Saxenburg selection 19 June 2006

• Private Collection Chardonnay 2005 R52.13  14

• Private Collection Pinotage 2003 R78  16

• Private Collection Merlot 2003 R88  15

• Private Collection Cabernet Sauvignon 2003 R125  14.5

• Private Collection Shiraz 2003 R102  15.5

• Limited Release Shiraz Select ‘SSS’ 2002 R427.50  16

It must have been the rain – the fact that it no doubt contributed to the hold-ups on the highway between Somerset West and our tasting venue, the fact that I got drenched in a downpour making my way from the car to the front door, the fact that a bottle of Vergenoegd destined for the tasting slipped from my wet grip and smashed on the tar – that dampened enthusiasm for many of the wines we tasted for new releases this month (June 2006).

But, as always, to give the wines the benefit of the doubt we did as we always do and took home those bottles we are responsible for finally rating, to retaste over a day or two, including with food – to determine if our hearts would soften, our palates perk up and – in my case – if Saxenburg showed its sass!

One more than half a dozen wines were lined up, only one not from the Private Collection range, slotting in below the Limited Release range but above the Guinea Fowl and Concept winees. (There’s also a handful of wines called Selection Famille, which ranks alongside the Private Collection.)

The forthright Nico van der Merwe (left)has been winemaker here since 1990; he was joined in 2005 by assistant Edwin Grace. Nico works a second harvest in the south of France, where the wine is bottled as Chateau Capion, and since 1999 a ‘second shift’ locally making the Nico van der Merwe Wines comprising Mas Nicholas, the Robert Alexander range and the Nicolas van der Merwe range. With so many balls in the air, you’d think he’d drop one or two but ‘Pepe’, as he is affectionately known by winemaker and winelover friends, is quite a juggler.

The Merlot improved the most with a few days’ rest. It retained all its mineral, earthy notes and subtle spices on the nose but attained a greater harmony on the palate. Viticulturally, this ‘wine’ gets practically no help – it is trellised but there’s no irrigation, no fertiliser and a strict ‘green harvest’ to limit yields to 3 tons/hectare. What impressed most of us was its structure: complemented by French oak (less than half new barrels), its tannins were elegant and refined, its acid refreshing and its fruit delicate as opposed to rich. TJ found it a tad ‘thick’, though, and the 14% alcoholic obtrusive. This wine should improve with about four years’ cellaring (we don’t think it has the concentration to benefit from longer) but is soft enough to be enjoyed now.

The same oak and viticulture regimes were applied to the Cabernet Sauvignon, although it had a heavy summer prune rather than a vendage vert. The wine is a blend of three different clones from different vineyards, albeit of similar soil types. It had a rich, luxurious colour; discreet spice, cassis and mint bouquet; and firmly tannic but balanced palate. IM thought our score a little ungenerous. Unfortunately, the astringent bitterness we tasted initially was still present when I sampled it a few days later but the alcohol, which at 14 percent had felt punishing, was now integrated with the fruit. Too tight and austere to drink now, this will do better in a couple of years alongside a hearty beef and vegetable stew.

The Pinotage, while exhibiting many old-fashioned acetone and smoky rubber aromas and flavours, was far from ‘dikvoet’, as so many with similar profiles are. The 14-year-old vines had produced lots of dark, brooding fruit, and on the palate there was a cleansing, bitter cherry acidity. It was pleasantly restrained at only 13.5 percent alcohol and a subtle vanilla sweetness courtesy of 12 months in mostly American oak (20 percent new) added complexity not confection. Nicely integrated and beautifully dry, it could be drunk now but would come to no harm if cellared for a few years.

Nico also uses American oak in his shiraz-based wines. In the case of the Private Collection (PC) version it accounts for 80 percent of the oak regime (30 percent first fill) but in his top-of-the-range SSS (Saxenburg Shiraz Select) the split is French:American 50:50. The major difference is that on the SSS it’s all new oak.

Interestingly, the SSS vines are a few years younger than those in the PC; older vines often yield greater concentration so many winemakers reserve their older vineyards for their premium blends. The intensity for the SSS fruit therefore comes from the soils and the clones themselves – the soils are poor, limiting production and concentrating the fruit; the clones are a mix of new and old, selected for complexity.

In the cellar, the wines are treated in a similar fashion; for example, they both macerate on the skins for around three weeks after the alcoholic fermentation is complete. One of the big differences is that the PC wine undergoes malolactic fermentation in tank before being transferred to oak for 12 months maturation.  Malolactic fermentation on the SSS is in barrel, where it remains for a total of 15 months.

While the SSS was more concentrated and powerful, we found many similarities between the wines. They both had an intense ruby colour; lavender and peppery nose with crunchy red fruit flavours and bright acidities on the palate.

For the SSS, its more intense oak regime had taken its toll. We felt the wood aromas and flavours obscured much of what the wine had to offer. Our conclusion was that it relied too much on oak for its distinction and needed time for the fruit to come to the fore and the wood flavours to soften. The PC was the better balanced wine with fruit, oak, acidity and alcohol nicely knit but it lacked depth and concentration. We felt it under-delivered on its price point, though.

As for the whites: our one sample of the Sauvignon Blanc 2005 was corked. The Chardonnay – on paper – showed promise. Unirrigated vines, low yields, whole bunch pressed fruit should provide the concentration; and it appeared as if the oak treatment had been judicious. Instead of lashings of new oak, this had been fermented and matured for a total of 12 months but only 40 percent first fill. In the glass, this translated into a gleaming, bright straw colour; buttery, lime juice nose and creamy, nutty palate. It was long, round, weighty, and the oak was integrated. That said, we felt it didn’t quite hang together, and that the sweet impression, from 14 percent alcohol plus 3.6 grams per litre of sugar, didn’t do it any favours.

— Cathy van Zyl

Scoring

Grape’s interpretation of the 20-point rating scale

0-10: Faulty or just unpleasant

10.5-11.5: Dull, uninteresting but sound

12-13.5: Pleasant enough, decent but basically simple quaffer

14-15.5: Good and enjoyable, but no real excitement

16-16.5 Very good wine, offering something special

17-17.5 Fine and beautiful world-class wine, among the best in SA

18-20  Truly excellent, some even among the world’s finest

!!! indicates especially good value

Prices
Prices given are approximate retail in South Africa, except where indicated as ex-farm by (f)

Tasters

TJ – Tim James
AL – Angela Lloyd
IM – Ingrid Motteux
CvZ – Cathy van Zyl

JP – Guest taster Jörg Pfützner, sommelier at Aubergine restaurant in Cape Town