Do we overrate the importance of vintage when assessing wine? Vintage conditions have an effect, at times profound, on the character of wine, but I wonder how productive is an absolute view of quality? Does our obsession with a "best" vintage enhance our ability to enjoy the drink? Or do we, in fact, neglect wines that have something interesting to say in favour of the latest "vintage of the century?"
More and more, I find myself happy, indeed quite interested, to taste wine from supposedly inferior vintages. Vintage variation helps me to understand the full expression of a particular variety, vineyard or region. After all, one doesn't choose to spend time with friends only when they are at their most sparkling. A melancholy mood can reveal new facets, perhaps less brilliant, but no less authentic.
All this serves as a lengthy preamble to my tasting of Tyrrell's premium Shiraz label. The Hunter has had some excellent vintages over the past decade and a bit. So when I went to the cellar to select a bottle, various '98s, '03s, '05s, etc looked awfully tempting. In the spirit of enquiry, however, I decided to taste those later. Tonight, we'll see what a somewhat overshadowed Hunter vintage can tell us.
Characteristic nose of damp earth, minerals and rich red berry liqueur. Totally regional and quite expressive, if not massively complex. Good impact on entry, with immediate fruit flavour and significant density. A notably velvet mouthfeel caresses the tongue as a deliciously savoury flavour profile unfolds towards mid-palate. Medium to full bodied, this wine shows sap, more earth and minerals, and the sort of tart red fruit one might reasonably expect in a good Chianti. Acid and tannins are present, adding shape, but the overall impression is one of plush luxury (despite the savoury flavour profile). On the after palate, vanilla custard oak, perhaps too much of it, becomes the key influence. Fine, ripe tannins blanket the tongue before carrying the wine to a lingering, fruit-sweet finish.
I've tasted Hunters with brighter fruit, or more well defined earth, or better shape and cut. Perhaps those things come in better years, and I won't deny their worth. But this is an excellent wine, able to be enjoyed right now, preferably in concert with food.
Price: $A40
Closure: Cork
Date tasted: August 2008
Yes, yes Julian, I think you are correct on your questioning of "super" vintages and the years in between. Whilst still, I think of course, looking for the better vintages, one can still get a lot from the "lesser" vintages and they should not be ingnored.
In this way I think "lesser" vintages are linked to the amorphous concept of "terroir". But they are also linked to loyalty and understanding. Fot instance, I will buy from my favourite producers on "lesser" vintages because a) I want to taste something different and b) to support them when a vintage means people turn away from there product.
Whilst vintages have a fair amount of objectivity in their assesment, there are still subjective factors, and besides that, there is just great interest and learning to be had from the "lesser" vintages (which, as you might mentioned, just might suit your mood/food/situation/company). Thanks for the insight. jeremy
I totally agree, vintage variation seems to melt into notions of terroir, in that year-on-year variation prompts full expression of a particular vineyard over time. For wines or regions that fascinate me, I find that idea exciting.
The question of loyalty is also an interesting one, as it invokes the rather special relationship between producers and consumers in the wine world, particularly at the more boutique end.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Julian.