Leasingham Classic Clare Sparkling Shiraz 1998
In dispatches Seppelt’s Show Reserve Sparkling Shiraz is usually mentioned alongside Rockford Black Shiraz and Primo Estate’s Joseph as the top-ranked Aussie sparkling reds. On the few occasions that I’ve lined them all up though Leasingham’s Classic Clare has a disarming ability to knock them all over - particularly the outstanding 1994 version. I’ve reviewed the 1995 but I suspect that I’ve missed a couple of releases - I’ll try to chase up both the 1996 and 1997 at some stage. I’m not sure if there is a 1999 but as with Seppelt’s Show Reserve, I suspect that the Leasingham Classic Clare sparkling will soon jump a few vintages (for the same reasons as Seppelt) and likely become a fresher release. The days of premium sparkling reds being released as ten year olds are slowly disappearing.
You need a subscription to The Wine Front to see this part of the post
Price : $55Closure : Cork
Drink : 2008 - 2013
Visit winery website
Print this article
Email this article
Comments
15 Responses to “Leasingham Classic Clare Sparkling Shiraz 1998”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Contributors
-
Double Take
Next Double Take :
Howard Park Abercrombie Cabernet Sauvignon 2005
The bottle of this at the NWS was scored at 39.0, I think due to perceived brett, although it won Top Gold in the same class the prior year with a different panel. The 97 scored a Bronze, lat year it was rejected for brett. Judges comments on the class: “Sparkling red production may not be the best way to hide wines with Brett”.
The next vintage after 98 entered in the show is the 2002 (Bronze). No Golds were awarded to any sparkling red, the best was Bronze, this panel seemed to moving away from the sweeter/oaky Leasingham style the prior panel liked more last year.
Which goes a long way to show what a crap-shoot the show system is. That comment about ‘hiding wines with brett’ is appalling - a cheap shot that verges on suggesting winemaker fraud.
I think judges should either issue no class-wide comments at all, or if they are going to comment, the one or two line comment needs to be abandoned in favour of more length. Especially for small classes, a comment like the above risks tarring all entered wines with the same brush. Lazy generalities like “A mixed class, some good wines, but many obvious winemaking faults” that crop up all over the public show records should just not be on.
My suggestion is that Australian wine shows should subscribe to a common set of quality principles for handling entries, judging, faults and public disclosure. Shows that fail to meet these standards should be severed from the feed-in systems that link shows to the national show, and both judges and wineries should boycott sub-standard shows.
Agree with a lot of what you have written Paul. I’ll take individual reviews by writers I am familiar with over show results (which, by default, form a collective and forced opinion with an “absent” author). At times the show system really seems to resemble the academic industry I used to work within in that I think it just exists to perpetuate itself and further oppurtunities for employment within it.
Having said that, I believe that many people participate with the best of intentions and I really can see some role for shows when it comes to publicity and awareness of regions, particularly new ones. And, as noted in this forum, they also provide some assistance to those in the industry in terms of a getting a broad overview. Perhaps, as you suggest, maybe a ltttle too broad.
Some interesting facts and thoughts above.
Personally I think that this Leasingham wine does have brett, but I still think it’s a good wine and that most sparkling red drinkers would like it.
Wine shows have become inherent fault-finding exercises (by talented judges who are far better at finding faults than I am) - quality is assessed only after a wine has been deemed “fault”-free - so I can understand how and why this wine would have been caned, but wine show judging and reviewing wines for drinkers/consumers are two quite separate things.
I had a 2001 Yering Station wine on Friday night that was quite bretty but also quite excellent - but I’ll write about that separately.
And while I agree with Paul above, I think that sparkling red is a style particularly susceptible brett … so I can see where the judges comments were coming from.
CM
I contacted Seppelt recently enquiring when Seppelt’s Show Reserve Sparkling Shiraz would be released again and was informed that htere wer no plans to release a Vintage susequent to the 1994.
There was a 2004 Seppelt Sparkling Shiraz entered as “Show Reserve” at the NWS, it failed to gain any medal.
Peter - they are releasing vintages of the SRSS post the 1994. There’s just a big gap from there on. The wines were made but once Australia became aware of brettanomyces, their days were numbered … so the decision was made not to release them, or at least not under the SRSS banner.
I’m going to Seppelt this week and doing a tasting of a number of vintages of SRSS from the 80s and early 90s. It’ll be a good chance to chat with them about all this, and see where their plans are at.
CM
I just checked through my emails and noticed that there is mention of a 2004 Seppelt SRSS … as Mr Bigot mentions above. So there is another on the cards …
CM
Ric and I tasted one of the hand-disgorged 2004 SRSS samples when at Gt Western in February. The TN is in TORB’s February Victorian Tour Diary Ch. One. We thought it was very good, if there was brett it was pretty low level.
I recently opened a 1985 Seppelt Show Reserve Sparkling Shiraz, and yes, it was rather bretty. I have had a few of these over the years, and it seems as though the brett has become more evident with age (or maybe I have become more evident of brett with age).
DC
I think the moral of the story is that dosage/residual sugar in reds is almost as silly as putting bubbles in it
GW
Nothing like a nice cold bubbly red on a hot day. Especially with the Christmas turkey.
I’d rather have white with Turkey…or cooling Champagne.
GW
I’m guessing that long barrel age times is the main risk factor for brett with NV sparkling red. Usually, the wines would be dry while in barrel, but perhaps with brett sneaking in, which would then get a kick along during dosage for tirage bottling and then dosage at expedition liquering, unless the brett had been dealt with earlier by maintaining ph and filtration.
I’d like to know more about how NV sparkling red back vintages are managed by those that keep stocks of aged base wines.
Perhaps a Campbell visit to Peter Rumball?
Not necessarily so keen on visiting Peter Rumball.
However I’m guessing that keeping tabs on brett for sparkling reds is similar to the way it’s done with still reds. i.e. sulphur and hygiene.
The problem with sparkling reds is that the winemaking practices of the mid to late 1990s are still playing themselves out, because of the long lead time to market of either the base wine or the vintage release.
If you added sugar/dosage to the still reds of the mid to late 1990s you’d have little brett factories in a lot of cases.
CM