The Auswine Forum

A bit closed and heavy on opening, but started to sing after 5 hours of air.
On the nose, tar, stalky, brambly dark fruits. Structure was smooth, savory and elegant and the palate soared. Still needs another 4 years to really open up. But a cool climate bomb nonetheless. Has anyone else dared to open their 2004’s yet?

Thanks for the TN.

Give it another 10 years I'd say, at least based on the 1991s I drank a few of (all gone alas).

Hi Crackers yes opened up two at different times a year or so ago. Exactly the same circumstances. Didn’t even flutter an eyelid before 2+ hours. Very still and lifeless until the very end where it gave me a couple of sweet singing notes just to say hold on fella don’t give up on me yet.

Most youngish wines open up with a good dose of air and you can tell pretty early how good it's going to be (or is) but this needed ages. I’m definitely not even touching my remainder for a very long time. Will be a corker though.

Sam

Yeah Partagas it was 2 hours on and I had some friend over for dinner, it started to worry me that this wasn't a great bottle as I wasn't really getting anything on the nose or the palate around this time. Very happy I decanted it early as by the time we drank it, it had finally come around. Has anyone else had this problem where a wine takes a really long time to come around and they start to worry?

A million times. When I drank my 2005 Hillcrest Reserve Cabernet, I decanted it 3.5 hours before we were due to drink it. When we started drinking it it was very underwhelming. Didn't open up until about the 5 hour mark.

crackers wrote:Yeah Partagas it was 2 hours on and I had some friend over for dinner, it started to worry me that this wasn't a great bottle as I wasn't really getting anything on the nose or the palate around this time. Very happy I decanted it early as by the time we drank it, it had finally come around. Has anyone else had this problem where a wine takes a really long time to come around and they start to worry?

I think most Australian red wines that can age well for 20 years are not going to look at their best after 4 years. e.g. Penfolds St. Henri 2004 has a lovely nose but the palate is simply locked up tight for 6 hours.

Comparing the Seppelt Peters 2002 vs 2003 vs 2004 in a decade or so should be fun.
Seppelt had a purple patch, bit like Henschke Edelston 1990-1994. I think the 2003 may be the surprise package.

think most Australian red wines that can age well for 20 years are not going to look at their best after 4 years. e.g. Penfolds St. Henri 2004 has a lovely nose but the palate is simply locked up tight for 6 hours.

Actually funny you should mention St Henri. Now that you said that it reminded me of the 02 I had late last year. That is definitely another wine that had the same reaction. I decanted a bottle for about three hours and in summer time (Perth) but it still was fairly lifeless and flat. Very last glass started to show some nice character but still was not open. Probably the two most extreme examples for me.

Partagas wrote:

think most Australian red wines that can age well for 20 years are not going to look at their best after 4 years. e.g. Penfolds St. Henri 2004 has a lovely nose but the palate is simply locked up tight for 6 hours.

Actually funny you should mention St Henri. Now that you said that it reminded me of the 02 I had late last year. That is definitely another wine that had the same reaction. I decanted a bottle for about three hours and in summer time (Perth) but it still was fairly lifeless and flat. Very last glass started to show some nice character but still was not open. Probably the two most extreme examples for me.

Yes ... I'd see them perhaps as very "coiled" or "tightly wound" rather than lifeless/flat ... but I know what you mean. The wines are not showing overt fruit / tannin character as many aussie reds when young ... also neither over-worked nor over-extracted ... the oak is already well integrated ... basically just closed for business. But you can sense the underlying quality of the wine using Jedi mind powers (or read the label) .

Other wines (I have tasted) that come into this same category would be Bests Thomson Family 2004 and Bin 707 2004 (just a sip from a sample machine). Both show just a fraction of what they will be.

On a similar note, Cullen Cabernet Merlot et al 2001 (the inaugural Diana Madeline) has just been bashed in the other forum. I'm just not going to go near the couple of bottles I have left until 2011 earliest.

daz

Daryl Douglas wrote:On a similar note, Cullen Cabernet Merlot et al 2001 (the inaugural Diana Madeline) has just been bashed in the other forum. I'm just not going to go near the couple of bottles I have left until 2011 earliest.

daz

Sorry Daz, leaving them to 2012 might reward you, or have you pouring them down the sink. Despite Cullen's assurances on most back labels that the DMs will go 20 years - I've never had one last the distance, and place my own personal limit at around 9 years. I realise DM didn't exist until 2001 as a label, however, the Bordeaux blend was the "Cabernet Sauvignon Merlot" for 2000 and before, and I've had a few fall over on me.

However, if you don't like them now, perhaps a quick sale on the auction market might help? They're probably not going to transform over the next couple of years, and you'll get around $90 a bottle for them. 2001, after all, is apparently a good MR red year.

Cheers

Allan

Cork-sealed, so they're in the lottery anyway.

Daz, Allan,

I can't say much about older vintages but I find it hard to believe that the current crop of premium Cullen Cabs, including the 2001, won't cellar well. My guess is that the wine has shut down and will open up sometime in the future. Good wines have a way of doing that.

Every time I get worried about leaving wines too long there comes an example that reassures me of wine's longevity.

I recently came across a clearance shelf in a wine shop. They had a '75 and '86 Chateau Calon, Montagne St. Emillion, an estate on the outskirts of Borgeaux. I had never heard of it but at $20 and $25 a bottle I had to get one of each. The literature said that it was a good estate, the wines being a good value early drinking wine.

Shared the '75 with a friend. We both loved it, a fading but still lively Bordeaux with all the fragrance, body and finish of a classy, medium-bodied wine. The next morning, yes, at 10 am, we went and bought the remaining bottles, both the '75s and the '86s.

Are we going to open the '86 soon? No, if the '75 is drinking well at what, 33 years of age, then we can certainly wait a little longer for the '86, an even better year in Bordeaux.

If I had a bottle of the Diana Madeline, almost any recent vintage, I wouldn't worry. Just my 2 cents.

Cheers............Mahmoud

Well I had a 04 Di Madeline a few weeks back and although it didn’t open up completely (obviously), it was a blockbuster of immense proportions. This is a guaranteed traveller and a half IMO. Massive amounts of body and fruit character should see it through. I do have a 01 sitting back but it won’t be touched for some time.

Sam

I had a 1988 Peter Lemon Shiraz the other night and thought it would be past its peek as recommended 5 years cellaring on back of bottle.

It was a cracker, a lot of the fruit had faded by great secondary flavors of cedar, bark and cinnamon spice just shows you how sometimes old wines can surprise you, but I guess it's also what works for your individual palate.

Hi crakers, i have every vintage of StPeters i've drank 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. They are all magnificent wines superb, i am looking forward to drinking the 2004 but will wait a few years yet.[/quote]