The Auswine Forum

Just opened my second bottle of 02 Sanguine Estate Heathcote Shiraz. It tastes very strange to me kind of a menthol, moth ball kind of hard to describe taste. I would not have mentioned it but this is the second strange tasting bottle. I just love Barossa, Mc Laren Vale, Claire Valley shirazes. But this tastes so different. After sitting a couple of hours no difference. We have had very good luck with aussy wines importing them to the states but this seems to be the exception.
Is it normal for wines to taste so different from Heathcote than the other areas mentioned above? Just wonder if I got a bum batch also have some 03 not opened yet maybe I should try one. thanks

GB, this is a strange one, I don't have a TN, but we tried this nearly 2 years ago in a bracket of 4 x 2002 Heathcote Shiraz in a large tasting group, 2 bottles, I thought both had some weird fault that I couldn't identify and hated the wine, I think most of the group agreed. It was included in the tasting on the basis of this TN and 98 pts from Nicks in Melbourne:

"TASTING NOTE: This is the third release from Sanguine Estate and it continues to build upon its reputation as one of the regions top producers. A sensational Heathcote Shiraz. Totally opaque black purple colour. Superb nose of plum, spice, liquorice, blackberry and blackpepper. A wonderful sniff. The palate is explosive – an essay of liquorice, plum, spice and blackpepper overlaid by blood plum. Outstanding length and depth of flavours – this is the sort of Shiraz that has established Heathcote as a major producer of the variety. Fine dry tannins – perfectly matched to the fruit with exceptionally long aftertaste of spice, plum and blackpepper. Outstanding!
Cellar 3-4 years (2006-2007)
Alc/Vol: 14.5%"

Interestingly Halliday gave it 90 and a fairly glowing review with some similar descriptors to the above in hs 2004 Annual, but Jeremy Oliver gave it only 84 points, drink 2004-2007, no TN published. I'm with JO on this one.

It is usual for Heathcote Shiraz to be a bit leaner and more minerally and savoury than many SA shiraz from the warmer areas, but the good ones still have great fruit, structure, fine tannins and acid all in balance.

There are a couple of threads on Heathcote you may find interesting:
http://forum.auswine.com.au/viewtopic.p ... =heathcote
http://forum.auswine.com.au/viewtopic.p ... =heathcote

Gentlemen, as far as I could tell when tasting the wine, the strange taste you have queried is that of dead grapes. My notes are to this effect: Meaty, dark and soupy, with a tarry expression of cooked small currant-like fruit. Initially forward and concentrated, then quickly hollow and thin in the middle, before a raw and extracted finish of meaty, licorice-like flavours. 15.3/84, drink 2004-2007.

It is so typical of the many wasted opportunities I encounter when tasting the dehydrated, dessicated wines sold so often these days as Heathcote shiraz. The modern wines are nothing like the great Jasper Hills of the late 1980s and early 1990s, or indeed the Mount Idas of a decade ago that were picked with full physiological ripeness to make wines around 13% alcohol. The old Jaspers still look vibrant, youthful and beautifully balanced today.

Michael Dhillon of Bindi is making small amounts of exceptional Heathcote shiraz under his Bundaleer label. A very spicy and savoury Rhoney style, it's medium to full in weight and beautifully balanced. He once told me that having asked his grower to pick the fruit, the grower's response was to ask why, since it was still quite green.

That is the problem with Heathcote these days. There is nothing wrong, by and large, with the winemaking. The issue is viticultural. What makes it really sad is that it could be an outstanding shiraz region, if only the majority of its growers (since there are a few exceptions) could get away from the notion of making sweet overcooked soup instead of the classical shiraz on which it built its reputation, which happend to occur while most of them were growing sheep or tomatoes.

Hi GB
I also bought a couple of bottles of this on the basis of the tasting note from Nicks that Brian quoted. I opened one with a friend and we both noticed a strong menthol charachter which quickly became unpleasantly medicinal. I opened the second bottle which showed identically. The next day the wine was foul - sharp, acidic and angular, down the drain & Sanguine Estate off the purchase list.

I'm certain the wine was suffering a fault (other than over ripeness) but I'm not sure what was actually wrong with it, though at the time I tended towards Brett.

I would try the 03 as you already have it but as JO says many of the heathcote producers are looking to make high alcohol, concentrated and fully extracted wines (in the Parker style) that run the risk of ending up dead.
Cheers Andrew

Today I opened a 2001 Sanguine and it is a nice wine. I love Aussy shiraz and the 2001 was a good bottle but tomorrow I will open a 2003 and we will see. I returned to the 2002 and it is still bad no improvement. I e mailed Simon at Nicks and he offered to credit me for all my 02 purchases which is a nice gesture given I am in the states. But will likely not be buying any more of this label. Cheers

gbrawley wrote:Today I opened a 2001 Sanguine and it is a nice wine. I love Aussy shiraz and the 2001 was a good bottle but tomorrow I will open a 2003 and we will see. I returned to the 2002 and it is still bad no improvement. I e mailed Simon at Nicks and he offered to credit me for all my 02 purchases which is a nice gesture given I am in the states. But will likely not be buying any more of this label. Cheers

Hello

I had the 2004 on the tasting bench just prior to Christmas, and was highly impressed.

