of wine before Jesus "discovered" him, I reckon he would have had terrible trouble moving more than a quarter of it off the shelves.
In all honesty, I found it undrinkable, and, believe me, that is a very rare occurrance for this little black duck.

I run hot and cold on Dead Arm and find it varies a lot. I loved the 98, liked the 99, thought the 2000 was horrid, bought the 01 as I really thought it had potential. I bought the 02 on spec figuring I could not lose money on it. Now it looks like I am going to have to sacrifice a bottle to see for myself.

Ric,

I would be most interested to know your take on the '02 Dead Arm, so I'll be watching for your TN. I noted you rated the '01 as "Excellent (with room to improve as it matures)", which I found encouraging, since I have a case in storage. Now the '02 is out and the dealers are pitching it pretty hard, but no one else seems to like it much.

Hi all. I have to agree with Aussie Johns, the wine is dreadful. It was served at the Shiraz Alliance. It is crude, over oaked with cheap oak that is coarse and woody, tannins are clearly added and so too acid in such quantity that it is completely devoid of anything to do with wine. Now it might have a lot of old vine fruit in it but the fruit is simple and sweet - yep black as the ace of spades but lacking in complexity. A clear case of a winery that has spent a lot of time convincing people that their ordinary wine is of a high quality. Perhaps Jesus should spend a little time in the Vale during vintage and less time with the importers whom sit on his knee while he tastes the wine. Jeremy Oliver was right on this one!!!!

So are the only people praising the Dead Arm '02 people who are trying to sell it? Although I saw a lot of unfavourable opinions re the '01, there were also a lot of people other than parker who said it was great. I haven't tasted it myself; I thought I'd leave it storage for a couple of years first. It would be a nice comparison to get TN on the '02 from someone who actually liked the '01.

Guys:

Must admit that I was at the BT tasting last night and I rated the Dead Arm in my Worst three. Have been a fan of other vintages, but would not spend my readies on this one folks. Wines for the night for me in my order of preference were 1) The Gibson Old Vine, 2) Kaesler Old Vine and 3) Veritas Hanisch. Least preferred was the Leahman as it was corked, quickly followed by the Dead Arm.

cheers and keep up the great site Torb!

Winky!

As usual, all wines were tasted blind and after about an hour all 17 participants voted for their most preferred, two next preferred and their least preferred drops. The following tasting notes and rankings are my impressions only, which were in the main quite different to the other 16 panellists, so I’ve also included the total votes tallied and any contrasting views I could recall. The votes were written down in an awful hurry, and I know the totals for most & second preferred are a slightly out – I was waiting for the correct figures, but my home computer has now packed up, and they will have to be fixed later on. I think you will get the general idea of the group voting though.

Needless to say, all of the wines featured heavyweight palates that really needed more time and air than was available, but all of them managed to leave no doubt as to the high quality that matched their price tags.


2002 Gibson Australian Old Vine Collection Shiraz $80: Inky purple/red colour. A beautiful and sweet nose to start off the night, with some subtle coconut, chocolate, warm blackberry fruit and sweet plums. The structure of the palate was very impressive, but seemed a touch hot, with an extremely tangy finish, and signature Barossa chocolate on the aftertaste. I loved the bouquet of this wine, but to me the finish of the palate wasn’t as polished as my top three wines.

My ranking: 4th place
BTs: 4 most preferred, 7 second, 0 least


2002 d’Arenberg Dead Arm Shiraz $60: Inky red/purple colour. Slightly stinky, earthy & dusty nose at first with some rich chocolate and sweet plum/confection aromas with breathing. The palate features a subdued entry of black olive and blackberry, and a flush of rich blackberry fruit and integrated tannins following. The finish lets the wine down, with those hefty green tannins sticking out with lingering, hot alcohol. In illustrious company this wine wasn’t as classy as in the d’Arenberg new releases last month, but a few panellists pointed out it wasn’t a good bottle.

My ranking: =6th place
BTs: 0 most, 1 second, 2 least


2002 Summerfield Reserve Shiraz $45: Inky purple/red colour. Slightly meaty apricot and floral accents accompany ripe, sweet blackberry on the nose at first. The palate features a massive, evolving structure of plum and beetroot and chalky tannins. That chalk also appears on the nose suddenly with accents of spicy Asian mint, and again in the aftertaste with hints of beetroot in an impossibly long finish. I think this was very much a love-it-or-hate-it style of wine among the panellists. I loved it and it finished with equal top points on my scoresheet.

