TN: 1980 Wolf Blass “Gold Label†Riesling
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:19 pm
Hello All,
I could have titled this post “A surprisingly excellent night’s drinking†but needed to follow the/my usual naming convention. Thinking about it, in general, any night where Wolf Blass wines provide pleasure is surprising (gee, that was harsh!)
I usually donÂ’t log on in the evening, preferring to consume paid work time with wine “workÂâ€Â, but the opening of these two wines pushed me to do so.
1980 Wolf Blass “Gold Label†Riesling – this wine holds some sort of record for most trophies (cynical comment: don’t most Wolf Blass wines?!) but I did not expect it to be showing very well, especially after discussion with one who has a much greater experience with aged Australian whites, David Lole. However, this wine was very well cellared and, with half the bottle gone, is a pleasure to drink.
The cork is totally wet but comes out well. The wine is darker than what I would describe as gold but is not as dark as “Dark GoldÂâ€Â. Actually, when I think about the colour of pure gold, gold is probably a good descriptor. I wish I could find my (our) digital camera but Mardi is not home and I donÂ’t know where it is. The nose is enticing. Very developed but not oxided. Yes!!! Much more intense than expected. Honeyed with toast and ripe, sweet, marmalade citrus. There is definitely a floral component that, I think, in a blind tasting would enable me to pick this from, say, an old Elizabeth Hunter Semillon. This marmalade is quite light when opened allowing less “heavy†sweet citrus flavours to dominate but it gets more prominent with air time. This actually benefits the wine – read on. The front palate is very broad, as expected, and rich. It does not cloy. There is a bit of spice as well, probably from the florals being intensified over the years. I am drinking history here. I was 3 when this wine was made. The middle palate is a concern soon after opening. Flavour does not dominate, acid or maybe alcohol does. The bottle says 13.4%. However, after 10 minutes (I have now nearly finished half a bottle and SMSed a friend to gloat about the wine – sad but true), the sweet, marmalade citrus as well as other flavours open up over the “holely†middle palate. HmmmmmÂ… this wine is GOOD. The acid is still there providing an exceptional finish, especially for a wine of its age. I would say that it was a “long finish†for a young Riesling, but as this wine is 23 years old, I describe the finish as “very, very longÂâ€Â. You just donÂ’t get these marmalade and other lighter developed sweet citrus flavours going as long as this. Point to note: this wine is easily recognised as New World. It has a character of fruit driven purity that is very distinguishable and has no noticeable residual sweetness. It, obviously, finishes dry – actually, very dry! Taking another sip, I think one point I should highlight is that the marmalade does not dominate or cloy unlike many aged Elizabeths of this era (try a 1980 for example – had this two years ago: marmalade oxidation in a bottle). There are lighter, more hightened florals, citrus and spice on the palate. After 1 hour, the marmalade in the wine has still not created an oxided mess.
I hope I am giving you a good feeling of the wine despite my very unstructured notes. However, I only rate this wine as Excellent. Despite my enthusiasm, I can’t deny that this wine should have been drunk 5–7 years ago - David was right. It just lacks a bit of depth despite its intensity and complexity. However, the pleasure this wine provides is an example of how important balance is to a wine’s longevity. I hope the 2002 Petalumas, Grossets and Kilikanoons that I have in my cellar provide the same amount of enjoyment in the next 10-20 years. I suspect they will.
Kind regards,
Adair
P.S. Just opened a 1998 Wolf Blass “Yellow Label†Cabernet Sauvignon… its nose is most promising... yum, the palate is good too... Could be a very surprising night!
I could have titled this post “A surprisingly excellent night’s drinking†but needed to follow the/my usual naming convention. Thinking about it, in general, any night where Wolf Blass wines provide pleasure is surprising (gee, that was harsh!)
I usually donÂ’t log on in the evening, preferring to consume paid work time with wine “workÂâ€Â, but the opening of these two wines pushed me to do so.
1980 Wolf Blass “Gold Label†Riesling – this wine holds some sort of record for most trophies (cynical comment: don’t most Wolf Blass wines?!) but I did not expect it to be showing very well, especially after discussion with one who has a much greater experience with aged Australian whites, David Lole. However, this wine was very well cellared and, with half the bottle gone, is a pleasure to drink.
The cork is totally wet but comes out well. The wine is darker than what I would describe as gold but is not as dark as “Dark GoldÂâ€Â. Actually, when I think about the colour of pure gold, gold is probably a good descriptor. I wish I could find my (our) digital camera but Mardi is not home and I donÂ’t know where it is. The nose is enticing. Very developed but not oxided. Yes!!! Much more intense than expected. Honeyed with toast and ripe, sweet, marmalade citrus. There is definitely a floral component that, I think, in a blind tasting would enable me to pick this from, say, an old Elizabeth Hunter Semillon. This marmalade is quite light when opened allowing less “heavy†sweet citrus flavours to dominate but it gets more prominent with air time. This actually benefits the wine – read on. The front palate is very broad, as expected, and rich. It does not cloy. There is a bit of spice as well, probably from the florals being intensified over the years. I am drinking history here. I was 3 when this wine was made. The middle palate is a concern soon after opening. Flavour does not dominate, acid or maybe alcohol does. The bottle says 13.4%. However, after 10 minutes (I have now nearly finished half a bottle and SMSed a friend to gloat about the wine – sad but true), the sweet, marmalade citrus as well as other flavours open up over the “holely†middle palate. HmmmmmÂ… this wine is GOOD. The acid is still there providing an exceptional finish, especially for a wine of its age. I would say that it was a “long finish†for a young Riesling, but as this wine is 23 years old, I describe the finish as “very, very longÂâ€Â. You just donÂ’t get these marmalade and other lighter developed sweet citrus flavours going as long as this. Point to note: this wine is easily recognised as New World. It has a character of fruit driven purity that is very distinguishable and has no noticeable residual sweetness. It, obviously, finishes dry – actually, very dry! Taking another sip, I think one point I should highlight is that the marmalade does not dominate or cloy unlike many aged Elizabeths of this era (try a 1980 for example – had this two years ago: marmalade oxidation in a bottle). There are lighter, more hightened florals, citrus and spice on the palate. After 1 hour, the marmalade in the wine has still not created an oxided mess.
I hope I am giving you a good feeling of the wine despite my very unstructured notes. However, I only rate this wine as Excellent. Despite my enthusiasm, I can’t deny that this wine should have been drunk 5–7 years ago - David was right. It just lacks a bit of depth despite its intensity and complexity. However, the pleasure this wine provides is an example of how important balance is to a wine’s longevity. I hope the 2002 Petalumas, Grossets and Kilikanoons that I have in my cellar provide the same amount of enjoyment in the next 10-20 years. I suspect they will.
Kind regards,
Adair
P.S. Just opened a 1998 Wolf Blass “Yellow Label†Cabernet Sauvignon… its nose is most promising... yum, the palate is good too... Could be a very surprising night!