Medium bodied, not high alcohol, none of the characters mentioned in the 2002.

I've tried no previous vintage, but was very impressed with the 2004.

Jeremy, have you tried this vintage?

Had both the 2002 and the 2003 - prefer the 2003. The 2002 was not typical Shiraz (even for cool climate) and I would have confused its spicyness with a Zinfandel (although not a good one at the price). The 2002 is probably a high 80's wine for me. I think I have a bottle or two remaining. Might open one tonight.

Sanguine Estate Heathcote Shiraz 2002 $34.99USD
Deep, dark cherry with a reddish edge. Prominent lychee nut, dusty oak and pepper. This could be Californian Zinfandel. Soft entry, good mouth feel, clean acid finish and soft tannins. Great retronasal. Over several hours developed chocolate and cedar flavors and a slight bitterness to the finish. At 24 hours there was a mushroom flavor and the finish was hard, hot and acidic. By 48 hours there was a jammy port-like flavor and some caromel, but the wine had softened and was still quite sound, and that retronasal just goes on and on. Alcohol 14.5%. Tasted June 14-16, 2004.

Sanguine Estate Heathcote Shiraz 2003 $39.99USD
Dense cherry red with red edge. Opulent notes of ripe blackberry/cherry jam, cloves and sweet oak. A rich, full bodied wine with excellent carry of flavors onto the palate. Soft and supple with silky smooth tannins and bright, juicy acidity. Very well balanced with excellent depth of flavor intensity across the palate and a lengthy finish. Drinking well now and should do so for another decade. At 24 hours flavors of smoked oak and vanilla meld with the impressive suppleness. 2, 2, 4.3, 10.2 = 18.5/20, 92/100. 14.5% alcohol. Tasted November 4-5, 2005.

Mike

I've had a few of each of the '02 and '03, after buying six of each from the Divine tasting in Brisbane a year or two ago. At that time, the '02 performed well on a VFM basis against Jaspers et al.

I've not encountered what you've described, but then again, the wines haven't excited me too greatly either plus there's been some bottle variation. Ripe and rich is OK for me in the middle of winter.

Cheers, Mark

Jeremy Oliver wrote:It is so typical of the many wasted opportunities I encounter when tasting the dehydrated, dessicated wines sold so often these days as Heathcote shiraz. The modern wines are nothing like the great Jasper Hills of the late 1980s and early 1990s, or indeed the Mount Idas of a decade ago that were picked with full physiological ripeness to make wines around 13% alcohol. The old Jaspers still look vibrant, youthful and beautifully balanced today.

Jeremy,

I had a 94 Emilys last Friday night for my Mothers B'day and to say it was drinking well now would be an understatement. This bottle came from my Dad's cellar upstairs which is less than perfect (ie. inside terracotta tiles in the folks kitchen area) so I would hate to see one that was in good condition from a well controlled cellar. As you say, the wine was vibrant, youthful and beatifully balanced although I think I may have enjoyed the 94 Georgia's more when tasting that previously.
I have one each of the Emily's and Georgia's from 98 and I am hoping they are are better than you suggest as I know you didn't give these the greatest write up but my question is, where do you think Jasper Hill went wrong between these vintages and why?

Cheers
Popov

To respond to Gavin, I haven't tasted any other Sanguine wine other than the 02 Shiraz.

And to respond to Popov, I think there are several reasons at play here. And I'd quickly add that I'm offering these notions without having first discussed the matter with Ron Laughton of Jasper Hill.

Firstly, if my menory serves me, Ron Laughton started in the mid to late 1990s to pick fruit on the basis of taste. In my experience, this takes a lot of training, since in many cases it is only when red grapes are tending towards over-ripeness that they begin to acquire more interesting and overt tastes when hanging on the vine. I have been horrified on more than one occasion by what I have seen in California, when growers harvest cabernet and shiraz long after genuine physiological ripeness, waiting for what they believed was true flavour development. Sadly, the trend that began there is now commonplace in Australia. I think it is an art in itself to harvest fruit correctly, and it takes time to learn how to depend on taste and do it properly. In Ron's case, as with most others, you only get one chance to practise every year.

I have to admit that when grape growers tell me that they have suddenly started harvesting on the basis of taste alone, that the alarm bells start ringing in my head.

