![]() |
| Croser LD 2000 So very close! |
Petaluma Croser Late Disgorged 2000
12.5%, Cork, $56
Source: Sample
www.petaluma.com.au
I’d like to start this tasting note by talking about acidity. Skip ahead a few paragraphs to just read the review (particularly if you couldn’t be bothered with my sparkling rambles) or otherwise read on.
Historically (I’m talking Champagne here), sufficient acidity was typically achieved in sparkling wines by growing grapes in typically very cool climes (on lean soils) and picking fruit early (when the grapes are just on the cusp of phenological ripeness, just before the natural acidity drops off and sugars increase) and then fermented with very neutral yeasts. This acidity was then balanced out in the wine itself by judicious sweetness additions (dosage), winemaking techniques (bottle and yeast lees ageing) and careful blending (including the use of older reserve wines).
More recently though we’ve seen a sparkling evolution away from this formula, as more producers grow grapes in less cool climes (from BD and organic vineyards), pick grapes later and riper, bottle with low or zero-dosage and focus solely on producing vintage wines, with a singular goal of producing more interesting (and better) sparkling wines, a goal which (I’d argue) has been absolutely met.
Yet in the same breath I’d also argue that in Australia we’re still attempting to really succeed at this evolved style. Unquestionably we make some solid traditionally styled wines, and indeed we’ve recently made some bloody good Champagne quality wines, yet we’re still a long way behind the curve. (With exceptions – Hanging Rock for one).
Which brings me to this Croser. A zero dosage, late disgorged vintage sparkling that spent a total of nine massive years on lees, it’s pretensions are aimed squarely at top draw vintage Champagne, with a price that sits closer to the lower end of non vintage Champagne. Sound thinking there no doubt.
From a pure production point of view it’s certainly properly made too. Barrel fermented with (Petaluma’s own yeast) in old oak and clarified only using gravity, before being laid down for a nine year sleep. Sounds great.
In fact, the intentions are all bloody good with this wine, the extended ageing giving yeasty, toasty, golden richness (though not much autolysis breadiness, which is quite surprising) and no shortage of flavour. It’s got some nice complexity too, the extra age giving it plenty of (clinical) flavour layers to show off.
In the same breath however, that time on lees has also robbed it of quintessential freshness, the yeast sitting heavy through the mid palate. The finish too – dosage free – is bone dry, the acidity bracing and just a fraction hard, leaving you feeling more brutalised than seduced, even if it is quite long.
Stepping back a bit then the question has to be asked – was this to big an evolutionary step to really make the style work? Would it have been a better wine if a little dosage and less lees contact had of been utilised during the winemaking process, perhaps to try and balance out said acidity and freshen the wine? Or conversely, if the grapes had of been picked later, fermented naturally and then bottled with no dosage could it have been a better ‘no holes barred’ wine?
I can’t say I have the answers, but I do know that this wine, like so many Australian sparklings, shows so much raw potential, and certainly tastes like it has hints of greatness, even given the crap vintage (and I may indeed be being too harsh), yet in the final moments it just feels a little too forced for me to really fall in love. Will future vintages woo me more I wonder?.. 17.5/91
Help keep this site paywall free – donate here


5 Comments
hmmm, never heard of phenological ripeness, best change that to phenolic or physiological before anyone notices
and also, being less of a snark, what do you think of the ayala wines?
Good to see someone is keeping me on my toes.
Phenology simply refers to different stages of a grapes development, with phenological ripeness essentially the point when it actually hits the stage of ripeness.
I've even found a reference of old bushy eyebrows himself using phenological ripeness in a tasting note (just to show I'm not alone here).
https://www.crackawines.com.au/Picardy/2006_Picardy_Tete_de_Cuvee_Pinot_Noir
As for Ayala I've had mixed experiences. The vintage wines can be very good, the NV's often just perfunctory.
I agree that some Australian producers have been making more interesting and better sparkling wines. A prime example is the Starvedog Lane Chardonnay Pinot Noir Pinot Meunier Brut 2004. This vintage sparkling is drinking really well right now and you can pick up a bottle for $23. Absolute bargain.
A group of us got through 6 bottles of this last night (before dinner and during starters at Bau Truong Marrickville) and it went down a storm. I don't see it as a competitor to the likes of Dom Perignon or La Grande Dame, rather a good Australian wine that can more than compete with the French NV's retailing at similar prices. That's certainly how I'd pitch it if I was doing Croser's marketing.
Now I don't drink vintage champagne very often, so I can't claim huge expertise but I didn't find the acidity oppressive. For me, it was a well-balanced wine. But opinions (& expectations) differ.
It seems that Australian champagne-style wine production has come on in leaps and bounds over the last decade – and I look forward to getting my hands on some Hanging Rock, Arras, Mount William Macedon & Stefano Lubiana over the coming months.
The thing that worries me for them is the high dollar. Australian champagne-style wines are probably more vulnerable to import replacement than other styles because so much of the consumption of champagne is tied up with consumption of a brand, publicising of an aspirational lifestyle, etc. For the general public, even the likes of Arras don't have Moet's mojo.