The Auswine Forum

I was wondering what is the BEST ST Henri (1996) or Petaluma Coonawarra (1996) to cellar for 5-10 years? Would it be any other years, 1996 or the latest 2001?

David T

Are these for personal consumption? Which one do you like best now? Have you tried either of these (or any other Aus reds) at 15+ yo? How will they be cellared? Do you have a source of the 96 vintage that you are sure has been cellared well?

Both of them will certainly be in good nick in 5 years if cellared properly, both will probably be at their peak/plateau or maybe starting to fade in 10 years, again depending on cellaring conditions and corks, the Petaluma may be longer lived, depending on how mature you like your wines.

I haven't tried the 2001 St Henri, but the 2001 Petaluma will be just getting into it's drinking window in about 10 years.

Ooops. Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. What I mean was if I had ANY YEAR St Henri (1990-2001), which is the best year to cellar? The same goes for Petaluma Coonwarra (1990-2001), which would be the best year to cellar and would taste great in 10 year's time?

David T

Anonymous wrote:Ooops. Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. What I mean was if I had ANY YEAR St Henri (1990-2001), which is the best year to cellar? The same goes for Petaluma Coonwarra (1990-2001), which would be the best year to cellar and would taste great in 10 year's time?

David T

David, I didn't understand that from your original message, but many of the same questions still apply, it depends on what you are looking for in an older wine and cellaring conditions

Pretty well all the Petalumas from the 90 onwards are 10-20 year wines, although the 90 and 91 are drinking nicely now for my tastes.

The St Henri record from 1990 is less consistent I think, avoid 92, 93, 95, the 90 and 91 are starting to drink nicely now, but should last 5 years probably.

Go into a book shop and sneek a peek at the Jeremy Oliver Australian Wine Annual 2005, he has these two rated for the vintages you mention and I find his cellaring /drinking windows pretty good, if a little optimistic for my cellar/palate.

Red Bigot wrote:The St Henri record from 1990 is less consistent I think, avoid 92, 93, 95, the 90 and 91 are starting to drink nicely now, but should last 5 years probably.

Had 92 St Henri last week, very good wine ...
... mind you not an option for a further 10 years, 1996 is probably your best option there. Gary will probably tell you 99 though, but he is wrong.

I wouldn't suggest 96 Petaluma though over 6 or 7 vintages, and especially not 90 (past it ?) or 93 (a tad green), or even 94 (although I think that needs more time right now) either. Make mine 91, 92 (! yes, 92) or anything from 97-01.

They're both very consistent wines though and even in bad years you will do fine. I am a Petaluma-St-Henri-o-phile.

[/quote]The St Henri record from 1990 is less consistent I think, avoid 92, 93, 95

Nothing wrong with the 93 st henri in my opinion. rewards of patience and others seem to suggest its near the end of its life but that isnt even on the same planet to my experience. i would think it has another 10 years in it easily.

I also thought the 94 and 96 were good wines

David,

I have had the fortunate opportunity to taste the legendary St.Henri as far back as 1958. Casting back on my tasting notes and cross checking with the Penfolds bible “The Rewards of Patience” we seem to agree that 71,76,81,86,90,91,94,96,98,2001 are definite standouts. My favorite St.Henri at this moment is 1998.

Truly one of AustraliaÂ’s & Penfolds greatest wines!

per Jeremy Oliver:

St.Henri
1990 - 96/100: 2002-2010
1996 - 95/100: 2008-2016
1998 - 94/100: 2018-2028
1999 - 95/100: 2011-2019

Petaluma Coonawarra
1998 - 98/100: 2018-2028 is a clear winner!!! (although there are some very high ratings here including the 1997

Adair

Adair wrote:per Jeremy Oliver:

St.Henri
1990 - 96/100: 2002-2010
1996 - 95/100: 2008-2016
1998 - 94/100: 2018-2028
1999 - 95/100: 2011-2019

Petaluma Coonawarra
1998 - 98/100: 2018-2028 is a clear winner!!! (although there are some very high ratings here including the 1997

Adair

Adair,
These drinking windows as per Jeremy Oliver seem clearly out of whack, but I'd be happy to give the St. Henri's a good 10 years.
I haven't had the Petaluma Coonawara, but I have a hard time with giving anything beyond Bordeaux (in a good vintage) and vintage Port 30+ years.

