The Auswine Forum

Last night I attended a vertical tasting of Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon with special guest speaker Keith Mugford guiding us through the vintages. After the first couple of warm-up wines the cabernet sauvignons were served in fights of four, with the exception of the last flight of two wines:


2007 Moss Wood Semillon, Margaret River (screwcap): Bright straw/green. Grassy nose with a hint of toast/lemon pith and mineral; oily entry initially with sweet passionfruit, followed by a hit of acid, finishing crisp and dry, and becoming yeasty with breathing. Not bad but nothing exciting either.

2006 Moss Wood Ribbon Vale Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (screwcap): Light to medium blood red. Attractive nose of coal/coffee grains, dusty cranberries and a hint or tar and eucalyptus that intensifies with breathing; dusty, slightly jammy cranberry/blackcurrant entry followed by medium-weight fruit (at most), black olive and more eucalyptus, the finish very dry and slightly green/bitter at first, more so with breathing.


FLIGHT 1:

2006 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (screwcap): Medium to dark red. The oak's very obvious at first on the nose with banana/sweet cedar/vanilla, becoming more floral with geranium, capsicum, cloves, tea leaf and black jubes with breathing. A dusty/powdery entry leads to a medium weight palate of cassis, the finish fine and grippy with cloves/coffee oak again becoming obvious.

2005 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (screwcap): Medium to very dark red. A little more closed but slightly riper and better integrated than the previous wine, the nose dusty with some cedar, cranberry, tea and cocoa. The palate's a step up in weight and elegance with sweet berries on the entry leading to a tangy mid-palate, finishing with fine tannins.

2004 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (screwcap): Medium to very dark red. A little more closed again with just a whiff of VA, cassis liqueur and darker berries; the palate's immaculate, heavier and longer than the previous wine with darker/almost plummy fruit dusted with cocoa, the finish very long, dusty and fine. As good as the 2005 vintage was this was just a notch above it, and everything else for that matter.

2003 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (screwcap): Medium to very dark red. Closed tight at first, slowly releasing whiffs of cassis, cloves and funk/earth with a lot of work; tannic/dry entry followed by tea leaf, cassis, and clove characters, becoming a little disjointed with breathing as the fruit fell away from the finish and those initially soft tannins toughened up.


FLIGHT 2:

2002 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (screwcap): Medium to dark red. This is showing some development, forest floor, then black jubes and sweet, cedar/coffee oak; soft entry followed by a grippy palate with jubes/berries and a touch of dried herbs, finishing very long and dry. I was surprised just how good this was considering the reputation of the vintage.

2001 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (screwcap): Medium to very dark red. Very similar to the 2004 vintage on the bouquet, a whiff of VA with cassis and darker berries, a little cocoa; sweet jubes on entry leading to a weighty mid-palate, finishing long and gravelly, again very reminiscent to that 2004 vintage.

2000 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (cork): Medium to dark red. Attractive nose that's ripe, mineraly and tarry; soft entry followed by medium weight cherry/cola fruit and soft tannins, finishing minty. The '“slurpable", early drinking wine of the bunch.

1999 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (cork): Medium to very dark red. From the “slurpable" to the “wild child" of the flight; leafy/herbs and pencils notes give way to strong farmyard characters on the nose. The palate's also sweet, leafy/herbal, earthy and clean but lacks the depth and length of the previous three wines.


FLIGHT 3:

1998 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (cork): Medium to very dark crimson. Lovely nose of cedar, black jubes/blackcurrant, red liquorice, toast, and then freshly picked parsley; herbal/liquorice entry followed by cloves, red berries and meaty/soupy characters, finishing long and smoky. Along with the 2002 vintage this was a major surprise of the tasting, and one of the very best wines of the night.

1996 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (cork): Medium to very dark red/crimson. More juvenile than the 1998, an inky nose with cranberries, nutty oak and black tea, becoming floral with some geranium characters with breathing. The palate's riper with cloves on entry, then sweet, almost jammy fruit leading to a mineraly/tarry finish. Needs time.

1995 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (cork): Medium to very dark red/crimson. There's not much on the nose, banana/cloves and a hint of dampness; the palate's a bit better, a slightly damp entry followed by tangy fruit with a hint of tar and soy, leading to a slender, long finish. I was disappointed in this wine given the reputation of this vintage, and couldn't help think the nose and front-palate were possibly scalped.

1994 Moss Wood Special Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (cork): Medium to very dark red/crimson. Mineral, cranberry and blackcurrant topped with heavily toasted oak char, developing some cloves, beef stock and dries herbs with breathing. Spicy/mineraly palate of cassis and black pepper that's long but slender; a few people said they thought the oak was too much in this one.


FLIGHT 4:

1993 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (cork): Medium to dark crimson/brick. Herbs/cloves at first on the nose but it deteriorates very quickly, becoming very stocky and vegetal; the palate's thin and stocky with mint/squashed pea characters, but amazingly it still has decent length. Universally recognised as the worst wine of the tasting.

1991 Moss Wood Cabernet Sauvignon, Margaret River (cork): Medium to dark crimson. In contrast to the previous wine this is still very fresh and vibrant, inky with black jubes and tar, a hint of chocolate and smoky vanilla; powerful, tangy/spicy entry followed by slippery fruit and a long, velvety structure with just a hint of aged soy. One of the very best wines of the tasting, and a nice way to finish off.


Cheers
Ian

Great notes Ian, thank you. I have always been a fan of the '95, '96, '01 and '04, not having tried earlier vintages.

Thanks - nice tatsing ! I hope the 99 was a dud bottle as I have more of this vintage than any other.

