The Auswine Forum

Someone wrote a scathing tasting note on the <b>1997 Tyrrells Vat 9 Hunter Shiraz</b> a couple of weeks ago, so I thought I’d try one of my bottles, purchased at CD back in 1998. This opened (crumbly cork and all) in a decanter showing a slightly varnishy nose, certainly not overtly fruity. Sort of old and dusty in a not-unpleasant way. Perhaps a little earthy – doesn’t really scream “Hunter” but rather prompts a “yes that makes sense” response when you see the label… Tannins have subsided entirely, and the wine is very gentle and soft. In all honesty, it’s a ‘light dry red’ really – seemed well enough balanced across the palate to me, but it’s certainly not a wine to chew on. I think it’s a drink now proposition – I have no doubt it’ll collapse into a volatile mess inside another 10 years… (the back label says “…good drinking until 2006” – about the limit, I would think). In fairness, it was only $19 back in 98 – odd to think that Tyrrells don’t make a higher-priced, longer-lasting red, even today.

Also drank on Saturday night a <b>1994 Seaview Vintage Brut Pinot Noir Chardonnay</b>, a wine that always over-delivers, in my opinion. This showed quite strong autolysis characters, lots of yeasty notes, a very fine bead, and a long, attractive finish. Picked up a swag of trophies, according to the label, and rightly deserved. Very good wine given the price), and with time left still.

Friday nightÂ’s <b>2002 Leasingham Bin 7 Clare Riesling</b>, from screwcap of course, was a mouthful of lemon and lime juice. Fresh and clean, itÂ’s a bit simple at the moment, but really none the worse for that. This will be a much more interesting wine with a few more years under itÂ’s belt. Trouble is, I just donÂ’t have a large enough stock of 5-8 year old Riesling to be drinking one every week!

Cheers,
Graeme

Graeme

I am probably arguing needlessly, as i think you may agree with most of the following, but i don't share your comments re Tyrrells not making reds with legs. The Vat 9's can be very long lived. Before some b*stard stole them, my 1991s were no lightweights and still very much on the improve. I would have thought their peak would be about 2008. Having said that 1991 was a ball tearer in the Hunter and 1997 was only fair. I think it has more to do with the inconsistent Hunter growing conditions, than Tyrrells not being able or not choosing to make a big, concentrated red.

Blake

Blake,
I still have two 91 Vat 9s, which I'm holding with some trepidation. I started with 3, but the first, which I opened 2 years ago was such a disappointment that I put the whole thing out of my mind! I did have half a dozen 94s which were very pleasant and drank over a few years in the late 90s.

And I bought 3 of the 02 eight weeks ago. I suspect Vat 9 is vintage-dependent to a larger degree than most of us recognise. I may even have to start taking notice of Tyrrell's back label comments - perhaps they are somewhere near the truth (from memory, the little vintage chart the Private Bin club sends out has the 97 Vat 9 drinking at its peak now as well).

cheers,
Graeme

The 1991 Vat 9 shiraz is awesome and in a decade's time will be discussed in the same context as Lindies '65's.

Cheers

PaulV

The Vat 7 sounds like you have cooked it with poor cellaring.

GG, it was I that was scathing.

The wine was tasted blind in a line up of other 97 shiraz and was the absolute wooden spoon. This was not just me but the consensus of those I compared notes with, both before and after the labels were revealed.

I have 1 bottle and it is unfortunately well tucked away in a carton destined for 2006, but I will dig it out and get rid of it now.

Graeme

I agree re vintage variation - something most Hunter reds suffer badly from sadly. I suspect your '91 was a poor bottle. I have had at least 3 over the last 3 years and each of them has been superb. I think they may even last as long as the '83 Lindemans HRB. They really are that good.