Elderton Command Shiraz 2004 Saturday, May 17 2008
Tasting Notes and Australia and Barossa Valley and Variety and Red and shiraz et al
I’d argue that this wine would be significantly better with a whole lot less oak as the fruit is beautiful and needs to be heard more clearly. Nevertheless, after four days of being open it showed no sign of tiring, and the oak slunk off into the background like a noisy bore at a party that finally gets the message, which surely augurs well for future festivities.
Fresh and minty with a mix of black and blue fruits, aniseed and a double shot of toasty espresso oak. On the palate blue fruits, Barossa coal, spice, milk chocolate, aniseed and plenty of toasty savoury coffee oak - sweet fruit and savoury oak. It has magnificent ultra fine tannins married to fruit of outstanding purity and freshness that’s currently submerged under a blanket of toasty oak. Very long finish. It needs a lot of time to come together and the points are for then, not now.
Rated : 94 Points
Tasted : May08
Alcohol : 14.5%
Price : $90
Closure : Screwcap
Drink : 2015 - 2025+
Source : Winery Sample
Visit winery website
Print this article
eMail this article
May 17th, 2008 at 8:22 am| Quote |
Gary,
You well know those “toasty” wines never fully integrate and remain a distraction (at best). Am I wrong?
Sound like 96 - 2 for over-oaking.
Jay
May 17th, 2008 at 9:51 am| Quote |
Jay said :
From one who likes Octavius, E&E Black Pepper, Centenary Hill, Magpie Estate Election, Saltram #1, etc., in many years where the winemaker has judged it correctly I would say you are dead wrong.
The fact that they are still made and sell at quite high prices means there must be enough people who either don’t agree with you or are buying on price to show off or are drinking them way too young.
The fact that there are not all that many of them probably indicates there are a lot of people who agree with you.
BTW, I make a distinction between “toasty” and “charry” in oak flavours and most Barossa makers we’ve spoken to over the past few years have backed right away from high-toast oak.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:27 am| Quote |
Brian, that’s completely fair and well-reasoned and I’m not going to disagree … it’s a pure palate thing and I wrote a leading question to my shame!
But personally I’m finding that a lot of top shiraz which have fantastic french oak treatment (RWT 99 and WB Platinum 02 for example) are still somewhat over-oaked for my taste.
Having said that, commercially I believe that a lot of non-winegeeks *expect* a big wallop of oak when spending $50 or more … and feel short changed when they do not get it …
And despite the fact that I’d prefer to see a lot less oak in Oz Shiraz I suspect it might actually be commercial suicide for the top-end to go down that path as very few Syrah-based wines other then the very top Rhones perhaps have the fruit richness to cope with the level of oak thrown at the wines you have mentioned (although in some cases I suspect this is being slowly reduced?)
Brian - can you give me an example of a high-toast wine (and vintage) which has fully (to your taste) integrated. I’ll track it down and have a look. Maybe a 98 as 96s are hard to get in the UK now?
Cheers — Jay
May 18th, 2008 at 10:07 am| Quote |
Jay said :
Jay, you would probably still find many of these too oaky, but the ones I’ve enjoyed fairly recently include:
E&E Black Pepper 98
Fox Creek Reserve Shiraz 98
Langmeil Freedom 98 (avoid the 99, I’ve not had a good one)
Mitchelton Print 98
Peter Lehmann Eight Songs 98
Rosemount Balmoral Syrah 98
Wolf Blass Classic (Brown Label) Shiraz 98
I don’t know how the Elderton Command 98, Octavius 98 or Woodstock The Stocks 98 are going, but I’m due to try them soon.
That’s about it for “oak monsters” from 98 in my cellar, which might surprise some people.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pm| Quote |
“It needs a lot of time to come together and the points are for then, not now.”
Wow Gary, Seeing you can tell me what it’s like in 10 years, it shouldn’t be too hard to give me this weeks Powerball numbers.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:34 pm| Quote |
Seven even.
32 10 06 28 17 and 38 is the Powerball number.
GW
May 21st, 2008 at 6:05 pm| Quote |
Gary, looking for a similar style to octavius, have some 02 occy, does the elderton command 04 come close?
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 am| Quote |
Not had Octavius since the 1990 vintage (last year) but I would imagine similarities. I have the 2004 Octavius coming next week (I think).
GW
June 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am| Quote |
Well Gary, Jay and others, I decided to purchase the command 04, and I must say, being an octavius lover - this comes close! I think the wine makers have done a great job perfecting the complex fruit flavours to integrate with the french and american, most of which i suspect was not new. Personally, I think the careful use of oak in this wine will only come to the fore in about twenty years when the wine starts to peak!
The fruit is there to carry it.
2.8 for looks, 6.5 for nose, 9 for taste = 18.3 out of 20 - The nose needs to settle down and it needs time in the cellar
June 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am| Quote |
Gary, I nearly forgot, you mentioned screwcap closure - my dozen have corks - do you know why this is?
June 5th, 2008 at 11:49 am| Quote |
Dunno. Presume they did some cork for export/and local.
GW
July 17th, 2008 at 11:03 am| Quote |
Is using 100% new oak just some sort of standard practice for producers’ flagship shiraz? Would there be a consequence of using a lot less oak? I’ve tasted a lot of wine where the oak flavour dominates and deducts from a wine but never where overt fruit flavours annoyed me..
what would be the consequence of maturing this wine in say, a steel vat (aside from reduced oak flavour and possibly complexity)?
July 17th, 2008 at 11:19 am| Quote |
If it’s in balance then the oak is a good flavour and structural component and may be advantageous to the wine as it ages - if the fruit is not good enough then the oak will dominate later but should not in a good wine. There are low oak styles of Shiraz (such as St Henri) but it does not really work with Cabernet (for example which needs at least some amount of good oak) whereas Chateauneuf du Pape don’t really need any new wood (or not much to my mind). The stainless steel would make for a bit an ungiving style, most likely not as ageworthy. It’s the slow intake of oxygen (and flavour + tannin) that any sort of wood (old or new) provides that’s the good bit. That’s a very quick summary of a complex process..and I’m not a winemaker and a long way from being authoritative on technical issues.
GW
July 17th, 2008 at 6:35 pm| Quote |
So old wood such St Henri still imparts tannin?
I asked a wine maker what the purpose of ageing in such large wooden vats for St henri would be, he said the surface area to volume ratio of the wood/juice (hence porosity/O2 exposure) would be far less than in barrels, and therefore it would have far less oxidation in the maturation process. He said the resultant wine after years in bottle is far deeper and redder in colour than a barrel aged wine which would go more brown/tawny at the rim quicker (he was comparing it to grange)
So could one make a budget St henri by maturing the wine in a big stainless steel vat, putting a couple of oak staves in there and also using a bit of micro-oxygenation technology? (This is a secret dream of mine)
is this true in your experience?
July 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm| Quote |
oops.. the “is this true in your experience?” question was supposed to be for the Grange Vs St Henri ageing colour, not my budget St Henri dream
July 17th, 2008 at 6:41 pm| Quote |
Old wood still leaches tannin - just not as much. I was more saying that it’s the maturation process in wood (old or new) that’s important.
I think they key to St Henri is the quality of the fruit - it is selected to be in St Henri specifically. Your recipe sounds more like it might deliver a fine Lindemans Bin 50.
Probably better to ask a winemaker these questions.
GW