Page 1 of 1
TNR - Tyrrells Vat 9 1998
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:14 am
by JDSJDS
The 1998 vintage of the Vat 9 Shiraz just arrived in BC ($45).
I did a search, but couldn't find any notes here - any feedback on this wine would be most welcome!
Re: TNR - Tyrrells Vat 9 1998
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:16 am
by Adair
JDSJDS wrote:The 1998 vintage of the Vat 9 Shiraz just arrived in BC ($45).
I did a search, but couldn't find any notes here - any feedback on this wine would be most welcome!
I liked it a lot. Excellent vintage... but remember it is from the Hunter and not from South Australia. "Buy it" is my very strong recommendation.
Adair
Re: TNR - Tyrrells Vat 9 1998
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:31 am
by Mclaren Vale Lover
Adair wrote:JDSJDS wrote:The 1998 vintage of the Vat 9 Shiraz just arrived in BC ($45).
I did a search, but couldn't find any notes here - any feedback on this wine would be most welcome!
I liked it a lot. Excellent vintage... but remember it is from the Hunter and not from South Australia. "Buy it" is my very strong recommendation.
Adair
Very nice wine - the best I have experienced from the hunter. Remeber though it is not from South Australia
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:33 am
by Adair
...as in, don't expect a big fruit bomb.
Adair
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:09 am
by Gary W
It is lovely. Typical hunter red berry, spice, walnut, flicker of licorice. No oak. Probably a touch of brett. Fruit tannins. Savoury. Good finish. Very sucessful Vat 9...probably best since 1991. Should be more wines like it. Will take another 4 years bottle age very easily.
GW
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:32 pm
by prester john
Gentlemen, as superb as this wine probably is (and although I have not tired it I have no reason to doubt you because between you, your opinion does carry some gravitas) I would venture to say that the 2000 Maurice O'Shea (and probably the 2000 OP & OH) is yet a substantial step up from that .
This is not in any way a veiled invective toward the Vat 9, simply my humble observation, especially since 2000 was such a superb year in the Hunter.
PJ.
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:59 pm
by Adair
prester john wrote:Gentlemen, as superb as this wine probably is (and although I have not tired it I have no reason to doubt you because between you, your opinion does carry some gravitas) I would venture to say that the 2000 Maurice O'Shea (and probably the 2000 OP & OH) is yet a substantial step up from that .
This is not in any way a veiled invective toward the Vat 9, simply my humble observation, especially since 2000 was such a superb year in the Hunter.
PJ.
No. I don't agree with your comments.
Some believe 1998 to be better than 2000 for Hunter reds.
With regard to the specific wines you mention, I don't agree either.
Eg.
JO:
98 Vat 9 - 18.5/20, 94/100 - Drink: 2010-2018
00 O'Shea - 18.3/20, 94/100 - Drink: 2012 - 2020
Kind regards,
Adair
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 1:01 pm
by Gary W
Yes..thats fine..but he was asking about the 98 Vat 9..not best recent Hunter Shiraz. The Mount Pleasant wines are a very different style. For me it is a big shame they load up the wines with that rather crappy resiny AP John (I think) oak. Such great fruit (in good vintages) and such ordinary oak. Deserves better.
GW
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:57 pm
by JDSJDS
Many thanks for all the comments, I'll definitely grab a bottle or two. No oak, eh? We don't get much Hunter Valley shiraz here, so it will be a nice change from the SA style - not that there's anything wrong with that!!
Thanks again!