The First Monday Club rounds off the year with a vertical tasting (for the third and final time?) in the ‘wines everybody owns’ series. This time it’s Tahbilk Shiraz, with a couple of Marsannes to begin. Wines served in pairs. More discussion ensues concerning the tasting order – since the oldest red wine here is no more than 14, we should perhaps have started with the youngest? Probably makes little difference in this instance.
Tahbilk Wines (Goulburn Valley)
Traditional makers in Victoria. They sell a Reserve Shiraz above tonight’s fare, and the ‘1860 Vines’ as their top shiraz.
For starters:
1999 Marsanne
1988 Marsanne
The 1999 is mid-straw to light yellow in colour, with a nose of light peaches and honeydew. The palate is lovely and rich, with good coverage across the front and middle palate. The acid is attractive - still fresh and persistent. There’s excellent length of finish, and a few more years development left before this reaches its peak. The 1988, by contrast, was deep yellow with an orange tint. The nose presents honey and rich marzipan aromas, with more than a hint of nutty oxidation. The palate is very broad and developed – the fruit has definitely lapsed here. The flavours are somewhat more caramelized than the nose would suggest, and the acid has softened out as well, leaving the wine somewhat flabby, although still enjoyable enough. Definitely on the downward slope, however. Drink up.
1990 Shiraz
1991 Shiraz
The 1990 was mid-red, with a soft leather/earth nose. The palate is soft to the point of being tannin-free. Some leathery flavours are present, but all persistence vanishes from the palate very quickly. No pretense at complexity here. The wine is perfectly drinkable still, but the last 4-5 years aging have done it no favours. The 1991 is somewhat darker in colour, and possessed of considerable sediment. The aromas here are meatier, but the overall impression is not significantly different to its older brother. Perhaps there are still some tannins here, but nothing in terms of flavour that would justify the cellar time.
1992 Shiraz
1993 Shiraz
The 1992 is a clear step up. Here are still earthy aromas, but here infused with fruity mulberry notes. The palate is soft and smooth, with fine residual tannins and integrated acidity. There’s medium weight across the front and mid palates and a respectable length of finish. The 1993’s red tone is accompanied by a distinctly brown note. The nose confirms: there’s real bottle stink here and the beginning of significant volatility. Drinkable (in emergencies), this is clearly in decline. Interestingly, a copy of Jeremy Oliver’s 2005 Wine guide confirms the verdict here – a couple of his drinking windows are seriously optimistic, but this one is spot-on.
1994 Shiraz
1996 Shiraz
Mid red, the 1994 continues the mulberry fruit theme, and adds a dash of plum. The aromas are quite clean, with minimal oaky notes. The palate has a whiff of varnish about it – and some fuzzy tannins remain. Well integrated. The 1995 was AWOL, which was a pity, because it seems to mark the turning point between wines that were too old and those in their prime. The 1996 is quite muted in its red berry flavours. The palate offers quite strong grape-derived tannins, with good interplay of structural components in a medium-bodied way.
1997 Shiraz
1998 Shiraz
These two wines are remarkably similar in aroma profile. Blackberries and dark fruits, a touch of spice. The 1997 has a good balance of fruit, tannin, and acid melding together in a medium-bodied way. The 1998 is a bit more astringent, with angular acidity. Neither wine is hugely complex though.
1999 Shiraz
2000 Shiraz
The 1999 is dark red. These younger wines are significantly larger in body than the older brethren. The ‘usual’ red/black fruit aromas, still minimal oak influence. Plenty of tannins here, although it’s no Barossa bruiser. This wine is significantly more primal than both 97 and 98. Perhaps more intense, although lighter-bodied than the 2000, which (after the first corked bottle was discarded) shows plenty of warm ripe blackberry & plum fruit. Tannins are firm, yet the back palate is scarcely molested…
There was an encouraging consistency right through this tasting, and objectively, it’s pretty good for a sub-$20 wine. I think it generally drinks best about 8 years after vintage – and better to err on the early side; there’s not a lot to gain by aging.
1996 De Bortoli Noble One (Griffith)
1987 De Bortoli Noble One (Griffith)
The 1996 is an odd kind of copper-orange colour. The nose is heavily botrytis-dominated, with oppressive marmalade and apricot notes. The palate is a bit coppery as well, with some acidity, but not enough to lift the wine for me. The finish is depressingly short. Drink up – this is going nowhere. Much more attractive was the 1987. Deep orange/copper/brown in colour, it adds a brassy whiff of oxidation to the botrytis fruit notes. The acidity is still hanging in there, and the length of finish leaves the 96 for dead. A second bottle (there were 375ml pairs of both wines) was a little more aged and acidic, but otherwise very similar
1995 Miranda Golden Botrytis (Griffith)
A deep yellow-orange colour, this has lots of honey and marmalade on the nose. Some acid holds the palate together initially, but despite the rich botrytis fruit flavours and sugar, the finish on this wine is getting quite short nowadays. Still a good drink, but time to open those bottles.
Cheers,
Graeme