For a couple of years now we've really enjoyed Australian Shiraz's from the Barossa valley. Our friend PaulC gave us a couple of bottles of the 1998 Yalumba for our housewarming and we just loved it. We drank it regularly for a year or so until the 2000's came in - apparently they skipped the 1999s. But we were somewhat disappointed by the 2000s. We happened to decide that we wanted to stock up on a number of cases of the red nectar. We've never really paid attention to vintages before, and I wanted to make sure that we got a "good" year.
So I googled for "vintage chart barossa", and lo, the man Robert Parker's Vintage chart showed up. And the 1998 Barossa's got a "95" rating, the best that Parker has ever given a Barossa. No wonder it tasted so yummy!
Setting aside many of the other intriguing observations about vintages (like the '97 California Cabs are better than the 98-2000s), it seems that the 2001 Barossa's will be just as good as the '98s.
With eager anticipation I awaited the arrival of the first bottle in our government monopoly and control of liquor distribution. And in April this year, the first bottle showed up. It was a Peter Lehman. Eagerly, I bought 3 bottles. We tried it that night and it was everything we'd hoped for from a Shiraz, and it promised to get better with some age.
One small hitch emerged. After trying this wine for a month or so, we noticed that we often got headaches, even from the Chardonnay. And no, it wasn't because of over-indulgence! A quick question for our knowledgable staff, and it seems the Peter Lehmann changed his process in the 2000 time frame.
So this one won't do. But what is the best Barossa for either drinking now or holding for up to 5 years? Some serious research is called for. It is tough when a man of science and engineering is called upon to perform such a difficult service for mankind. But our hero cannot refuse a challenge.
After a number of months of field research, some preliminary results are available. By order of vineyard name, I include some tasting notes and a personal rating on the 100 scale (where 80-90 is good, 90-95 is excellent and 95-100 is awesome)
d'Arenberg Dead Arm - sold out in 2 days. parker rates 98. At the $90 CA this was costing, I'd hope it would be worth a 98. A little to rich for my blood.
d'Arenberg Footbolt - not in. parker rates 90. Wine Spectator rates 90
Bulletin Place - untested. WS rates 82.
Elderton Friends - untested. parker rates 87
Elderton Shiraz - untested. WS rates 93.
Grant Burge Miamba - nice but a bit understrength. 88 pts
Hare's Chase - Very tight, one of the tightest Shiraz's I've ever had. This promises to be awesome. I give it an 85 in the short term with upside to 94. I figure at least 3 years of aging. Parker rates a 93. Wine Spectator rates 90.
Kaesler Old Vine - untested, Parker rates 90.
Langmeil Three gardens - a blend, untested
Langmeil - not in yet. Wine Spectator rates 89.
Peter Lehmann - very nice, smooth and rich, perhaps too much preservatives. 86 pts. Would be a 90 if it wasn't for the after effects. Parker rates an 87. Spectator rates 89.
Moculta - untested
Pirramimma McLaren Vale - The current favourite, full bodied and rich. 90 pts
Sandalford Western Australia - this snuck in and it was highly rated. Correctly so, with an 87
Torbreck Juveniles vineyard - a blend, untested. Parker rates 89.
Wolf Blass Premium - Wolf Blass is always one of my favourites and this is no exception. 90 pts.
Wolf Blass South Australia. WS rates 88. This might be the premium as the WS cost is $14 US and the Wolf Blass Green label is $17 CA which seems too close.
Wyndham Estate - untested. WS rates 86, Best Value.
Yalumba - not quite as good as the 98s. 86 pts. Spectator rates 87.
So far, nothing has grabbed us as much as we'd hoped. Obviously they need a bit of ageing to show their true flavour. But I'm certainly not enough of an expert to know which ones will age and which won't. Clearly more field trials and the lab work are needed!
There is another sad observation to be made. I cross referenced all the wines that are in the liquor store catalog with the Robert Parker ratings. Robert Parker rates 66 different 2001 Barossa Shirazs, of which our liquor store carries a total somewhat.. less than that. Nothing like realizing that 80% of the wines tasted by Parker aren't available. sigh.
Comments (3)
SA makes very nice wine, but there’s no reason to limit yourself to it; Margaret River in WA is especially nice, as is Hunter Valley in NSW.
You also might want to try Eden Valley (SA); my favourites have been anything from Henscke, but especially Mt. Edelstone and Heggies.
Also, check out Jamie Oliver’s (no, not that Jamie Oliver) OnWine. Much of it requires a subscription, but he also publishes a good Australian Wine Annual that you might be able to pick up on eBay.
Unfortunately, if you want really good Australian wine, you’ll have to make a trip; they keep all of the good stuff for themselves.To get an idea of prices and availability, check out Nick’s wine merchants; they’re pretty mainstream, but have lots on their site.
Posted by Mark Nottingham | December 31, 2003 8:40 AM
Posted on December 31, 2003 08:40
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Posted by Gartner Elana | March 17, 2004 5:02 PM
Posted on March 17, 2004 17:02
The Black Opal 2001 Barossa is pretty good, and good value at around $10. (CA)
The Penfolds 2001 bin series should be out any day now. I've always been a huge fan of Bin 28 which is a blend including some Barossa fruit.
The 128 (Coonawarra) is getting particularly good reviews. (Speaking of Coonawarra you can still pick up 1998 Wynns Michael for $25-$30 if you look around, and it's superb.)
Torbreck Juveniles is nice for drinking now, but I wouldn't age it. At that price ($25 CA) and style Rosemount GSM is better value ($20 CA); the 2001 isn't out yet but the 2000 was delicious.
Posted by Dave Tong | March 26, 2004 11:05 PM
Posted on March 26, 2004 23:05