Mishy wrote:

Adair wrote:per Jeremy Oliver:

St.Henri
1990 - 96/100: 2002-2010
1996 - 95/100: 2008-2016
1998 - 94/100: 2018-2028
1999 - 95/100: 2011-2019

Petaluma Coonawarra
1998 - 98/100: 2018-2028 is a clear winner!!! (although there are some very high ratings here including the 1997

Adair

Adair,
These drinking windows as per Jeremy Oliver seem clearly out of whack, but I'd be happy to give the St. Henri's a good 10 years.
I haven't had the Petaluma Coonawara, but I have a hard time with giving anything beyond Bordeaux (in a good vintage) and vintage Port 30+ years.

Mishy,

Glad to know that you know more about how Oz wines age than Jeremy Oliver. St Henri (in a reasonable year) does not eneter its peak window for 10 years. The 86 is at its peak and not looking like heading south anytime soon. The 91 at 14 years has at least 10 years left in it. As for Petaluma, the the 86 is drinking superbly now and the 91 is still improving and has yet to reach its peak. The 94 is still nowhere near ready to drink. (I have had all of these wines in the last 12 months.)

Glad to know that you know more about how Oz wines age than Jeremy Oliver. St Henri (in a reasonable year) does not eneter its peak window for 10 years. The 86 is at its peak and not looking like heading south anytime soon. The 91 at 14 years has at least 10 years left in it. As for Petaluma, the the 86 is drinking superbly now and the 91 is still improving and has yet to reach its peak. The 94 is still nowhere near ready to drink. (I have had all of these wines in the last 12 months.)

Attitude-attitude Mr. TORB,
Perhaps you old farts descending from British ancestry have an aversion to fruit and tannin ?
You forget I give Australian wines a lot of credit, but I cannot accept a St. Henri carrying 20+ years and not tasting like a dirty old shoe preserved in formaldehyde.
And I have been known to have a fairly vivid imagination...........but not even on crack would I accept this as being a reasonable drinking window

Trying to remain neutral here. I must admit that I tried an '86 St Henri about twelve months ago and the fruit had faded to a level that didn't do the wine any favours. The bottle was cellared well for at least the latter half of its life. I've been interested to note that a lot of forumites have praised the St Henri highly in regard to a pretty massive drinking window. I presumed the bottle I tried had been stored poorly when it was young. Unfortunately I'm yet to have tried a Petaluma Coonawarra so I can't voice an opinion there. The St Henri may 'last' 30 years, but when does it stop improving? 10/15/20/25 years? I guess it relates to people's preferences for older wines and how they evolve.

Let's remained civilised gents...

Cheers,

Mishy wrote:Attitude! Attidude. Perhaps you old farts descending from British ancestry have an aversion to fruit and tannin ?

Interesting that you mention attitude and then proceed to have a personal dig at me by calling me an old fart who decended from British ancestry. I did not attack you personally, just your comments - there is a big difference. You may have failed to notice my surname is German and my ancestry is European; German, Austrain and Russian - not British but why let the facts get in the way.

You also have failed to take notice how much young Oz wine I consume and post tasting notes on, this and other forums.

I cannot accept a St. Henri carrying 20+ years and not tasting like a dirty old shoe preserved in formaldehyde. And I have been known to have a fairly vivid imagination...........but not even on crack would I accept this as being a reasonable drinking window

Have tried an 86 St Henri lately? Have you tried older vintages of Petaluma? If not, your comments are based on preconcieved ideas and prejudices, not on reality.

Maximus wrote:Let's remained civilised gents...

Mishy is a female ... can't you see her large avatar & signature

c

Have had both 86 Petaluma & St Henri in the last 12 months.

Petaluma was drinking nicely enough, but was a bit flat. Drink now.
St Henri was a cracker, would get a hell of a lot more if I could afford it. Secondary market has pushed the price into triple figures. Drink anytime over the next 10 years.

Petaluma, in it's defence, didn't really hit its straps until the 90's. 1992 still drinks (extremely well, mind you) like a young wine. If this doesn't go another 10 years at least, I'll go he.

There is a cab shiraz Petaluma from 1979 which is allegedly pretty good gear with a long window. Anyone had this or know how it's travelling now ?

I agree with Torb...good St Henri can easily carry the years.