My ranking: =2nd place
BTs: 1 most, 2 second, 2 least


2002 Dalwhinnie Shiraz $57: Dark to inky purple/red colour. Slightly stinky nose of plum, apricot, and concentrated tomato. The palate featured beetroot, raspberry and apricot flavours at first, and slightly bitter but soft tannins running with the fruit. The finish was soft, long and spicy, with that distinctive hint of apricot standing out with a buttery/chocolate rebound on the aftertaste. While this was a very good wine it really just wasn’t my style, and I think indicates the quality of the field, and how difficult it was to judge.

My ranking: 9th place
BTs: 1 most, 4 second, 1 least


2001 E&E Black Pepper Shiraz $75: Dark to inky purple/red colour. A gorgeous, sweet nose of Barossa fruit and classy oak, with coffee/mocha, violets, dark chocolate and diesel. The palate is equally impressive, with a powerful, slow build-up of plum, blackberry and dark chocolate fruit that match the massive but completely entwined gum-sucking tannins. A long, velvety chocolate and blackberry finish gave this wine the winning edge over the other two wines at the top of my scoresheet. Some of the panellists thought the oak was a little obvious right now, and would be better in about five years.

My ranking: 1st place
BTs: 3 most, 2 second, 0 least


2002 Kaesler Old Vine Shiraz $60 CD: Inky purple/red colour. This had a very reserved nose at first, with plum, apricot, earth and blackberry, but turned rather stinky with breathing. The palate of stewed plum seemed to be tainted with hot alcohol and bitter tannins that outweighed the fruit. The finish again seemed hot and tannic to me, with what seemed to be aldehyde on the finish, resulting in last position on my scoresheet. This was probably the standout difference between my votes and the group, with it being one of the highest rated wines of the night.

My ranking: 10th place
BTs: 4 most, 5 second, 1 least


2002 Veritas Hanisch Shiraz $100: Inky red/purple colour. Very closed nose in comparison to the rest of the group. A lot of swirling tempts out hints of slightly stinky, earthy fruit and toasted oak, but it’s not easy. The palate again features hefty green tannins and alcohol heat that are somehow almost matched by the plummy, milk chocolate fruit. The finish is long, sweet and yet also bitter, with a huge coffee/butter rebound coming out of nowhere in the aftertaste. Going by the nose, the size of the tannins and how relatively disjointed all these observations were, I guessed this was a wine that needed a lot more serious time and aeration, and preferably 10 or so years in the dungeon. It seemed almost unfair to make a judgement on it now, but it still was among the top rated wines.

My ranking: 5th place
BTs: 4 most, 9 second, 0 least


2000 Houghton Gladstones Franklin River Shiraz $65: Dark to inky red/purple colour. A very warm and inviting nose of earthy/toasty/buttery oak and underlying diesel and simmering blackberries. The entry to the palate like the Dead Arm has a rich flush of blackberry fruit matched to a gorgeous structure, but in comparison the power of the plummy fruit drives the finish of the wine, with lingering plums and mint in the aftertaste.

My ranking: =2nd place
BTs: 0 most, 3 second, 2 least


2001 Rockford Basket Press Shiraz $46: Dark red/purple colour, the weakest of the line up. Jammy nose of floral/meaty/blackberry fruit with hints of diesel, and without the slightest sign of oak. The palate is also slightly jammy, with beetroot/blackberry fruit, good structure, and finishes very green in this field.

My ranking: 8th place
BTs: 1 most, 2 second, 1 least


1999 Peter Lehmann Stonewell Shiraz $60 (NB. I think it’s more like $80 folks): Dark to inky red/purple colour. Slightly stinky nose of charred/toasted oak and beetroot at first, and much later on some mint and prune. The vanilla oak dominated the entry at first, with rich blackberry/raspberry fruit filling the mid-palate out nicely. The finish seemed short in comparison to the other wines, but again a buttery rebound magically appeared out of nowhere. Like the Hanisch this appeared to me to be disjointed due to lack of breathing, but it also could have been ever so slightly corked. At one stage Martin thought it was, checked another glass (which was okay), and changed glasses, which seemed to fix the problem; maybe it was a dirty glass or needed the extra flush of air. After that I picked up some mouldy/flat/dull mint characters on the nose that made me wonder, but it morphed again after about 30 seconds, leaving me puzzled. At the end of the night a few panellists thought it could have been affected; while the quality of the wine tried it’s best to hide this, it was ultimately doomed if that was the case, and would explain the final ranking.

My ranking: =6th place
BTs: 0 most, 2 second, 8 least


Like Steve, I took an awful long time to decide the winner from my top three wines. The three most popular among the panel after all the votes were tallied were the Hanisch, Kaesler and the Gibson, with nothing between them.

My thanks again for Steve for the last second invite, to Craig for dropping out allowing this to happen (!), and to the Black Tongues for staging such a stunning taste-off.

