Warwick Estate, Trilogy, 2009

Regular readers will know my interest in South African wines seems never-ending and that I am fortunate enough to have a good supplier nearby, so I have an almost limitless stock of the things. I gave Warwick a go based on positive comments by various distinguished boozers (the boozerati, perhaps?) and on favourable reviews by characters such as John Platter who, love him or hate him, is seen by many as the Parker of South Africa. His list of the Top 100 South African wines consistently dominates the marketing of SA wine - although people often criticise it for only plumping for already-established wines, leaving smaller vineyards largely to themselves.

Another, more superficial reason for choosing Warwick Trilogy is that I rather like the name and the bottle shape. At £20-24 it's not overly expensive and something you can cheerfully share with some friends without worrying about the bank. Might do a post on how to run successful tastings/wine events sometime, as they're a rather good way of getting into wine.

Anyway - onto the wine. Decanted for 2 hours then re-tasted after 4.

Nose: Typical Bordeaux at first - pencil shavings, graphite and cedar with an almost earthy texture to the nose. Tobacco, pepper and dark chocolate coming in from time to time, with the chocolate starting to build its intensity. Dollop of cassis in there. Peculiarly it's a rather light nose, despite the strong-seeming flavours in there. Everything is quite soft and gentle and it took some teasing to get into it. The dark chocolate has developed into a hint of chili and has a bit of bite to it. On the re-taste the nose had become much more opulent and jammy, but there was still a hefty dose of pepper in there.

Palate: Largely as above, but without the pencil shavings. The coffee is more intense and the cassis is more noticeable, but not exactly prominent. On the re-taste it was noticeably jammier, but still suffered from the slightly harsh/sharp coffee and dark chocolate. I rather wish I'd been able to decant this for longer as I think it was going really exciting places.

Body: Remarkably it was medium-light. There's plenty of tannin but there's no mouth-coating blast sense to this and it's certainly not overpowering. Rather well poised I thought - a nice weight in harmony with the clear flavours. Nice and smooth (before the tannic hit).

Finish: Quite austere and drying. Not terribly long, either. Not unpleasant, but not exactly one to write home about.

Conclusion: A nice wine, but perhaps unremarkable in some respects? I like the chocolatey-ness (almost like eating cocoa nibs - the intensity and sharpness was very interesting) but at the same time I was hoping for just a touch more fruit. I mentioned my regret that I didn't leave this out for longer, and I suspect I would have been rewarded if I had. Essentially, it tastes rather like classic claret but a little bit more accessible (especially at this age). Definitely worth a try purely to see if the construction is something you like or don't. I will try it again one day.

Points: 85/6 (note to new readers - I prefer to use a slightly broader scale than the traditional 85-100 used by most 100 point markers. By way of explanation, 85/6 is a perfectly respectable wine. Not one I would rush to put in my cellar, but one I would happily buy and drink again.)

Welmoed Cabernet Sauvignon 2010, Stellenbosch

Time for something a little different. While I generally focus on mid-range wines, sometimes I come across a table wine that's so good it deserves an honourable mention. Welmoed is one of those wines. At a bargain-basement £7.50 (or £5 each if you buy 2+ from Majestic), it's a real blockbuster and a massive crowd-pleaser to boot. Simple enough to enjoy on with food, it also has a degree of interest that will please the thinker-drinkers among us.

As with many South African cabernet sauvignons, it has a meatiness and smoky spiciness that appeals and is something that people may not necessarily have tried, meaning they are often under-appreciated.

Nose: Peppery and savoury. There's definite hints of tabasco in there as the sharpness comes through. The pepper strengthens and is joined by chilli before too long. Quite intense. Touch of smoke to smooth the edges. Tobacco.

Palate: Heavy fruit, spice, chilli and cheese (?!). The red fruit is jammy and intense, and well supported by the smoke and cedary tobacco. Classic cigar-box cabernet sauvignon, here. A decent development of flavour within the palate, but not overly complex. Surprisingly pleasant served slightly chilled. I would certainly recommend brining one up from the cellar and drinking it straight away and seeing how it evolves as it begins to warm.

Body: Remarkably light body given the intensity and weight of the nose and palate. Could perhaps even be called delicate, at a push.

