Persistent quality and just a touch of confusion
7 March 2008

Tasting the Morgenster flagship: 2000 to 2004; a view from Tim James

The winery  tradition in the Cape – and elsewhere in the ‘New World’ – is to produce a large range of wines: everything from sparkling wine to port (and do it all quite well if you’re as clever as Villiera, say), or as many of them as possible. Specialising in what you and your farm does best is an idea that’s catching on with some ambitious producers, though perhaps not quickly or widely enough.

And of course, there are always factors like a winemaker who’s not unreasonably convinced he and his property can do just about everything very well – just ask André van Rensburg. When Boekenhoutskloof brings out new wines like their Semillon Noble Late Harvest and their Journeyman bordeaux blend, and they are of such high standard, it makes the critic of big ranges start feeling churlish in pushing the advantages of concentrating one’s efforts and one’s focus.

Nonetheless, it seems the right thing that prime-sited Morgenster, neighbour to Vergelegen and the underperforming Lourensford, should aim to produce, as Italian owner Giulio Betrrand says, ‘0ne olive oil and one wine’ – and that these ‘would be not only of unsurpassed quality but would also capture the essence of this beautiful farm’.

The one wine, called just Morgenster, does have an understudy of course: the Lourens River Valley, which takes the grapes deemed not quite good enough for the grande cuvée, but is a wine that many wineries would be pleased to claim as their best.

The grapes available are cabernets franc and sauvignon and merlot, with petit verdot set to join soon. There has been nothiing like a fixed recipe, however: the maiden 2000 had no merlot, and proportions have differed since then. The extent of the variation is unfortunate in some ways, as it makes it extremely difficult to see any real persistence of character in the wines, particularly as there is also some evidence of uncertainty as to the style of wine Morgenster is aiming to make.

Recognising and accounting for differences, winemaker Marius Lategan invokes terroir, and what the different vintages offer, which is fair enough – but in fact only once the vineyards are stabilised (and there is a great deal of sorting out going on there) can the harvest be fully reflective of what the year has to offer. Choices of when to pick are also often personal (the 2001 was surely picked for a greater degree of ripeness than the 2000, aiming at a different sort of wine, for example). And clearly the team has more faith in the advantages of merlot in the Cape than some critics do….

Another factor should be mentioned in this brief overview: the no doubt extremely useful presence of consultant Pierre Lurton, one of the most respected figures in Bordeaux (entrusted with both Cheval Blanc and Yquem).

The team has now brought out the 2004 wine, and offered a group of journalists a tasting of  the four Morgensters made to date (none was produced in the difficult 2002 vintage).

The wines

2000 Virtually a 50:50 blend of the two cabernets. There has always been a bit of bottle variation in this vintage, and so it unfortunately (and you’d have thought preventably) was with the two bottles at this tasting. Happily, I tasted from the better bottle, and it was my favourite wine of the line-up, even taking into account the undoubted benefits of being tasted closer to the wine’s maturity. The 14% alcohol was nicely in balance, and the overall effect rich, but fresh and rather elegant, with tannins staring to soften nicely, and a marked, but appealing, acidity; with the 80% new oak now well integrated. At the start of its maturity, with surely another five to ten years of improvement (for those who like older wines and can store them well enough).

2001 From the time of its launch this wine has been controversial in relation to its predecessor. Some loved the extra richness, sweetness and opulence that was given by greater ripeness (14.5% alcohol is declared), and the fact that merlot now constitues half of the blend, with the two cabs making up the rest. It retains that essential character, and is a lovely wine, with a long finish. The colour is more developed than that of the 2000 – one of the signs that this is perhaps destined for earlier maturity and decline than 2000 (another, for me, is the lesser degree of harmony). The lush sweetness is what continues to most disturb this taster, but many present clearly admired it greatly. A very good wine, ready for drinking now, but no hurry.

2003 My second-favourite, and probably the wine that would have scored the highest on average on this occasion, judging from the comments. And also going by the fact that it in many ways combined the virtues of the two previous wines – a combination mirroring the blend, which had approximately equal percentages of merlot and the two cabs, and also mirroring the alcohol level of 14.3%. Notably young still, it was fresh and rather exciting, full of flavour and richness, but with a degree of cabernet franc’s wonderful herbalness and fragrance in evidence, alongside the lushness of merlot. Less sweetly fruity than the 2001, beautifully balanced with already some harmonious development, but many years to go. If you have some bottles, keep them cool, dark and closed for a good few years yet.

2004 The new release is still very young, of course. The proportion of new oak used rose again (over the 90% it had reached in 2003), and it shows now, and seems unnecessarily high to at least this taster. Apparently the Morgenster cab franc did not perform particularly well in this vintage, accounting for a return to the dominance of merlot (69%). It is a fleshy, rich wine, with savoury lip-smacking acidity and smoothly ripe tannins, with some of the sweetness of the merlot-dominated 2001. It is powerful (up to 14.5% alcohol again) and promising.

What is the unity in all these wines? Pierre Lurton is quoted as saying that ‘the style of the Morgenster has remained consistent over the years’ – but though it is with trepidation that I disagree with a luminary I respect so greatly, I do in this case. But quality, ambition, and a degree of restraint are linking factors, and they are all things to be grateful for. It is to be hoped, though, that restraint will become an even more strongly marked feature once again. We already have ambitious wines in the powerful, alcoholic, sweet style, and the 2000 Morgenster seemed set to offer us something excitingly different.

Morgenster is certainly one of the finest bordeaux-style blends made locally, even if  to my mind later vintages haven’t quite lived up to the promise of the 2000. I hope that the team regains the confidence in earlier picking and in cabernet franc shown in that maiden vintage. This is certainly a terroir, a winery and a winemaking team which justify the highest hopes.

• This is a personal view given here. The latest release of Morgenster, the 2004, will shortly be reviewed and rated by the Grape panel

• Link to the Morgenster website