I think the key here is the word improve, do these wines improve with 10 more years cellaring ? No, I personally don't think so..........and no, I haven't had any St. Henri's over 20 years and I really wouldn't care to.
Whether they live without turning into some sort of vinegar solution, well, it's possible, but do I want to experiment with my 50-100$ wines to find out ?
No again.
I think my point is more about these 'drinking windows' which don't focus on peak even bloody loosely, and peak is what I care about here. TORB, if you're trumpeting a drinking window of 20+ years then you are not doing us any favours, and YES, I do read your irregular updates and TNs regularly - you KNOW that !
What WE, the dorks who don't want to drink tired wines we invest in with our hard earned cash want to know is WHEN our wines will be as perfectly ready to enjoy, not how long to keep them just before they die.
TORB, I was only kidding with you on the old fart slag, but you have been pissy with me for a couple of months now.....quit patronizing me for once.
Lighten up - I respect your opinion, but I want to read when my wine will taste at near to being best as one can possibly guesstimate, telling people they can last 20+ years is not what we need to know.
I'm sure you can respect that we all want the best for our hard earned cellar investments, but even more they are our babies.

Anonymous wrote:

Maximus wrote:Let's remained civilised gents...

Mishy is a female ... can't you see her large avatar & signature

c

Annonymous,
They're just jelous.......
Have we met in the back of an SUV after a Tequila night ?

Clearly Mishy likes her wines young. But to suggest that this taste is "correct" and that Torb (and JO et al) should all bring their wine tastes and hence drinking windows into line with Mishy's is absurd.

I can't help but think that Mishy is trolling ...

Mishy,

The critical point here is that the 86 St Henri (good cellaring and corks permitting) still has loads of fresh fruit to support some aged characters. It is far from old and tired. The 91 Petaluma is still improving and has bucket loads of fresh fruit to support it.

There are certain complexities in aged wine that can only come with time and they donÂ’t have to taste like old shoe leather dipped in formaldehyde.

As far as being “pissy with you and patronising you” – far from it. You have made a number of statements that I completely disagree with and in some cases, based on my experience have been factually incorrect. These statements have been challenged, you as a person have not been attacked. Sorry if you don’t like what you say being questioned, but when I see statements I disagree with, no matter who posts them, I normally reply. (And needless to say, we are not talking about differences in personal or individual tastes in wine here either.)

TORB wrote:Mishy,

The critical point here is that the 86 St Henri (good cellaring and corks permitting) still has loads of fresh fruit to support some aged characters. It is far from old and tired. The 91 Petaluma is still improving and has bucket loads of fresh fruit to support it.

There are certain complexities in aged wine that can only come with time and they donÂ’t have to taste like old shoe leather dipped in formaldehyde.

As far as being “pissy with you and patronizing you” – far from it. You have made a number of statements that I completely disagree with and in some cases, based on my experience have been factually incorrect. These statements have been challenged, you as a person have not been attacked. Sorry if you don’t like what you say being questioned, but when I see statements I disagree with, no matter who posts them, I normally reply. (And needless to say, we are not talking about differences in personal or individual tastes in wine here either.)

TORB, you're first sentence in this thread was patronizing to me

Quoted by TORB:
Glad to know that you know more about how Oz wines age than Jeremy Oliver.

You begin most responses to me that way if you disagree..........I'm just pointing it out. You can debate your points without putting people down I assume ?
As far as 20 years for anything other then the '86 is concerned, it's no doubt very debatable. I'd challenge you both in a taste-off, but it's a long trip to OZ. I would embrace it if it happened, I just doubt it's reasonable on a semi-frequent basis, if at all.
I just thought I'd make the response out of curiosity as to Jeremy's insane drinking windows, these things help me to learn......no troll intended.

Mishy wrote:I think the key here is the word improve, do these wines improve with 10 more years cellaring ? No, I personally don't think so..........and no, I haven't had any St. Henri's over 20 years and I really wouldn't care to.

Absolutely the 1996 with continue to improve after 10 years in bottle...as will the 1990 and 1991's.

I recently had a 1976 which is really singing and for my tastes, better than the last bottle I had...(ie improving) its becoming a beautiful drink.

But if you like big tannin, big fruited wine, then I would say avoid St Henri anyway.

Adam,
I like fruit and structure in balance, and I prefer the edges shaved off the tannins without sacrificing the fruit for intrusive acid.