Cheers
Ian

n4sir wrote:

2002 Gibson Australian Old Vine Collection Shiraz $80: Inky purple/red colour. A beautiful and sweet nose to start off the night, with some subtle coconut, chocolate, warm blackberry fruit and sweet plums. The structure of the palate was very impressive, but seemed a touch hot, with an extremely tangy finish, and signature Barossa chocolate on the aftertaste. I loved the bouquet of this wine, but to me the finish of the palate wasnÂ’t as polished as my top three wines.

My ranking: 4th place
BTs: 4 most preferred, 7 second, 0 least


2002 Summerfield Reserve Shiraz $45: Inky purple/red colour. Slightly meaty apricot and floral accents accompany ripe, sweet blackberry on the nose at first. The palate features a massive, evolving structure of plum and beetroot and chalky tannins. That chalk also appears on the nose suddenly with accents of spicy Asian mint, and again in the aftertaste with hints of beetroot in an impossibly long finish. I think this was very much a love-it-or-hate-it style of wine among the panellists. I loved it and it finished with equal top points on my scoresheet.

My ranking: =2nd place
BTs: 1 most, 2 second, 2 least


2002 E&E Black Pepper Shiraz $75: Dark to inky purple/red colour. A gorgeous, sweet nose of Barossa fruit and classy oak, with coffee/mocha, violets, dark chocolate and diesel. The palate is equally impressive, with a powerful, slow build-up of plum, blackberry and dark chocolate fruit that match the massive but completely entwined gum-sucking tannins. A long, velvety chocolate and blackberry finish gave this wine the winning edge over the other two wines at the top of my scoresheet. Some of the panellists thought the oak was a little obvious right now, and would be better in about five years.

My ranking: 1st place
BTs: 3 most, 2 second, 0 least


2002 Veritas Hanisch Shiraz $100: Inky red/purple colour. Very closed nose in comparison to the rest of the group. A lot of swirling tempts out hints of slightly stinky, earthy fruit and toasted oak, but itÂ’s not easy. The palate again features hefty green tannins and alcohol heat that are somehow almost matched by the plummy, milk chocolate fruit. The finish is long, sweet and yet also bitter, with a huge coffee/butter rebound coming out of nowhere in the aftertaste. Going by the nose, the size of the tannins and how relatively disjointed all these observations were, I guessed this was a wine that needed a lot more serious time and aeration, and preferably 10 or so years in the dungeon. It seemed almost unfair to make a judgement on it now, but it still was among the top rated wines.

My ranking: 5th place
BTs: 4 most, 9 second, 0 least



2001 Rockford Basket Press Shiraz $46: Dark red/purple colour, the weakest of the line up. Jammy nose of floral/meaty/blackberry fruit with hints of diesel, and without the slightest sign of oak. The palate is also slightly jammy, with beetroot/blackberry fruit, good structure, and finishes very green in this field.

My ranking: 7th place
BTs: 1 most, 2 second, 1 least


1999 Peter Lehmann Stonewell Shiraz $60 (NB. I think itÂ’s more like $80 folks): Dark to inky red/purple colour. Slightly stinky nose of charred/toasted oak and beetroot at first, and much later on some mint and prune. The vanilla oak dominated the entry at first, with rich blackberry/raspberry fruit filling the mid-palate out nicely. The finish seemed short in comparison to the other wines, but again a buttery rebound magically appeared out of nowhere. Like the Hanisch this appeared to me to be disjointed due to lack of breathing, but it also could have been ever so slightly corked. At one stage Martin thought it was, checked another glass (which was okay), and changed glasses, which seemed to fix the problem; maybe it was a dirty glass or needed the extra flush of air. After that I picked up some mouldy/flat/dull mint characters on the nose that made me wonder, but it morphed again after about 30 seconds, leaving me puzzled. At the end of the night a few panellists thought it could have been affected; while the quality of the wine tried itÂ’s best to hide this, it was ultimately doomed if that was the case, and would explain the final ranking.

My ranking: =6th place
BTs: 0 most, 2 second, 8 least

hello Ian

I've had the above wines, and a few notes.

The Gibsons (on its way to the store) is a treat, I didn't get the heat, just lovely old vine fruit and sympathetic wine making, great stuff, and it cellars brilliantly.

I agree with you re Summerfield, very different to the Barossa style of many of these, but great wine!

The Black Pepper will almost certainly be the just released 2001 vintage!

The Hanisch is a stunner, but needs 8 hours decanting time, or 10 years in the cellar. Made to cellar long term with structure.

I like the Basket Press more than you, but then I like the style.

The Stonewell sure sounds corked.

Great tasting!

In the interest of science, I subjected this wine to myself and wife again last night, having purchased it from vintage cellars for $65.

