20 Years of Stonewell: A rare opportunity indeed…
Today Steve and I attended one of those tastings that are kind of like a tasting grenade. At the time that you you RSVP you don’t think too much of it other than, “Hey, this could be fun.” But this gig was a little more than “fun”. The sight of having 20 consecutive vintages of one of Australia’s most acclaimed Shiraz wines sitting in glasses in front of you does not go unnoticed. The opportunity to learn and glean something from an event such as this does not go untaken. And not only was it a chance to get a comprehensive look at this icon bottling but it was also an even rarer chance to get a snapshot in time of every vintage in the Barossa Valley since 1987, the first year this bottling was produced.
The background on Peter Lehmann. Peter was the winemaker at Saltram, a Barossa Valley old-timer winery, in the late 70’s. In a familiar scenario, larger corporate concern comes in and buys the winery, but not to produce wine, they instead want to store booze. Thus, the growers who sold grapes to the winery got the ax, leaving 150 farmers out in the cold with nowhere to sell their fruit and no one to make their wine. Old Pete steps in and tells them, you give me the fruit and I’ll make the juice and when I sell the juice you’ll get paid. Not having many options, the growers took Pete up on this offer and the rest, as they say, is history. Lehmann slowly grew the business through the 1980’s, success coming over a period of time as consumers warmed up to the concept of dry red Australian table wines.
Now Pete swings a pretty big stick in the Barossa, with many farmers indebted to him for saving their livelihoods, and
many more signing on since they knew they could trust the guy. He has access every year to the finest fruit from every major sub-region of the Barossa, from which he produces a number of wines, with Stonewell being the cream of the crop. It is 100% Shiraz, 100% Barossa, sourced from mostly 100+ year old vines (they send cuttings back to the Rhone all the time since phylloxera wiped these clonal selections out in France) but also from whichever growers ‘bring the drama’ vintage to vintage. A few changes have taken place over the years, including a little less time in wood and more French oak finding its way into the program. But the wine is still aged five years before release (a la Grange and Hill of Grace) and, from what this tasting unequivically demonstrated, capable of extended aging (and improvement) in the bottle.
The wines: We won’t go into wine hues, as all of these showed excellent color for their respective ages. It’s Barossa Shiraz, it’s dark, Got it?
1987- Some sweet saddle, with plum, Asian spice and cinnamon. Tawnied a touch but still fresh, medium weight, drying out some but overall a darn fine drink. Good wine from a solid vintage holding up well.
1988- Brighter, fresher, textbook, with riper tannin and a little less obvious fruit but more balance. More savory in style, black pepper. A touch better than the ‘87…
1989- More Barossa boot polish here! A little more of that cherry cough drop edge to the plummy, curranty fruit. Longer, with lingering coffee flavors on the finish
1990- Bottle was shot, unfortunately.
1991- More youthful, inviting warm, berry compote and sweet leather nose. Thicker, richer, definite turn in style. In a really good place. Delicious! Nice wine from a classic vintage that Lehmann prefers to 1990.
1992- This is together. More restrained, some herb and mineral. Yummy, very complete. A real knock it back style. Really engaging with a savory finish. Was the favorite thus far on the first go-round but the 1991 slid past on on a second look. Good wine from a mixed vintage where the top wines have held up surprisingly well.
1993- Dry Port. Obviously a warmer year? Green and stewed at the same time. Not a top effort.
1994- Two bottles of this one floating around that were quite different. The good one was classic 1994, an evolved medium to full-bodied effort with good fruit, easy texture, a bit of weight and clean lines. Considered a pretty good (not great) vintage on release and this wine showed it.
1995- Powerful, rich, but the tannins are drying and the wine doesn’t show the necessary balance to increase the old style points. Dark fruits, some coffee, more pepper and healing herbs creeping in.
1996- First hint of mint, bit of a sledgehammer. Rich, also pretty chewy. Packs a punch, lots of blackberry and cocoa flavors. Better than the 1995 but the slightly drying tannins still bug a little. All in all, an excellent wine from an outstanding year.
1997- A bit porty again (though not as much as the ‘93). Also shows some complexing green notes (funny how the portier wines show greener) that don’t detract from the engaging plum and berry fruit. Very seamless, the most traditionally Barossa “slippery” of the bunch. Too easy to drink, not a great one, merely a good one. But I wouldn’t turn down a glass.