Ric & Mishy,

I will concede that everyone's palate is different but as the consumer of some 5 dozen 1986 St Henri (not to mention every year of St Henri from 1964 onwards on multiple occasions):-

1. With the arguable exception of the 1971 (and you would want to find a really well-cellared bottle now, but last drunk in june 2003 when superb) the 1986 is the best St henri I have drunk or tasted.

2. The 1986 only started to hit its straps post-2000.

3. As of April 2005 it still has primary fruit present (vibrant tones with that hint which veers towards "savoury sweetness"and arguably is STILL improving (depending on the level of secondary flavours you prefer).

4. To almost any preference I can conceive the 86 St Henri is in its drinking window. The length of that window is a matter of personal preference but must clearly extend for another 5 years given its current (well-cellared) state. NB the current edition - 2004- of Rewards of Patience (Halliday, Caillard, Hooke, Joanna Simon, Joseph Ward, Ch'ng Poh Tiong) suggest a "peak window" to 2015.

5. It is a wine which European winos appreciate - but may not suit many US palates as it is no Barossa fruitbomb!

Any bottle you see at auction is likely subject to the usual caveats of provenance (and St Henri is a LOT more sensitive than Grange to abuse).

The 1990 is good - not ready- but will never quite match the 86; the 91 is more forward and excellent now and another decade; the 94 is good plus; I have never liked the 96 and I seem to be almost alone; the 98 is opulent and very much in the 90 mould; the 99 echoes the 91.

87 is weak; 88 average; 89 poor; 92 and 93 avoidable; 95 barely ok; 97 a real disappointment and 2000 a relative stinker!

The 2001 (current just released) is very good but NOT as good as 98 - much less the 86.


As for Petaluma I am a big fan of what Croser has done for the industry but have never found one of Brian's reds which I would rate in the same league of quality as the 86 St Henri.

Obviously both in terms of varietals used and intent, Croser was aiming at something quite different from St Henri - so the direct comparison is not apt. I do think that his 98 may turn out to be the best red from Petaluma yet. One of my close friends buys a dozen of each of Petaluma's reds every vintage (since inception) and we end up drinking most of them together so aside from tastings I have seen these wines over an extended period too.


Mishy, if you are not trolling, it is true that the characteristics that most admire in Oz fruitbombs are certainly not going to improve for 20 years in any fruitbomb I have seen, but that is not anything like all Oz wines.

IF you like the style of St henri at all, even the poorer vintages (with the possible exception of 2000) really requires a decade from vintage - and the best will continue to improve for another decade thereafter!

The older you are the less that may make it an attractive prospect - and obviously Ric still thinks there is some life in the old man as surprisingly he continues to purchase them!

By contrast if you are looking for a halfway house between fruitbomb and traditional, I suggest you try the Pirramimma Reserve (NOT stocks Hill) shiraz which is very modestly priced and is a very old-fashioned McLaren vale shiraz of the type on which I cut my teeth: very big fruit with very big oak but over about 8-10 years shows huge improvement and integration (and thereafter will hold for about 3-5 years).

Another point about wine: whereas a wine may "suddenly" improve in the 6 months say to enter its drinking window, you get LOTS of warning of potential decline of a wine, and it is very unusual for a red to have less than 2-3 years on a plateau (and for many OZ wines 5+ to 10+ in the case of Grange).

I will take issue with Oliver to this extent on the excerpt noted by Adair:-

as at 2002 I did not consider that 1990 St Henri was "in the window"; as at 2005 for my preference it will improve for at least another 2 years (and quite possibly 5) before a typical decade on plateau.

I don't disagree with his window for the 1996 - just his rating.

It would not cross my mind to try my own stash of 98 prior to 2013 - and my expectation of its longevity is similar to Oliver's, albeit I think peak commencing some time between 2015-8 (and a reasonable expectation of a long plateau).

the 1999 is more "classical St henri" and as of tasting last month my expectation is for peak window to be very close to Oliver's estimation.

I define a wine's drinking window as when all its el;ements have integrated (to the extent in some instances that they ever will) and it should commence when there is till some primary fruit present.

Whether you agree or disagree about when a wine peaks (and I do understand that many prefer young wines only with no secondary characteristics), it is fair to say that St Henri will almost always rest on a plateau for an extended period.

