Chardonnay Vertical Tasting – 13th November 2006

The Moss Wood team decided to do a major review of their wine styles and got together a panel of stern judges to try each of the Moss Wood Vineyard wines from 1985 to 2006, inclusive.

Included on the panel were some very distinguished names:

Josh Bahen; Ian Bell; Peter Forrestal; John Gladstones; John Jens; Ray Jordan; Clare Mugford; Keith Mugford; Bill Pannell; Dan Pannell; Jodie Pannell; Amanda Shepherdson; Steve Waller

The purpose of the exercise was to establish a quality ranking for each vintage, which will then be included in research we are doing into possible changes in wine style that may result from the current projections for climate change. The project itself is a long way from completion and it will be some time before it makes its way into the public domain. However, one of the short term benefits is to be able to put together such an interesting tasting and it now provides readers, who have any of these vintages in their cellars, the chance to see how they are currently rated.

We acknowledge that making quality comparisons across vintages is a difficult task. Since 1985, there have been numerous improvements in the viticulture and winemaking at Moss Wood and so there have been many factors influencing wine style and quality, not just simply the weather. So the instructions to the tasters were to assess the depth and quality of the fruit flavours in the wine as they are today, making some allowance for the wines age and score those with the best fruit characters the highest. All the scores are set out in the table below.

When looking through the results there are few surprises and the vintages generally held in high regard stood out in the tasting. Also, from a winemaking point of view, it was good to see the spread of average scores was quite small, with the indication being that quality and style were consistent across the range. Those responsible for growing and making the wines can give themselves a pat on the back, although consistency is to be expected, given that the wines came from the same vineyard.

There were some surprises. The 1992 vintage finished higher in the rankings than may have been expected but Keith suspects that in the past this vintage has not had the recognition it deserved. The feeling is that because Cabernet Sauvignon from that year was affected by rain then all the varieties must have suffered.

In fact, the Chardonnay was harvested before the rain and its season was actually very good. Perhaps it is not such a surprise that the wine scored well. Another wine that scored better than expected was the 2006 which, at the time of the tasting, was still in barrels. Unfinished wines shown as barrel samples can often score poorly against properly finished wines that have been bottled, so the fact that the judges liked it is very encouraging.

Before the tasting, the suspicion was that the 1989 vintage, our most difficult ever because of heavy rain, would probably score the lowest. However, this was not the case and that honour fell to the 2000. This wine has always been controversial because it displays a significant wild yeast influence and Keith suspects that this probably caused the tasters to score it down.

Rank; Vintage; Total Score; Average Score; Harvest Date; ° Beaume; Yield (tonnes/ha); Vintage Rating (out of 10)

1; 2002; 191.7; 17.43; 04 Mar; 13.7; 2.45; 9+
2; 1990; 187.5; 17.05; 06 Mar; 12.9; 6.85; 10
3; 1985; 186.5; 16.95; 22 Feb; 12.5; 8.44; 7
4; 2004; 185.8; 16.89; 23 Feb; 12.7; 7.7; 9+
5; 1992; 184.5; 16.77; 27 Feb; 13.5; 7.3; 7
6; 1995; 184.4; 16.76; 17 Feb; 13.7; 7.0; 9
7; 2006; 183.0; 16.64; 18 Mar; 12.8; 3.46; 10
8; 1996; 181.1; 16.46; 20 Feb; 13.2; 9.0; 7
9; 2001; 181.0; 16.45; 15 Feb; 13.4; 7.51; 10
10; 1999; 180.7; 16.43; 03 Mar; 13.4; 6.89; 10
11; 2003; 179.9; 16.35; 25 Feb; 13.3; 6.12; 9
12; 2005; 178.4; 16.22; 22 Feb; 13.0; 5.35; 9
13; 1994; 171.5; 15.59; 28 Feb; 13.6; 9.0; 8
14; 1986; 170.25; 15.48; 26 Feb; 12.9; 9.1; 7
15; 1998; 168.5; 15.32; 05 Mar; 14.1; 4.08; 8
16; 1993; 166.5; 15.14; 04 Mar; 13.6; 6.36; 9
17; 1988; 165.475; 15.04; 12 Feb; 12.5; 11.2; 7
18; 1987; 165.3; 15.03; 24 Feb; 12.9; 10.13; 8
19; 1989; 165.2; 15.02; 20 Feb; 12.9; 7.82; 7+
20; 1997; 164.0; 14.91; 07 Mar; 13.6; 2.58; 8
21; 1991; 163.5; 14.86; 25 Mar; 12.8; 10.29; 9
22; 2000; 155.5; 14.14; 01 Mar; 13.4; 10.0; 8

Not part of the tasting were the following two wines:

Vintage; Harvest Date; ° Beaume; Yield (tonnes/ha); Vintage Rating (out of 10)

1984; 18 Feb; 13.1; 7.73; 8

1983; 18 Feb; 12.6; 8.7; 7