Finish: The spice remains strong while a dollop of sweetness comes through at the end to clear the palate and leave a pleasant after-taste.

Conclusion: At £5 you really cannot go wrong with this fellow. With a good range of flavours which provide both enjoyment and interest, it's a perfect wine for any red meat and would go particularly well with a lump of grilled, peppered steak. I have since bought a case, and would heartily recommend you do the same.

Points: 84

Morgenster 2004, Flagship Red

My new 'current favourite': whilst not actually called their 'flagship red', Morgenster 2004 is the second vintage of Morgenster Estate's flagship wine and is a classic example of South Africa's take on Bordeaux blends. With solid ageing potential, it is at the higher end of pricing but the 2004 is less costly (at around £30) than other vintages. Morgenster made it clear that they were not intending to make a 'showy' wine, but were rather looking for elegance, quality and balance.

While everyone loves a little bit of marketing and some gimmicks - after all, which winery isn't trying to make a supremely balanced and elegant Bordeaux-style red? - it's important to get through them. This is one of the advantages of tasting wines blind (I use some rather fun tasting sleeves which I shall post up in due course) as it allows the tasters to judge the wine itself, rather than the bottle, labelling, marketing and reputation. This was decanted for 2 hours before drinking and re-tasted at intervals of an hour.

Colour: Being reasonably old, the 2004 has begun to get a hint of tawny at the edges, although not enough for anyone to suggest that this was a seriously old wine.

Nose: Decent vanilla at first showing the oak coming through but then (surprisingly, given the age) a touch of green. Pepper, spices and red berries show the dominance of the Cabernet Sauvignon and there's a leathery edge to things. There's a good level of complexity in the nose and it's strong enough to allow most people to pick up the aromas whilst also showing off a good level of balance. The greenness faded after a further hour. Fruit began to emerge at the 2 hour mark and was more pronounced after 3 or 4 - which also saw the end of the savoury notes, which faded away to be replaced by a punchy dose of white pepper.

Palate: Somewhat muted on the first taste: a hint of vanilla and cedarwood with fruit tickling the back of the tongue. Slightly closed and grassy. After hour 3 this changed entirely. It was sweet and surprisingly light - a hint of astringency that faded away by the fourth hour - and the pepper and cedar remaining at the back end of things. There was a touch of earthiness. An extremely smooth-drinker that greatly impressed - perhaps the marketing isn't all rubbish? Elegance, balance and a distinctly Bordelais style. Nice.

Body: Thin at first, then opened up admirably after hour 3/4. Fairly high tannins and certainly a decent slog of alcohol in there.

Finish: Could be that of a top Bordeaux. All flavours in perfect symmetry with a clear direction and decent length. Supreme body and excellent balance.

Conclusion: Very nice wine - but it needed a LOT of decanting. I would have been hard-pressed to give it above 84 after the first two hours after decanting but it shot up to high 80s after 3 hours and touched 90 after that. If I were to serve it at a dinner I'd aim for serving it at the 3 hour mark, as its strength would be present for the early stages of the meal but then would soften off and become a much easier drinker as the evening progressed. One slightly sad point is that a search of Morgenster Estate's website comes up with 'account suspended' page. Whilst I hope this is only a technical problem, it may be worth buying a bottle or two while you still can.

Points: 90.

Cape Mentelle Cabernet Merlot 2010

I bought Cape Mentelle on the strong recommendation of various employees of various wine shops and have now tried it on a couple of occasions. I rather like Aussie wines at this price point (£12-15) as they often have great character and are readily accessible, meaning they're a good one to use to introduce a friend/group to wine tasting. With strong flavours that are often comparatively easy to identify along with some occasional subtleties, they nearly always go down well in a blind tasting.

Cape Mentelle is made in Margaret River, in Western Australia. A cool climate, Margaret River is often regarded as one of the top Aussie wine-producing regions, especially for its Cabernet Sauvignons. In due course I will be trying Moss Wood's Cab Sauv, described by Jancis Robinson as 'The Latour of the Margaret River' so I will hopefully be able to build you a picture of the region over the coming weeks or months.