Please note that I disagree with many of Mr Oliver's other ratings (which does not make either of us right - or wrong) and windows, so perhaps it is mere coincidence - or just possibly that we, with Halliday, Beeston and whole "bunch of old farts" have drunk a lot of this wine over an extended period - call it experience for ourown palates.

I define a wine's drinking window as when all its el;ements have integrated (to the extent in some instances that they ever will) and it should commence when there is till some primary fruit present.

I'm good with tertiary as a beginning 'drinking window'.
Is that out of line ?
I only troll for money

The 1990 is good - not ready- but will never quite match the 86; the 91 is more forward and excellent now and another decade; the 94 is good plus; I have never liked the 96 and I seem to be almost alone; the 98 is opulent and very much in the 90 mould; the 99 echoes the 91.

Any ideas on when the (predominately Cabernet) 94 will be ready to go?

Mishy,

As far as 20 years for anything other then the '86 is concerned, it's no doubt very debatable.

In regard to this point some 90's 91's and 96's and 2002's will go 20 years without question.

I'd challenge you both in a taste-off, but it's a long trip to OZ.

I fail to understand what this has to do with the topic of Oz wines ageing; it sounds like a personal challenge in regard to the ability of your palate versus Olivers and mine. ie you think yours is better - thats fine you are entitled to your opinion.

I just thought I'd make the response out of curiosity as to Jeremy's insane drinking windows,...

In my experience, Olivers windows are generally pretty close to the mark and anything but "insane."

TORB wrote:Mishy,

As far as 20 years for anything other then the '86 is concerned, it's no doubt very debatable.

In regard to this point some 90's 91's and 96's and 2002's will go 20 years without question.

I'd challenge you both in a taste-off, but it's a long trip to OZ.

I fail to understand what this has to do with the topic of Oz wines aging; it sounds like a personal challenge in regard to the ability of your palate versus Olivers and mine. ie you think yours is better - thats fine you are entitled to your opinion.

I just thought I'd make the response out of curiosity as to Jeremy's insane drinking windows,...

In my experience, Olivers windows are generally pretty close to the mark and anything but "insane."

It's not a personal challenge, I just think our palates for fruit, structure and acid are different - and I'm quite tired of arguing with you on 'what you think is right or reasonable'.
It's becoming a constant theme now.

I want practical advice, not wishful hoping.........

Mishy,

If you don't agree with Ric's palate having calibrated on a number of wines - ignore his advice, but don't argue when it is your palate that is different; everyone is free to make their own judgements and everyone's taste buds are slightly different (experience etc and they belong to different people after all).

No one has an exclusive right taste or palate but if you have greater experience of a wine or style it does convey some authority (to be accepted or rejected as you may).

By your own admission you have not tasted old well-cellared St Henris, whereas Oliver, Ric, Adair and I all have on numerous occasions. Odd that the 4 who have so done are in consensus?

You are free to reject our advice but arguing on the basis of something you have not tasted seems somewhat bizarre and leads one to view this as a troll.

We have all stated implicitly or explicitly (and note that I defined "peak window") where we see a drinking window.

You then sought to introduce a questionable wine term " tertiary" after I referred to primary fruit and secondary characteristics. Anyone who has floated on the various fora is well aware of the controversy in the expression "tertiary characteristics" which makes "terroir" seem uncontroversial. To the extent that there is any agreement with the use of the expression at all, tertiary follows secondary.

When you combine your alleged claim to "peak window" as tertiary beginning it, with your claim to prefer young ripe fruit you lose any claim to versimilitude.

On that basis, since you only troll for money - who is paying?

At the end of the day Ric's opinions are his own as are yours. You have no empirical evidence to deny the people have said that a wine will plateau for an extended period (quite the contrary if you are familiar with great Bordeaux you might have tasted some of the 1921s, 1929s 1945, 1947s, 1959s or 1961s which attained a peak and sat for decades before in some cases, commencing a decline).

You can get away with a lot on the basis of subjective palate: a wine can be your favourite but short of clearcut winemaking faults, and arguably not even then, no one can deny you the rightto regard it as such, but that does not make it a great or even good wine to anyone else.

Calibrate or be damned....and Ric will be the first to tell you that we have quite different tastes in food and wine (of course he lacks subtlety as if you couldn't tell !!).

If you wish to say you enjoy young wines don't BS us with tertiary influences - after all someone else just might believe you have as much knowledge as any of the other self -professed gurus....

'twas I above.

fred