I can’t remember why I decided to buy at least four bottles of this and place them in the cellar. It must have shown promise on release. Either that, or I found it at a ridiculously low price and made an impulse purchase. It’s been known to happen. Anyway, here we are eight years later and I think it’s time I checked on its progress. Still relatively pale in colour, showing hints of richer hay in amongst the fresh green hues. Mercifully, not corked. Subtle aromas of sharp citrus with a touch of the aged honey character that one anticipates in an aged Hunter Semillon. But it’s hardly a full-blown aged aroma profile. The palate is disappointingly dilute, and I don’t know whether the wine is going through a “phase,” or if it lacks sufficient intensity of flavour to become a satisfying mature style. Entry shows remnants of the spritzy acidity of a young Hunter Semillon, but this quickly trails off to a smoother, slightly waxy mouthfeel. Again, there are hints of the aged flavour profile; honey, lanolin, beeswax, etc; but there’s also easygoing citrus attributable to an easygoing youth. It’s all attractive enough, but somehow watery too, and I found myself reaching for flavour but never getting enough to feel satisfied. I’m not sure if I’ll bother leaving the rest of the stash to mature further. Well, maybe one as an experiment. The rest, I’ll drink soonish and enjoy what is an easy quaffing style that doesn’t ask a lot of the drinker (and doesn’t give too much in return).BrokenwoodPrice: $A20ishClosure: CorkDate tasted: June 2008

Having tasted a couple of other current vintage Private Bin whites in previous weeks, I was interested to see how the flagship Vat 1 fared in 2007. The Belford and Stevens wines seemed broader and more approachable than usual. Very pale with excellent clarity. The nose is an interesting mixture of high toned, almost powdery citrus fruit with waxed pears and more generous tropical notes. Good complexity. It’s quite expressive and certainly attractive; whether it’s especially “typical” is another question. The entry is gentle and builds, both structurally and in terms of intensity, towards the mid-palate. Here we have a forward mix of lemon/lime notes with hints of the tropical fruit shown on the nose. Acidity is certainly lively and it provides really good flow through the palate, but stops short of the sort of searingly intense structure seen in Hunter Semillons of a more classical bent. Flavour extends well into the after palate, and the wine’s length is extremely impressive.Rather than criticise this wine for what it isn’t, I’ll celebrate its pleasures: here we have an approachable, sophisticated young wine of good structure and length. As it sat in the glass, I could detect hints of the honeyed pleasure to come, but I’d say this is a medium term cellaring proposition at most — nothing should stop you enjoying this wine now.Tyrrell’sPrice: $A35Closure: StelvinDate tasted: February 2008

One of the lovely things about Hunter Semillon is that it’s tremendously revealing of vintage conditions and site, something it has in common with Riesling. It’s interesting to compare this single vineyard wine with the

I keep most of my wine in storage in Sydney. As I am in Brisbane, this means (embarrassingly) regular shipments to the Sunshine State to replenish local stocks. The upside of this is that I get to put together mixed dozens from cellar stock, a task that generates some excitement whenever I’m called upon to perform it. It’s a bit like online shopping without the bill (of course, this a ridiculous way of looking at it, as I’ve already been slugged for the wine months, perhaps years, prior). Anyway, the point of this rambling is that I haven’t been drinking much Hunter Semillon of late, which is totally uncharacteristic. To remedy this, I made sure to include a couple of recent releases in my latest “aid drop” (as I like to think of my wine shipments), the first of which I am sitting down to this evening.

I’m a big fan of the Tyrrell’s Semillon portfolio, and enjoy the Stevens, Vat 18 and Vat 1 examples with satisfying regularity. I’ve also enjoyed the Lost Block Semillon in the past, not least for its more affordable price. Picked up a bottle of the 2007 at the local bottlo and cracked it tonight to have with dinner.

These were on special at cellar door a year or so back — apparently there’s an issue with sticking corks. No such problem last night; in fact, the cork came out a little too easily and was quite wet. There were signs of leakage under the capsule, so I was prepared for the worst.

I remember having a bottle of the 1995 Lovedale some years ago and finding it at an excellent stage of its development. Gloriously waxy mouthfeel, flavours of lanolin and honey, just gorgeous. What’s amazing about the 1996 is how relatively undeveloped it is, at over ten years of age.

On the nose, toasty notes betray some bottle age, along with hints of sweet honey, and that peculiar cork (as opposed to “corked”) flavour that a lot of aged Semillons have. Relatively reserved, but complex and beautiful. The wine’s entry sizzles with spritzy CO₂ and leads to a focused mid-palate of delicious, complex flavours that echo the nose. More toast, caramel and delicate honeyed notes sit alongside residual signs of the wine’s youthful citrus flavours. It has the beginnings of that distinctive waxy mouthfeel that so pleased my palate with the 1995 wine. The wine’s sweet, aged flavours linger with satisfying persistence.

Acid, though, remains a defining feature of this wine’s structure and it is still a fairly dominant presence. I can only imagine what this wine was like as a youngster. I prefer to drink aged Semillons in the full flower of their maturity, and am eager to experience this wine again in a few years’ time, when the aged flavours will, I hope, display greater intensity and complexity.

McWilliams Mount Pleasant
Price: $A30
Closure: Cork
Date tasted: November 2007