Nose: Immediately obvious are tobacco, cedarwood and some smoke. So far, a very classic Cab Sauv blend. There's fruit at the back of the nose and a hint of pepper. Here's the reason I like these sort of wines as an introduction - plenty of interesting smells that can easily be identified. So far, so good.

Palate: Ah, it's clear we're in Australia now. Lots of rich red fruit hits the palate immediately, with cassis leading the way with some seriously jammy oomph. There is, however, an interesting twist, as the palate suddenly turns dry, with some decent spice and bitterness (coffee, perhaps dark chocolate) coming up to claim the fore. As it develops, the cedar from the nose comes through, clearing off the palate nicely. There's a certain level of astringency to this, but I feel sure that this will fade with some time out of the bottle. Quite a 1-2-3 structure in that the constituent parts are very separate, but this is by no means an unpleasant wine. Eminently drinkable and a crowd pleaser.

Body: I'm sure you can guess from the above that this could only go into the 'full-bodied beast' category, with some serious tannic power to back it up. I wonder if it might be worth leaving it for a year or 3?

Finish: Medium length, fairly basic, but pleasant nonetheless. Nothing worthy of note.

Conclusion: As I noted in the introduction, I'm a fan of this sort of wine. It has good, strong flavours and has clearly been made with a clear purpose in mind. No smoke and mirrors or attempts to beat Bordeaux here, it's Aussie Cab Sauv at its simple best, and it's happy to be it.

Points: 86. At the price, well worth a pop. Interesting enough for a tasting, but would match well with any red meat, ideally a suitably red cut of beef. Yum.

Château Lynch-Moussas, Pauillac, 2006

Back to a more 'classic' wine for this one. Tasted at a mini-Bordeaux tasting that covered Pauillac, Margaux and St Emillion, Lynch-Moussas was well regarded by fellow reviewers, but has been denigrated elsewhere, so was of interest to me. Costing £26, it's hardly a bargain-basement wine, but it's reasonably priced in comparison with many of its compatriots.

I have always liked Bordeaux wines that are more subtle, smooth and structured, as I feel that the New World often does the fruity wines better than France does. This is very much Bordeaux's forté and as such, I rarely buy a Bordeaux when looking for power - I look for finesse, and this wine will be judged by that criterion.
Nose: A nice array of aromas coming through here. Not all are instantly identifiable, but they remain there long enough to be found by a trial and error process. There's vanilla and spice immediately with a hint of perfumed flowers - we thought lilac, but weren't quite sure. Behind the floral aromas there was a touch of woodsmoke and a light hint of strawberry (or perhaps very diluted cassis). A fairly typical Pauillac then, although with an almost Margaux-like perfume.

Palate: Rather lovely, but became less so after a few sips as a touch of astringency came into it. Cherry and red fruits are present and it's extremely smooth although a hint of acidity and spice came into affairs after a short time. It began to change into a sweet and sour taste of raspberry - again, I was unable to find much cassis, which I had expected would be much more prominent, which struck me as a touch odd. That lilac taste came flitting in and out and had one reviewer convinced he was drinking a Margaux. Funnily, on a re-taste an hour or two afterwards, this became a much smoother and more characterful wine. Whilst there still wasn't cassis as such, the fruit was more pronounced, softer and more interesting. Would be lovely with all kinds of food and it seems a well-structured wine.

Body: Medium-bodied, medium alcohol and fairly low tannins and became perhaps a touch thin after drinking a (very small) glass of it.

Finish: A fairly classic finish in that it softens almost imperceptibly but has a reasonable level of development as a dash of fruit makes a late resurgence to remind you to take another sip.

Conclusion: Lynch-Moussas is a reasonably sophisticated wine with an interesting array of aromas (especially the floral ones). Well-balanced and smooth, but without a great deal to really excite, I think this would be excellent with classic roasts. Mint-crusted lamb would suit it ideally. 

Points: 86-87. Nice level of sophistication, but not quite enough to get into the serious points. Drinking now and unlikely to improve in the bottle, is it really worth £26? 

Glenelly Lady May 2008

Hello all, after a brief hiatus due to various work commitments, we're back to South Africa for this post. Glenelly is a South African vineyard with a rather intriguing 'twist'. It's owned by none other than Madame de Lencquesaing, the former owner of the exceptional 'super second' Chateau Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande, who feels South Africa's soils, grapes and climate provide a perfect canvas for Bordeaux-style winemaking. If you have read one or two of my other posts, you'll know it's clear that I also subscribe to this opinion!

