The Auswine Forum

Quite restrained - although classically Australian in style. Notes of coffee, musk, five spice, grilled meats, licorice and leather. Very well contained palette; still fruit forward with great balance and poise with a swathe of tannin still evident. Mouthcoating. All that said, there is an inherent leanness about it too - not a bit of fat. Drinking very well now - and will probably carry on doing equally so for a number of years. That said, it will end its life tonight paired with veal and paprika pie, no doubt a suited match.

Wayno: I am really trying to build up my collection of 96 vintage shiraz's.....and this wine is definately one i would love to buy.

Was this your first?... Last? ...or part of your stash?
They certainly are not cheap on auction

PS: Nice TN

ross

Thanks Ross. Actually it was my last (of only two). Purchased for the princely sum of $25 from a bottle shop in Mount Gambier some years back. How times and prices change

Wayno wrote:Thanks Ross. Actually it was my last (of only two). Purchased for the princely sum of $25 from a bottle shop in Mount Gambier some years back. How times and prices change

That had to be a pricing error. From memory that was when they went from dozen packaging to six packs. I paid $35 at mates rates; the RRP was around $45-$50 at the time.

It was a pricing error - I was pretty sure of it. There were two left. I plunged in.

Wayno wrote:It was a pricing error - I was pretty sure of it. There were two left. I plunged in.

I thought that was pretty cheap too!! Good for you Wayno

ross

Have said it before and will say it again. Still in my absolute favorite wines of all times list. Really is my sort of wine in everyway (except availability and auction price, but you can’t win em all )

Sam

On reflection, it really presented well. I'd suggest this had more in common with Burgundy than Barossa in that it was really quite mid-weight, elegant and possessed excellent balance. Lots better than the 01 of the same wine I had not so long ago.

Would I be right in thinking that 96 isn't a great St Henri year even though it was a cracker for bins? No reason why they should correlate especially of course, jut asking...

Loztralia wrote:Would I be right in thinking that 96 isn't a great St Henri year even though it was a cracker for bins? No reason why they should correlate especially of course, jut asking...

Everything I've seen gives the St Henri 96 high praise, which is lucky for me, having the 2nd of two bottles left. Some probably have dozens.

Cheers

daz

Loztralia wrote:Would I be right in thinking that 96 isn't a great St Henri year even though it was a cracker for bins? No reason why they should correlate especially of course, jut asking...

Nope, a great year across the board from Koonunga Hill up to Grange with classic Cab based wines also. All getting ex-y now as the fame spreads except Grange, a relative bargain for now.

Jay60A wrote:

Loztralia wrote:Would I be right in thinking that 96 isn't a great St Henri year even though it was a cracker for bins? No reason why they should correlate especially of course, jut asking...

Nope, a great year across the board from Koonunga Hill up to Grange with classic Cab based wines also. All getting ex-y now as the fame spreads except Grange, a relative bargain for now.

Yep, have a bottle each of Grange 96 (my only Grange) and the 2nd of two Seppelt Dorrien cab 96 as well as the St Henri 96. 1996 on reputation may even rival 1990 as one of the greatest Australian vintages. Even in the best of vintages there are apparently some relative duds but the St Henri 96 wasn't.

Cheers

daz

Cheers

daz

Wayno wrote:On reflection, it really presented well. I'd suggest this had more in common with Burgundy than Barossa in that it was really quite mid-weight, elegant and possessed excellent balance. Lots better than the 01 of the same wine I had not so long ago.

Strange, my examples were very full in weight and definitely wouldn’t describe as elegant in style. Not as much oaky weight but fruit power is wow.

Maybe bottle variation or different storage history?

Perhaps it's just a matter of definition here. It's no pinot and it's very much a shiraz but certainly nothing like the full blown styles you see these days. Everything in place, well composed, no sledgehammer of fruit and oak. I'd definitely stick by elegant.

Wayno wrote:Perhaps it's just a matter of definition here. It's no pinot and it's very much a shiraz but certainly nothing like the full blown styles you see these days. Everything in place, well composed, no sledgehammer of fruit and oak. I'd definitely stick by elegant.

Perhaps like a St Joseph / Cornas?

Something like that.

Of course, I would never be so bold (or stupid) as to tell you or try to correct you on what you have tasted or experienced, just that my experience is definitely different.

In fact, I had a 96 389 last weekend and the 96 St Henri was miles (and I mean miles) more loaded and fuller than the 389.

Partagas wrote:Of course, I would never be so bold (or stupid) as to tell you or try to correct you on what you have tasted or experienced, just that my experience is definitely different.

In fact, I had a 96 389 last weekend and the 96 St Henri was miles (and I mean miles) more loaded and fuller than the 389.

I think it comes down to a combination of individual palate, the low oak treatment of the St Henri and the Cab component of the 389. Difficult to compare.

Regardless, both stunning wines.

Wayno wrote:Perhaps it's just a matter of definition here. It's no pinot and it's very much a shiraz but certainly nothing like the full blown styles you see these days. Everything in place, well composed, no sledgehammer of fruit and oak. I'd definitely stick by elegant.

I would agree, primarily the comparative lack of oak.

Roddy wrote:

Wayno wrote:Perhaps it's just a matter of definition here. It's no pinot and it's very much a shiraz but certainly nothing like the full blown styles you see these days. Everything in place, well composed, no sledgehammer of fruit and oak. I'd definitely stick by elegant.

I would agree, primarily the comparative lack of oak.

It was only comparing depth or fullness, nothing else. Would have thought "most" wouldn’t call 389 styles (especially 96 vintage) elegant, so was just making “my” comparison in terms of that trait only (not in terms of style).

Interesting - I haven't had the 96 389 for awhile but on last taste, I found it to very much a classic Australian wine in style. I was reminded of old barrel halls from childhood (a memory that may or may not be just that - a memory) and all manner of wonderful, ephemeral, difficult-to-describe thoughts. Sounds descriptively blowsy, I know but it was truly an awesome, complete wine. The oak on that one was probably the most memorable part of it - it was so well integrated but so obviously there.

The 96 StH, whilst also quite Australian in style was also oddly not so, the more I think about it. Perhaps this comes from the lack of obvious oak. I mentioned Burgundy but more by way of style - (Rhone is also another take on it, as Bick suggested) - medium weight, all things in their right place. I couldn't describe either of the wines as full powered or similar - they are both, for me, well composed, balanced and terrific wines.

No doubt perception has a lot to do with it though. Very interesting indeed and two notable wines to be ruminating on, side by side.