Mike

Ian,

As a longtime Moss Wood supporter (since the first vintage!), you got a dud 99.

Of the wines you listed the stars should have been/will be (IMHO)

1991: drinking superbly but as with all such wines it is a question of the individual bottle...

1995: very very good

1999: destined to be a star in about 5 years

2001: nearly in the 99 class

2005: will be fantastic (up there with hte early 80s 83, 85 87 in potential

Oddly, I liked the 2004 too but thought that it lacked the legs for a truly great Moss Wood, but would be approachable prior to the 05...

Just my mileage,

regards & best wishes

The 99 I had was a bit disjointed and I was beginning to worry a bit also (have a few in stock), but I think my experience had to do with the high temp and humid conditions on the new years eve night I was drinking it on. It was certainly ballsy but even after a lengthily decanter didn’t really show its fruit or components properly. If it is the goods as mentioned, then it is a big sleeper for sure.

Is the 2001 worth trying at all now? Have been hanging to open a bottle to try but don’t want the 99 experience (waste of time).

Partagas wrote:
Is the 2001 worth trying at all now? Have been hanging to open a bottle to try but don’t want the 99 experience (waste of time).

Assuming decent cellaring, my window for the 01 would only start in about 6 years time.

Too many people fail to note that most CS hibernates at least from age circa 5-8, and many of the wines which are made for the longer haul (first Growth Bdx quintessentially, but also Moss Wood, John Riddoch, Cullens & Mt Mary all take time to integrate .... eg a case of 1986 Seppelts Drumborg was light and seemed nothing in 1994 -that is tasted a few timesbut by 1998 had fleshed out and was delightful). THere is a real art to knowing or anticipating the true window of drinking for wines - and CS based wines are harder to pick than shiraz say.

Basically it comes down to experience: you've tasted a lot of the same style young, middle-aged and mature and you notice the differences young and "remember"...so there is some value to the old farts!! (just for Martin E, muscatmike etc)

regards

Picked up some 1993 in the UK and have tried one, really enjoying it. If that is a weak vintage, then can't wait to try a strong one. Didn't find it weedy at all.

Great notes Ian and what a fantastic line-up. Was this organised by your group or was it a promotional event (curious being a huge Moss Wood fan for many years)?

Like Fred, I’ve been on the Moss Wood ‘band wagon’ for a long time and they are wines which cellar extremely well. I shared an ’83 a couple of years back which was in the prime of its life. Have a few vintages in the cellar and have had the ’94 a couple of times in the last 3 years and decided to wait another decade, it’s just not ready! I’m concerned about the ’95 not showing well though, as these do indeed have a reputation, perhaps another case of needing much more time in the cellar. The 2005 is a ripper and I’ll will be tasting the 2006 over the weekend.

fred wrote:

Partagas wrote:
Is the 2001 worth trying at all now? Have been hanging to open a bottle to try but don’t want the 99 experience (waste of time).

Assuming decent cellaring, my window for the 01 would only start in about 6 years time.

Too many people fail to note that most CS hibernates at least from age circa 5-8, and many of the wines which are made for the longer haul (first Growth Bdx quintessentially, but also Moss Wood, John Riddoch, Cullens & Mt Mary all take time to integrate .... eg a case of 1986 Seppelts Drumborg was light and seemed nothing in 1994 -that is tasted a few timesbut by 1998 had fleshed out and was delightful). THere is a real art to knowing or anticipating the true window of drinking for wines - and CS based wines are harder to pick than shiraz say.

Basically it comes down to experience: you've tasted a lot of the same style young, middle-aged and mature and you notice the differences young and "remember"...so there is some value to the old farts!! (just for Martin E, muscatmike etc)

regards

Thanks Fred, I knew that they do hold for many years and have had the middle age issue before with cab many times. I have been a good boy not touching my MossWood stock until further aged (besides the 99 at news years) but am getting itchy feet with my favourite wine. Am ready to look at my 1991 reserve soon but waiting for an excuse. Last 94 I had was sublime.

Also agree the 05 is outstanding (have'nt got any yet ).

Fred, I would actually push the good CS window out further. In my experience most of the top labels really are not worth opening up inside 12 years. If people want to drink them earlier, they are better off spending less as the next rung down will start to open up inside that 5-8 year time frame. I tried one of the 98 or 99 Voyager late last year and it was a complete waste of a bottle. It is at least another 5 years off being worth drinking.

I say that Oz CS typically closes form 5-8 but that does not mean it miraculously open at 9!

Quite the reverse: my rule of thumb on the wines I mentioned is that they should be in their window from the age of 15 in decent vintages....caveat as I am yet to see a wine of that sort under screwcap albeit I was persuaded to pick up some of the 99 Moss Wood under screwcap, so we shall see in due course.

Typically the Wynns BL starts to hit its straps from a decade to 12 years in reasonably good vintages (cf 1998 only just entering its window now) but there are exceptions such as the 1990 which is yet to peak (but finally starting to drink better than the 1991)!

I tend to like my CS with some secondary characteristics, but certainly not dvoid of fruit. Other people will have different parameters, and there are simply an awful lot of people who have only been exposed to young CS - and that is all they know.

Different taste threshholds are not wrong - they are just different. If someone enjoys only upfront fruit in his wines, that is fine for him. If someone else is an effective necrophiliac, I feel sorry sharing bottles with him "like gazing upon the remnants of remarkable beauty" but it is his money, bottle and taste.

One of the few palates that I am comfortable calibrating against enjoys his window starting slightly earlier than I (which we both acknowledge). Yet each of us would trust the other to select a wine not merely for both of us to drink but purely for the other! As he is a significant winemaker, I will not namedrop..

cheers