The Auswine Forum

Refresh my memory please. 91 or 93?

Had a bottle last night and it was like a Sparkling Rhone ( village of course ), as opposed to a sparkling St Peter's!

which vintage did you have?

1991...

Both, I believe.

The last 91 I had was undrinkable but Brians which was purchased at the same time from the same supplier was fine.

I have had a heap of the Seppelt Show shiraz lately. The 91 is probably the most affected. However, I still enjoy drinking it.

Here is a question for everyone. If the 91 was sealed under stelvin would it be showing the same level of 'brett' as under conventional cork?

The reason why I ask is that the 94 under stelvin is as fresh as a daisy. Almost unlike Great Western because it is spotless (no great western mushroomy characteristics in it). However the 94 under cork is showing more of this mushroom characterers and more development. In some ways I find it a lot more dirtier (not in a kinky way ) but in that it does not seem to have as much primary fruit as the 94 under stelvin. And give it time but if the whole lot was bottled under cork I think many people would cry 'brett'.

Is this coincedence? Would love to hear other people views. How many brett affected wine have you had that has been bottles under stelvin?

cheers
anthony

Thanks.

Was the 93'. Nice. Just a touch dirty on the palate- Rhone peat bog, old leather, mushrooms etc.

Must try the 94.

Is there really a sparkling wine sealed under Stelvin? I thought the 94 SSSS is under a crown seal.

Kieran

Sorry Kieren,
must have been that extra glass of Shiraz that got me. I meant crown seal for the sparkling. But in general how many people have had brett effected wines sealed under stelvin?

cheers
anthony

Anthony wrote:But in general how many people have had brett effected wines sealed under stelvin?

anthony

Anthony,

I had one yesterday! It had just enough to give it "character" but not enough to detract from the enjoyment. The seal makes no difference, if there is Brett in the wine, it is in the wine period.

Just a touch dirty on the palate- Rhone peat bog, old leather, mushrooms

Jamie,

old leather and mushrooms are fairly normal and desirable characters in aged red. They shouldn't be seen to detract from a wine, and certainly wouldn't be considered dirty characters....unless of course you are only meaning the Rhone peat bog? (do they actually have peat in the Rhone???)

Hi Torb,
yep I agree the seal does not make difference if a wine has brett or not.

However, say a wine does have brett. Do you think that a wine that has been bottled under cork will show more bretty characters than if sealed under stelvin?

cheers
anthony

Glen

Peat moss and peat common descriptors for Rhone wines.

Personally, I found peat bog a good descriptor for northern Rhone wines with dirty aromas and palate flavours. I find this prevalent in earthy, brett affected wines-especially Crozes Hermitage with bottle age ( Chapoutier's 97 my case point ).

Combining mushrooms, old leather with earth and notes of Brett- certainly gave me a not unpleasant impression of "dirty" palate flavours on the 93 Show Reserve.

There is peat moss everywhere in the Northern Rhone. Quite fragrant too. All along the little rock fences of villages such as Condrieu, Grillet and Ampuis.

I can't find peat moss in your tasting guide.

anthony d wrote:However, say a wine does have brett. Do you think that a wine that has been bottled under cork will show more bretty characters than if sealed under stelvin?

Hi Anthony,

I would say the temperature of the storage would be a much greater consideration than the seal.

I agree with TORB too.

The only thing I'd add though is that brettanomyces itself quite likes a smidge of oxygen to develop on its merry way (which is one of the reasons it likes to develop in barrel), and so those corks susceptible to greater or lesser degrees of oxygen ingress - i.e. those corks liable, over time, to cause random oxidation - are likely to make the brett seem a little worse. Screwcaps that are a perfect seal will be less susceptible to this, one would've thought.

That's my hunch anyway.

Campbell.

Thanks guys for the good response.

cheers
anthony