2002 d'Arenberg Dead Arm shiraz

....decanted for one hour and consumed using Riedel shiraz glasses.

.....one word..........terrible

...could have used two words............a joke

...drink: never.....................................60pts.

The Black Pepper will almost certainly be the just released 2001 vintage!

Whoops - mistake fixed (among a few others). That's the problem when one computer packs up and you try to recover and finish the post on another. There will no doubt be corrections to come for the group votes too.

In regard to the Dead Arm, it didn't rate well at all, which surprised me given what I thought of it before release. Given all the bad reactions lately, I'm just starting to wonder what did I try last month (or how many days in advance was it decanted?) My previous note for comparison:

d’Arenberg 2002 Dead Arm Shiraz: Not due for release until the 8th of August, and lives up to the hype in every facet. Superb inky red/purple colour. The nose is closed at the moment, with the oak at times noticeable with coffee and a touch of lanolin; deep under the surface some violets, plum, blueberry, blackberry, and liquorice await for the proper drinking window. The palate is on another scale to all the wines in the line up; a slow huge build-up of plum/blackberry/liquorice fruit and chalky tannins and supporting oak that as TORB would say, crawl across the palate. Magnificent. (31/7/2004)

n4sir wrote:2002 dÂ’Arenberg Dead Arm Shiraz $60: Inky red/purple colour. Slightly stinky, earthy & dusty nose at first with some rich chocolate and sweet plum/confection aromas with breathing. The palate features a subdued entry of black olive and blackberry, and a flush of rich blackberry fruit and integrated tannins following. The finish lets the wine down, with those hefty green tannins sticking out with lingering, hot alcohol. In illustrious company this wine wasnÂ’t as classy as in the dÂ’Arenberg new releases last month, but a few panellists pointed out it wasnÂ’t a good bottle.

My ranking: =6th place
BTs: 0 most, 1 second, 2 least

Ian,
As you point out, these notes for the Dead Arm are sure different from those last month. I was really looking forward to your TN, since you liked the wine so much before, and I thought maybe the negative opinions were due to style preferences. I have a few bottles on order that I was going to leave in storage with the dealer for a few years before being shipped to me, but with so many negative opinions, maybe I should cancel. In recent postings I haven't seen a single favourable opinion of this wine.

What would you know about wine Aussie Johns?

Mark my words, and those of Mr Parker, 2002 Dead Arm shiraz is a winner!!

dereksalmons wrote:What would you know about wine Aussie Johns?

Mark my words, and those of Mr Parker, 2002 Dead Arm shiraz is a winner!!

.I am happy to sell a case of the stuff to your wife for $1000, if you wish.

dereksalmons wrote:What would you know about wine Aussie Johns?

Mark my words, and those of Mr Parker, 2002 Dead Arm shiraz is a winner!!

But you sir are a LOSER.
MM.

Derek,
Just ignore them, they are all jealous of your cunning stunt.
As a Dead Arm fanatic, could you tell me where I can get my hands on a magnum of the 1998?? It is my wife's birth year, and I want to suprise her. I am willing to pay up to $1700 for it.

Ta in advance, Cod.

Sorry n4sir, I've had the 2002 Kaesler Old Vine over two nights and it's a great wine, can't agree with your rating.

Black purple in colour, the nose gives up dark plums, licorice, a waft of spice and cedar, the palate is fully loaded with ripe plum, blackberry and a touch of pepper, well handled oak, lots of weight and length on the palate with fine grained tannin finish.

This is excellent wine and well priced.

Eddie

Eddie,

FWIW, I agree with you, I loved it too and bought a six pack. Ian does note that he was out of alignment with the group where 9 people rated it first or second and he was the only decenter and placed it last.

Tasting wine is a personal thing and some characters many people love and others hate, we are all different.

Sorry n4sir, I've had the 2002 Kaesler Old Vine over two nights and it's a great wine, can't agree with your rating.

It's probably a big advantage that you drank it over two nights; as I've mentioned about the Dead Arm, I think there was a general concensus that all of the wines in the line-up needed extra breathing time, and an hour to vigorously work a glass may not be enough. I'm glad you had the time to enjoy that bottle!

As you can gather from the spread of votes, there were some fairly polarised views about certain wines - that was the one wine I was a mile out from the rest of the panel. I honestly can't explain why. The Dalwhinnie was the classic case where I recognised it as a classy wine, but the apricot characters went a little over the top for my liking. It was really a tough field to judge in around an hour, but still a lot of fun.

Cheers
Ian

Released here last week and I did not buy. Someone bought me on so i will likely take back. It sells in Canada for $50 Canadian which appears to be less than down under.

I think this wine is over hyped!