I miss eating at restaurants.
Ever since our small child came along the ritual of going ‘out’ to dinner and lingering over a bottle or two (after a warmup beer or two) hasn’t been happening.
Obviously it’s just timing – when our precocious 9 month old gets a little bigger we’ll rope in a babysitter more often. But that ritual sharing of a great bottle (while someone else cooks) is missed by Jacqui and I.
I say this because wines like the Shaw + Smith M3 Chardonnay 2018 would be a natural choice to make the leap from sample pile to BYO drink go-to. Something that goes beyond technical appreciation and jumps straight into the drinking pleasure dome.
What I like about the M3 – and all the Shaw + Smith wines – is the sense of precision. A wine of cool professionalism, without sacrificing approachability. A welcome tip- toe balance between ripe-enough white peach fruit, sculpted by oak and subtle winemaking touches, and the support brace of acidity to bring everything together with sparkling freshness.
What’s equally remarkable is that S + S achieved all this in a vintage that you’d not call easy. I’m even putting it out there that this ’18 vintage tops the (superb) ’17, in contrast to the prevailing vintage norms. The only quibble, hard to find, is whether it is too delicate, too lean.
Still, masterfully crafted, precise modern Chardonnay with flavour AND acidity? I’m in. We’re in.
So who wants to babysit?
Best drinking: now to eight years. 18.7/20, 95/100. 13%, $49. Would I buy it? Yes.
8 Comments
Sure, I’ll babysit, on condition that you leave behind the bottle.
By the way, any idea how the M3 ages?
Fair deal.
I haven’t had an aged M3 in some time, but the structure and style of this release means it will still look good in five years easy.
There was once a time where I did not look at an M3 until at least year 5. The 2012 is only just starting to really hit its straps for mine.
If they told you all the sacrifices of parenthood far fewer would do it;)
Enjoy buying birth year bottles, it’s the best thing outside of having the new human.
Thank you for keeping up your wordsmithing during the early years- productivity and insanity are a fine balance for a little while yet.
Hi Andrew,
As I’m attempting to expand my tasting horizons into Chardonnay, this seems as good as anywhere to ask this question.
The number of reviews of read in recent times relating to Chardonnay talk about matchstick and funk being detected on the nose. I interpret the matchstick as Sulfur? Is this correct?
In terms of the funk, what is it and where does it come from?
Is this funk and matchstick a new trend in Australian Chardonnay?
Does this funk and matchstick change/diminish with Cellar time?
Thanks
Colin
The way to make reductive Chardonnay is to
a) hand pick and whole bunch press (minimises oxygen ingress)
b) use wild yeasts (less predictable but typically more sulphides)
c) cool ferment in tank (rather than barrel as barrels allow oxygen ingress too)
d) avoid malolactic fermentation (helps retain acidity too
e) no lees stirring in barrel.
Hi Colin,
Good questions.
The funk in Chardonnay is a product of reduction – ie wines made with less oxygen in the fermentation process.
Less oxygen means some of the fermentation byproducts – notably sulphur based compounds – remain in the wine.
Small doses of these sulphur compounds (technically they’re sulphides) can be desirable, but it’s also tricky as one of the key sulphur based compounds is hydrogen sulphide – ie rotten egg gas.
The funny thing is that historically reduction has been seen as a negative in Australian winemaking, and a fault at wine shows. But with lots of Burgundian winemakers doing it and making wines that are/were considered benchmarks (hell Coche Dury) it ended up catching on in Australia too.
One of the good things about reduction is it can make for more precise wines with less oxugen exposure making for less expressive Chardonnay. But also it can just make wines that taste of mothballs.
Also, the funk can dissapear with time in glass and bottle, but largely its baked in. Over time it does tend to diminish, however.
That sounds tricky indeed!!