Jasper Hill has also been subject to some of the worst droughts in westernised human experience in this country. Several of the property's largest and oldest gum trees, which would have withstood many droughts during their lifetimes, simply curled up their toes and died. Jasper Hill is a non-irrigated vineyard, and in drought conditions like these, which inevitably cause vine stress, it is virtually impossible without irrigation to make wines that do not taste of stressed fruit. I lose no respect for grape growers who choose to irrigate vines with the clear view to maintain vine health and metabolism in extreme dry spells. In either case, I doubt that if Ron had irrigation at his disposal that much would be different - the dams would surely have dried out fairly quickly.

Perhaps a third reason might be that like many other growers and winemakers around the same time, Ron was seduced to some degree by the powerful media attention being afforded these styles of wine by some of the most powerful commentators on the planet. It would only be human for this to occur.

KMP wrote:Had both the 2002 and the 2003 - prefer the 2003. The 2002 was not typical Shiraz (even for cool climate) and I would have confused its spicyness with a Zinfandel (although not a good one at the price). The 2002 is probably a high 80's wine for me. I think I have a bottle or two remaining. Might open one tonight.

Sanguine Estate Heathcote Shiraz 2002 $34.99USD
Deep, dark cherry with a reddish edge. Prominent lychee nut, dusty oak and pepper. This could be Californian Zinfandel. Soft entry, good mouth feel, clean acid finish and soft tannins. Great retronasal. Over several hours developed chocolate and cedar flavors and a slight bitterness to the finish. At 24 hours there was a mushroom flavor and the finish was hard, hot and acidic. By 48 hours there was a jammy port-like flavor and some caromel, but the wine had softened and was still quite sound, and that retronasal just goes on and on. Alcohol 14.5%. Tasted June 14-16, 2004.

Sanguine Estate Heathcote Shiraz 2003 $39.99USD
Dense cherry red with red edge. Opulent notes of ripe blackberry/cherry jam, cloves and sweet oak. A rich, full bodied wine with excellent carry of flavors onto the palate. Soft and supple with silky smooth tannins and bright, juicy acidity. Very well balanced with excellent depth of flavor intensity across the palate and a lengthy finish. Drinking well now and should do so for another decade. At 24 hours flavors of smoked oak and vanilla meld with the impressive suppleness. 2, 2, 4.3, 10.2 = 18.5/20, 92/100. 14.5% alcohol. Tasted November 4-5, 2005.

Mike

Tried another bottle of the Sanguine Estate Shiraz 2002 last night over dinner with friends. My TN was

Sanguine Estate Heathcote Shiraz 2002 $34.99USD
Slightly murky dense cherry red with red edge (unfiltered?). Rich blueberry/blackberry that became more spicy and peppery with time (1-2 hours). Also developed a dried tea leaf character. Spice note is cinnamon-like (and yes I did visit our spice rack just to make sure). Medium weight with excellent carry of flavors onto the palate. Soft and supple entry with very fine tannins. Mouthwatering acidity with some hardness to the finish. Does lack depth to the mid-palate. 2, 2, 4.0, 9.6 = 17.6/20, 88/100. 14.5% alcohol. Tasted January 9, 2006.


The wine was served with BBQ ribs, pizza, green salad and garlic bread. It went well with the food; much of the acidity being softened considerably. No one else at dinner visits this forum, so I asked for opinions on the wine. All thought it OK. I then asked if anyone thought the wine faulty in any way, or detected any unusual odors? Again the answer was no. I guess I have better bottles than most! However its not a wine that is worth more that $30USD.

If anything this second bottle was much more in the style of a cool climate Shiraz and thus unlike my first tasting about 18 months ago. If you want to be really hard on the wine you could knock more points off by arguing that the acidity upsets the balance. But I have to be careful there because I’m quite sensitive to acidity and can easily over emphasize its presence; especially when tasting with those who favor old world wines. But I certainly don’t get the “tarry”, and “extracted finish of meaty, licorice-like flavours” that Jeremy describes.

Mike

This wine peaked about 3 years ago when it was around 3 years old. A combination of climate change ( Heathcote just gets hotter and drier) and later picking produces wines that are more approachable in their youth. The taste of these newer Heathcotes is miles away from the Jasper Hills of the 1980s and 1990s. While Parker gave these new style Heathcotes a big wrap 5-7 years ago, they certainly are not ageing well.

The title to this thread suggests a very obvious answer. Am I the only person silly enough to suggest it?
Methinks I have fallen into a trap.
Sanguine estate isn't run by someone with very pale skin, who avoids sunlight and has prominent canines, is it?

moolwadowns wrote:This wine peaked about 3 years ago when it was around 3 years old. A combination of climate change ( Heathcote just gets hotter and drier) and later picking produces wines that are more approachable in their youth. The taste of these newer Heathcotes is miles away from the Jasper Hills of the 1980s and 1990s. While Parker gave these new style Heathcotes a big wrap 5-7 years ago, they certainly are not ageing well.

I've a couple of Georgia's Paddock 2000 - perhaps I should try one soon.

daz