The airwaves have been buzzing recently with traffic concerning the recently released but virtually sold-out Seppelt St Peters Shiraz 2000. It’s worth spending just a moment on this wine, not in the least because its tasting note was incorrectly entered on this site as being from the unreleased 2001 vintage. That hiccup is at least rectified. Glancing at some of the comments posted on the Winestar forum (http://forum.winestar.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=5989), it’s interesting to see such a massively divergent range of opinion on the same wine, which was a single batch bottling. The issue relates (again) to brettanomyces, and the comments about the wine range from it being the worst example of brett tasted by some contributors to others of unbounded enthusiasm. With the 2005 edition of my book about to hit the press, I must admit that having been alerted to some of the remarks, I wanted to take another look at a wine to which I had allocated 19.1 points and some rather flattering copy. So, I rushed out on Saturday to buy another bottle and had it opened within minutes. Frankly, I can’t see what the fuss is all about. I do not believe Seppelt has any case to answer. On a scale of brett-affected wines doing the rounds in the marketplace today, this wine would score perhaps a 2 out of 10. The wine is indeed a rustic one, but by no means does ‘rustic’ necessarily mean brett. It reveals a light degree of dimethyl sulphide and other bound sulphides. There’s also a light greenness about the tannins that I admit I had not noticed first time around. It contributes something of a metallic influence. Winemaker Arthur O’Connor has apparently noticed low levels of brett in a couple of his tastings of this wine (out of around 20), but there was no obvious stand-out brett influence in either of the bottles I have opened, although the second bottle might perhaps reveal a borderline degree at max. It’s more than likely that the combination of sulphide and green-edged tannin led some people to an incorrect or exaggerated conclusion over this wine. Other than that, the 2000 St Peters is a very fine expression of Great Western shiraz, with length of intense dark berry and plum flavours, classic dark pepper and spice, plus a wonderfully fine-grained and tightly integrated spine of tannins. It certainly does not merit any suggestion of undrinkability or faultiness. Mind you, I have marginally decreased my high rating on the basis of the slight under-ripeness of its tannins, which appear to have been exacerbated by a winemaking regime that perhaps did not include enough aeration. It’s without question a significant improvement from the over-ripe and less regional efforts of 1999 and 1998.