As Madame de Lencquesaing's first name is May, the name of this wine provides us with a fairly strong clue as to what to expect. A Bordelais statement in a New terroir, so certainly something different from the usual meaty smokiness that I love so much in South African Cabernet Sauvignon blends. If I remember correctly from the back of the bottle (now in the recycling somewhere in climes unknown), the statue on the front of the bottle is a very young version of Lady May herself! So, onto the wine - decanted for 2 hours and tasted again after 4.

Colour: I felt the need to include a colour section for this wine in particular (as I haven't bothered doing it for other wines so far) because it really is quite extraordinary. I removed the cork and there was almost no colour to it - a rather pale pink that I would associate with Burgundy rather than a heavy Cab Sauv - so I was extremely surprised when I poured out an almost black wine. It is incredibly deep and almost entirely opaque. Quite intriguing that it stained the cork so little. If someone knows how/why this is I would appreciate a comment about it!

Nose: Whoomph. There is an almost overpowering aroma of coffee. There is a hint of hay and barnyard aromas - a slight sourness that perhaps leads into some intensely dark chocolate. Fruit is not overly evident and was not overly evident on later tasting. This, I believe, is where the fact that the wine is so young has had its effect. That's not to say that the nose is closed, as it is certainly not, it is simply that it is currently slightly unbalanced and I look forward to seeing the effect of some time on the bottle (although 10 years may be too long to wait!). There's some real heat in this nose - reminiscent of chilli chocolate (Montezuma Chocolate make it and it's quite intriguing!). In sum: Coffee, hay, dark dark chocolate and some chilli and heat at the end.

Palate: At the first taste I noted massive coffee backed by 'solid' fruit - the fruit, however, was tight and restrained. This, I am sure, is the emphasis of Lady May's Bordelais heritage and a conscious move away from South African style to a more Old World effort. The bitterness of the coffee and dark chocolate definitely comes through near the end, but there isn't harshness to it, so it's not a negative point. On the later tasting (4 hours decanted) I got blackcurrant coming to the fore with the coffee moving to a supporting role (but a rather loud supporting role!). After 5 hours the coffee began to calm down a little, encouraging me to keep trying it.

Body: The body is extremely full and this is definitely a heavy Lady. The tannins are enormous and it's clear from the first smell that this wine has been made with the intention of a long cellaring.

Finish: As above, fading away into more savoury aromas. A hint of leather coming through (perhaps the evolved version of the slightly sour hay and barnyard aromas in the nose?), coffee and a touch of blackcurrant, but it's elusive. 

Conclusion: It must be remembered that this is a VERY young wine and intended to be cellared for a good few years before drinking, so this review will most certainly be coloured by the fact that I am drinking this young. As a result, I find it extremely hard to give it a rating as I don't think it will be a fair analysis. I found this wine extremely interesting, but was it really a wine I would drink? I think that it's only fair to wait for at least another 2 years before drinking and ideally 5 or 10. Given all of the expertise that has gone into it, it's certainly an accomplished wine and it is certainly making a statement. I had a heated debate with a reviewer who referred to this as 'typically South African' that divided the room, but I stand by my view that this is a Bordelais wine residing in a South African terroir. 

Points: Anything from 85-91. 
I would love to hear if anyone else has tried this and what their feelings were! Next time I will do an overnight decant and see what it's like in the morning.

Hochar Père et Fils, Chateau Musar

Hochar Père et Fils is the second wine of the famous Chateau Musar. Musar is a Lebanese wine, established in 1930 by Gaston Hochar and now continued by his sons (hence the name 'Père et Fils'). There is a fabulous story of Serge Hochar, the son currently in charge of wine production, spending an evening during a particularly savage bout of shelling in the Lebanese Civil War (which ran from 1975-1990) tasting one of his finest vintages. Despite pleas to go to a bomb shelter, Serge poured an entire bottle of Chateau Musar 1972 into a glass and spent the subsequent 12 hours tasting it and meticulously noting its development.