1998- Winner winner chicken dinner. There’s a reason why ‘98 is considered one of the Barossa’s finest vintages. This wine is so complete. Powerfully built, but the tannins are ripe and melty. The wine’s expressive, super-rich, falling just on the right side of porty. Like the 1996, still young. Best wine on the table? Probably.
1999- The sneak attack. Following the 1998, this one had its work cut out for it and still availed itself nicely. Lots of fruit, fleshy, but higher-toned and more restrained than the ‘98. Cooler customer in a more classic, old school barossa style. But that’s not a bad thing. Perfectly enjoyable, and one of the more together wines on the table.
2000- In hindsight this one probably shouldn’t have been made. but we can say that about many a wine from the 2000 vintage, argubaly the worst this taster has ever worked through. The signature 2000 diffuse, herbal tea leaf quality weaves its way through all the wines, leaving a short, uncharming, unstructured ‘bleh’. They did what they could but this harvest was DOA.
2001- Always a favorite vintage of ours and this wine did nothing to tarnish that love. Strapping black fruit flavors are the name of the game here. Reticent at first, but just a block of fruit on the palate. Impressive, with a violets and blackberry fruit profile that can’t be ignored, followed up with suave, plentiful tannins. A keeper and one of the faves.
2002- This wine has it all, deep, layered fruit, sweet tannins, cocoa-like texture…and a huge blast of mint. Steve isn’t a mint guy, and I can take it in small, complexing doses, but this wine smells and tastes like a spa treatment. Which is a shame because it aces the compulsories. This was a great vintage in the Barossa and Lehmann loves this wine, but the eucalypt character is a bit too prominent for us. Outstanding wine if it were mint-free.
2003-This one brought out the wine geek tasting notes. Tuscan bread soup? Salted plums? We usually don’t go there but this wine had us scratching our heads. Chalky tannins (Lehmann likes chalkier tannins) and a savory, beefy character lead the way. Not our cup of bouillon.
2004- Another winemaking shift? This one is jammier, with a confectionary, new school edge to the black fruit flavors. One side of the coin says hedonistic the other says gooey, but with a substantially tannic kick. We were polarized on this one, honestly. Steve dug it more than me but hey, in the grand scheme of things this wine does not suck.
2005- From a cooler year with a blast of heat at the end. Savory, smoky, leathery, Frenchy, tangy. Fun to taste but I don’t know if this is ‘classic Stonewell’ … pretty long on the finish, no lack of concentration, just perhaps maybe some focus.
2006- Much better, deep black fruit like the 2004 but more punch and focus. Impressive! We’ll have to wait until 2011 for this one. Could be the best since the 2001 (or, if you’re Lehmann, that minty 2002). Still super-young.
Our faves? Steve had his Top Five as the 2001,1998, 1992, 2004 and 1991, with an honorbale mention for ‘99 and ‘06. Me? I had the ‘98 first up, followed by the sneaky ‘99, the 2001, 2006 and 1989, with warm fuzzies for the 1991 and 1992. In general there was great consistency in quality, which what makes Australia Australia just like Napa is Napa. Seven out of 10 great years is more fun to taste than, say, Bordeaux’s four out of ten though, admittedly, the highs might be alittle higher when you’re talking Bordeaux. In the end, we hope a few of sommeliers in attendance and French wine faithful caught a glimpse of the ageability of Barossa Shiraz wines, as many other producers besides Lehmann can stand a decade in the cellar and come out smelling like a rose. We hope the versatility of the wines tasted at today’s event did not go unnoticed.
On a broader note, it speaks volumes against the accusations from a lot of folksout there that Aussie Shiraz is monolithic and monochromatic. These wines were respectful of their vintages, and weren’t overtly ‘made’. One shouldn’t confuse something like Rosemount Red Diamond Shiraz with soulful, purposeful efforts that show terroir and vaiation. Finally it is important to note taht out of twenty vintages (probably the last time they’ll be able to do this gig from the ‘beginning’, only a couple were ‘over the top’ and we suspect those instances were vintage related. Thanks again to the Hess people and Lehmann people for putting this gig on and props to XIV on Sunset for running a pro show.
