Monday, August 15, 2005

Boekenhoutskloof Semillon 2002

Colour - quite pale straw. How many times can you say a young white is like that? Or that a red has a crimson rim? The nuances and whatnot never come out right in the descriptions, so what's the point? Broadbent can detect '45 Mouton by the colour. Bully for him. But he's unable to describe it properly, because if he did, everyone would be able to detect it by its colour after reading his notes.

Nose - Started off with light honey and lime overtones. There's now an odd earthiness to it that Andy ascribes to unbalanced sulphur. He's probably right as wine faults have become his area of study and obsession of late.

Palate - Exceptional. None of the nose confusion comes through. Pure fruit of peaches and limes well integrated with mineral texture, earth, hints of smoke and a long, mineral spice finish. Fantastic with the balsamic lobster. Make that really long on the finish as well. Wow.

Stars... well, it's awesome. And I think in terms of South African whites its *****. In fact, in terms of pure expressions of Semillon it's *****. But it smells a bit shitty. So it only gets ****. Sorry. I'm also sorry that it's only available through Oddbins. Gits.

I should also say that this is by far the best and most unique South African wine I've tasted throughout the vintages I've tried. But that note isn't directly related to this vintage - just a general note on the cuveƩ. Oh, and the reds from this place seem to suck, possessing that horrendous burnt rubber shite that seems endemic in South African reds and that most wine writers seem to avoid talking about. It should be discussed. South African reds are terrible. Pinotage is an abomination. Bring on the comments.

No comments: