The Auswine Forum

Hello forumites!

I have a question. A serious question. I am a long-time lover of sparkling burgundies, and have drank more from Seppelt than I care to remember. I've also drank a great many from a great many other producers, and can enjoy a range of styles: I like the earthy/leathery style, but I also can enjoy the oaky blackberried style. The reason I mention this is because the following question/statement is not a style bias.

But.

I am surprised that no one has yet called the bluff of Seppelt Show Reserve Sparkling Shiraz! It was magnificent in the 1980s, and it was magnificent a long time before that. But the last three releases: 1990, 1991 and 1993 have all been mediocre at best, the 1991 worse than that (it is just downright faulty, and is so crammed with brettanomyces that the winery itself has recently slashed the price on it just to get rid of it). The 1990 was good but just a bit lacking, and certainly not worth anywhere near its asking price, and the 1993 is in the same boat: good, but no more than that. In fact, the 1996 Seppelt Original is a better wine than the 1993 SSRSS!

My question (at last!): has Seppelt totally lost the plot on its premium sparkling burgundy, and why hasn't it's bluff been called?

That ought to get discussion rolling

Bye,
Flip.

I think there might be some people who went for current Seppelts deal (free SRSS with a dozen of certain other table wines) cursing you about now flip


regards
Chris

Hello Flip,

This is an excellent question/topic and I really look forward to reading replies from experienced "lovers" of this style - Murray???!!!

I am a fan of the drier style with the Seppelt Original being a favourite but have never tried the Show Reserve. I have a few VC cellar shares that I have not used and noticed that the 1991 Show Reserve is an option and was going to use them on this. Given your comments, maybe I will not. Those with opinions on Flip's comments, please help.

My real purpose for writing this reply is so that I get notified when someone replies.

Kind regards,
Adair

The ball is in other people's court now, but on the 1991 SSRSS, two things: the price of the 1991 has been reduced in price at the cellar door recently, which is an unusual step unless there is a problem with the wine (yes?). I remember the first time I tasted it, winemaker Paul Lapsley was nearby (he was at Seppelt for a short time, but he did not make this wine, and he is now at Hardy's) so I asked him what the problem was with this wine. He didn't want to talk about it at first, but eventually he mumbled that it had brettanomyces, and a large dose of them. I said that it smelled like the back of an old horse float that I once had, and he agreed.

Brettanomyces can add complexity to a wine, and everyone has a different tolerance. It tends to get worse over time though, and my guess is that Seppelt think that it's about to tip beyond threshold tolerance levels, if it has not already. It was beyond my threshold tolerance level 12 months ago.

Bye,
Flip.

I wouldn't normaly respond to an anonymous bombing run post, but since I've been invited to:

I disagree. The 1991 is a superb wine. My notes from a tasting in May note Full brick-red colour, earthy mushroom nose with cherry characters and a slight touch of VA lifting with the bubbles. The palate is beautifully balanced with the bubbles lifted the quality shiraz fruit with wonderfully fine tannins before a rich long finish. A true premium wine and a benchmark of the style. (Exceptional). The other participants in the tasting had similar impressions of the wine.

It would seem that I'm not alone in this thought. The finished wine gained a Trophy in Melbourne and a Gold in Canberra, fora where faulty wines are discarded without much fuss.

I haven't had the 1993 since release, however a pre-release tasting late last year was also fantastic.

So for the comment

the price of the 1991 has been reduced in price at the cellar door recently, which is an unusual step unless there is a problem with the wine (yes?)

No.

The price was reduced because the 1993 has come out, and the overall price movements reflect Southcorp's ongoing price/range restructure. My July list reflected this so I'm not sure about your 'recently'.

If you'd looked elsewhere on your price list you'll also see that the 1998 St Peters is priced below the 1999 St. Peters at cellar door. Is there anything faulty about the 1998?

To answer the question:

My question (at last!): has Seppelt totally lost the plot on its premium sparkling burgundy, and why hasn't it's bluff been called?

No need, because it hasn't.

Murray (my real name)

Bit harsh on the 'real name' jibe (my real name being Phillipa, but I have been called Flip since I was a little girl), but I won't play the man and get back to the wine.

I like the style of your defence, and everyone's opinion is valid. I did not know the exact date of the price reduction, but I would have called July of 2003 still qualified as recently, but it is a semantic point.

On the 1998 St Peters (which I love), has the cellar door price of this been reduced, or price-wise does it fall below the 1999 because the 1999 was released at a higher price? I do not know the answer to this question, but if the 1998 St Peters has simply remained at the same price, then it would support my remarks more than they would yours.