As a result, it was with some interest that I bought some of the main label Chateau Musar (still in the cellar, waiting to be drunk) and the second label, Père et Fils, which set me back £12. I am reliably informed that this is produced in a slightly lighter and more accessible style than the full Chateau Musar, so I was excited about the prospect of getting to know the style of wine of this famous Chateau. This was one of the first wines I had properly 'tasted', so it was difficult to articulate some of the flavours.

Nose: The aroma was somewhat unpleasant to my nose. There was a heavy dose of resin (some described it as 'nail polish') which was quite off-putting and which rather dominated the nose. There was also a slightly sour hint of it with citrus (rather rare in a red!) leading some of us to describe the wine as smelling of pear drops.

Palate: A complete contrast to the nose, the palate is light with some slightly musty red fruit and a more restrained version of the pear drops found in the aroma. It balances quite nicely and is certainly dangerously easy to drink. It has a very Middle-Eastern feel to it with dates, figs and spices giving it a slight hint of a Moroccan marketplace (I haven't been to Lebanon, so Morocco will have to do!).

Body: As I had been advised, this was a lighter wine and the body was medium, with pleasantly smooth tannins.

Finish: Very short and fades away almost instantly. This could be a characteristic of the fact that Musar often releases its wines 3-4 years after production to ensure that they are drinkable - meaning they are often of a good age by the time they get to the table. Nothing unpleasant in the finish, so all in all a positive experience.

Conclusion: An enjoyable table wine that is fairly-priced and accessible. Some may be put off by the aroma (I'll have to re-taste to ensure I wasn't tasting a corked one) but the taste was enjoyable. I hope that my Musar 2004 will be in the same vein!

Points: I gave it 6.5+/20 which I think equates to somewhere around 84.

Kanonkop Paul Sauer 2009

As I have tantalisingly put Kanonkop's Paul Sauer 2009 as my current favourite wine, I feel it is only just that I should put up a review to accompany it. Kanonkop (meaning Canon's Hill - from which a warning shot that was fired to alert farmers to the arrival of traders at Cape Town) is regarded as one of South Africa's top wineries.

Kanonkop was inspired by a special offer that caught my eye and has since inspired a love of South African wine that I am yet to shake. Made in a distinctly Bordelais style with a blend of Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc and Merlot (giving it an edge of complexity over the single-grape Kanonkop Cabernet Sauvignon), Kanonkop is an excellent expression of what it is to be a 'proper' South African red.

Decanted for 3 hours before serving (at a later tasting I attempted 1.5, which was clearly too short), the colour was an rich, smoky red. Almost opaque, and interestingly a herald of things to come.

Nose: Kanonkop says 'I'm South African' all over the nose. It has the typical red fruit associated with a blend of this variety, but backed with the smokiness that is so classically South African. Coming in as top notes were blackberry, cherry, plum and some pepper. The more I sniffed, the more I felt the smoke was perhaps tending ever so slightly towards the phenolic aromas of a peated whisky. That is one I'll have to try to find again.

Palate: After 3 hours it was gloriously soft, smooth, fruity and rich. A decent oomph of spice kept it from being cloying and the smokiness gave it a lovely mouth-feel that was both complex and accessible. While I have listed a series of platitudes as regards red wine above, this wine should not be dismissed as basic - the layering and structure of the fruit, spice and smoke means it gives any palate a good run for its money.

Body: As mentioned above, this is an extremely smooth wine considering its full flavours. Tannins are remarkably soft, especially considering the youth of the wine.

Finish: Superb is the only word for it. Every constituent part softens and fades away in a subtle and yet somehow distinct order. It is medium-long and the structure holds perfectly throughout. Most excellent.

Conclusion: A really, really lovely wine. The sort of wine to kindle a love-affair. The quality of blending that one would expect of a Bordeaux combined with real flavour, passion and power. This is certainly one to have with a good braii on the beach (Cape Maclear, Malawi would be my ideal). It's potent and yet sufficiently subtle, complex and structured to stand up to any food without overwhelming it. But why would you bother trying to match it with food? This is magnificent on its own.

Points: 93.

I have since bought a case that will be sitting in my cellar for however long I can resist temptation. Expect to see updates as I check on the developments. It can be bought for around £25-30.