I still think it is unusual for a wine to be reduced in price at cellar door, unless something is 'up'. 'Up' could mean that they are simply clearing stocks to free up cash/space etc, granted. I have jumped to another conclusion because I have tasted the wine, on several occasions.

The wine does have a liberal dose of brettanomyces. That does not mean, necessarily, that it is a bad wine. Nor does it mean that if anyone likes this wine, that they don't know what they are talking about. On the contrary, many of the great wines of the world have had liberal doses of brett. I probably should not have used the word "fault" because brett is one of those things that some people call a fault, and others don't. I also wouldn't rely on the Australian show circuit to weed out brett, nor on Australian wine writers.

But the 1991 SSRSS does have brett.

Ring up the cellar door staff at Seppelt and ask them, honestly, if they think it does. They will know for sure.

Bye,
Flip.

Murray wrote:I wouldn't normaly respond to an anonymous bombing run post, but since I've been invited to:

Hello Murray,

Thanks for your reply. Interestingly enough, earlier today I was told by a sometimes respectable wine lover whom you would know well that the "91 Show Reserve Sparkling is a thoroughly disgusting wine. Had one about a year ago. Talk about steaming turds!" There was obviously some jest in the remark but the point still stands. Each to their own!

With regard to your comment above, I understand and agree with your sentiment but I have read Flip's postings before on another Forum and there has displayed enough wine interest and credibility for me to respond.

Kind regards,
Adair

My apologies for the 'anonymous' remark Flip and I withdraw the remark. I did do a search on the board before posting and noted this was the first time you had appeared here. The term 'flip' does have a negative connotation in the wine world (buying wine and then turning it to the secondary market solely to make a profit) and made the double connection. Thanks to Adair for the followup endorsement. Welciome to the board.

When I frst bought the 1999 at cellar door, on release just after Easter, it was the same price as the 1998, and the 1998 now is below the price I had paid for it the previous year.

I find reductions at Cellar Door on occasion, the wineries do this to shift stock without disclosing to the marketplace that the wine price has reduced, particularly if a new release is starting to chew up warehouse space.

I agree that brett in itself does not make a bad wine, I put it in the same class as VA and also kero in riesling. I bit can aid complexity, too much can be a fault. I haven't seen brett anywhere near fault levels in the Seppelt Show.

I have one out now, I may crack it tonight if TGD calls around.

We had the 91 and 93 SSRSS side-by-side a few months ago, and the 91 was certainly a feral beast, mushrooms in the barnyard, but to my mind a much more interesting wine than the '93, which seemed squeeky clean by comparison. This was the second time I've had the '91: the previous time it was very flat (not bubbles-wise) and disappointing.

Lincoln wrote:We had the 91 and 93 SSRSS side-by-side a few months ago, and the 91 was certainly a feral beast, mushrooms in the barnyard, but to my mind a much more interesting wine than the '93, which seemed squeeky clean by comparison. This was the second time I've had the '91: the previous time it was very flat (not bubbles-wise) and disappointing.

Do you have any of these left? Are they better than the Rockford Sparkling Black?

Oooh! A Vintage thread - has it aged well after 15 years?

Cloth Ears wrote:Oooh! A Vintage thread - has it aged well after 15 years?

Sure has, had a 94 under crown seal last year, sons birth year...magnificent. Nothing I might add like the explosive blow you head from your shoulders style of Rockford SS.

The 07 and 12 that I tried last year were fabulous too.

Cheers
Craig

phillisc wrote:

Cloth Ears wrote:Oooh! A Vintage thread - has it aged well after 15 years?

Sure has, had a 94 under crown seal last year, sons birth year...magnificent. Nothing I might add like the explosive blow you head from your shoulders style of Rockford SS.

The 07 and 12 that I tried last year were fabulous too.

Cheers
Craig

I loved the 94 and consumed about 6 up to 2014. The mushrooms on the nose and palate stood out for me.

Wow, what's with all the 2003 thread resurrections?

TiggerK wrote:Wow, what's with all the 2003 thread resurrections?

In another time and another forum, a thread resurrection was known as a 'Whoola'. I think he was a poster at the time. Anyone else remember?

Hacker wrote:

TiggerK wrote:Wow, what's with all the 2003 thread resurrections?

In another time and another forum, a thread resurrection was known as a 'Whoola'. I think he was a poster at the time. Anyone else remember?

Thats it - a Woola

Just a couple of old Rockford related threads that seem somehow relevant. There are some gems on page 168 of this forum

And some of us are still around too...

Cloth Ears wrote:Oooh! A Vintage thread - has it aged well after 15 years?

More like Lincoln has been asleep in a cellar somewhere for almost a decade and suddenly been uncorked!

Cheers

Michael

And just keeps asking for “brains”.