For nearly two decades, the wine drinking world has been singing the praises
of NZ Sauvignon Blanc.

In fact, this variety accounts for 65% of all New Zealand's exported wine:
no surprise, of course, the latest national vineyard statistics show that
there is now more than 7,000 hectares planted (compared to just under
4,000ha for Chardonnay and 3,750 for Pinot Noir)

2004 has produced a veritable flood of SB; more than double the volume
produced in 2003; but it pains me to say that not all '04 NZ SB could be
classed as excellent or even very good.

I have recently returned from a wander through Marlborough and Canterbury,
where it is quite apparent that a near perfect growing season has resulted
in, what I would call "serious over cropping"

For the past four years, average yields were around 7 1/2 tonnes per hectare
(sorry USAns, you will have to do the conversion!) - whereas '04 yields
were approaching 12 tph.

Most of the big names have produced wines with the expected aroma intensity
and flavour profile, but there are many wines on the market with lesser
palate weight, which lack real personality.

I think my favourite mainstream Marlborough wine of this vintage is the
Sacred Hill SB, whilst Lawson's Dry Hills; Jackson Estate and Nautilus
Estate I also rate highly.

Palliser Estate from Martinborough is still way up there - in both quality
and price - a domestic increase of 25% over last year does not impress - I
will be interested to learn how it is priced in the USofA.

So, my advice is - avoid disappointment by buying a bottle first and try for
yourself - before you buy the case.

Or even better, snap up the last of your preferred 2003.

--

st.helier

NEWSXTRA wrote:

> For the past four years, average yields were around 7 1/2 tonnes per hectare
> (sorry USAns, you will have to do the conversion!) - whereas '04 yields
> were approaching 12 tph.

I suppose that's 1000 kg per 1 hectare? Converts to 2204.6 lbs per 2.47 acre,
or 892.2 lbs/acre. So 12 tph would convert to 10.7 tons per acre ? Yikes.
Even 6.7 tons per acre is a very healthy yield.

Is my math correct?

Dana

NEWSXTRA wrote:

> For the past four years, average yields were around 7 1/2 tonnes per hectare
> (sorry USAns, you will have to do the conversion!) - whereas '04 yields
> were approaching 12 tph.

I suppose that's 1000 kg per 1 hectare? Converts to 2204.6 lbs per 2.47 acre,
or 892.2 lbs/acre. So 12 tph would convert to 10.7 tons per acre ? Yikes.
Even 6.7 tons per acre is a very healthy yield.

Is my math correct?

Dana

"Dana H. Myers" calculated....

>> For the past four years, average yields were around 7 1/2 tonnes per
>> hectare (sorry USAns, you will have to do the conversion!) - whereas
>> '04 yields were approaching 12 tph.
>
> I suppose that's 1000 kg per 1 hectare? Converts to 2204.6 lbs per 2.47
> acre,
> or 892.2 lbs/acre. So 12 tph would convert to 10.7 tons per acre ?
> Yikes.
> Even 6.7 tons per acre is a very healthy yield.
>
> Is my math correct?

Yes, this sounds about right to me.

It is not without good reason that Marlborough winemakers call SB their
"cash cow"

It grows like a weed and does not require too much by way of special
winemaking techniques to make.

However, cropping at 10 tons to the acre makes it impossible to get a
quality, ripe crop.

Many contract growers had their harvests rejected by better winemakers who
demanded ripeness and fruit quality.

Unfortunately, the almighty dollar rules, and others were prepared to accept
substandard, overcropped fruit, just to "turn a buck"

So, be warned - there are wines out there which are thin and dilute.

Try before you buy.

--

st.helier

"Dana H. Myers" calculated....

>> For the past four years, average yields were around 7 1/2 tonnes per
>> hectare (sorry USAns, you will have to do the conversion!) - whereas
>> '04 yields were approaching 12 tph.
>
> I suppose that's 1000 kg per 1 hectare? Converts to 2204.6 lbs per 2.47
> acre,
> or 892.2 lbs/acre. So 12 tph would convert to 10.7 tons per acre ?
> Yikes.
> Even 6.7 tons per acre is a very healthy yield.
>
> Is my math correct?

Yes, this sounds about right to me.

It is not without good reason that Marlborough winemakers call SB their
"cash cow"

It grows like a weed and does not require too much by way of special
winemaking techniques to make.

However, cropping at 10 tons to the acre makes it impossible to get a
quality, ripe crop.

Many contract growers had their harvests rejected by better winemakers who
demanded ripeness and fruit quality.

Unfortunately, the almighty dollar rules, and others were prepared to accept
substandard, overcropped fruit, just to "turn a buck"

So, be warned - there are wines out there which are thin and dilute.

Try before you buy.

--

st.helier

Ciò che ha detto
st.helier )
è così interessante, che devo dire la mia:

> "Dana H. Myers" calculated....
>
>>> For the past four years, average yields were around 7 1/2 tonnes per
>>> hectare (sorry USAns, you will have to do the conversion!) -
>>> whereas '04 yields were approaching 12 tph.
>>
>> I suppose that's 1000 kg per 1 hectare?

12 tonnes=12 000 Kg

Luk

"Luk" > wrote in message
...
> 12 tonnes=12 000 Kg

Converting metric tons to Avoirdupois tons is not the part most of us
Americans have trouble with. It's converting hectares to acres that has us
stymied! :^(

Tom S

"Luk" > wrote in message
...
> 12 tonnes=12 000 Kg

Converting metric tons to Avoirdupois tons is not the part most of us
Americans have trouble with. It's converting hectares to acres that has us
stymied! :^(

Tom S

"Tom S" > wrote:

> Converting metric tons to Avoirdupois tons is not the part most
> of us Americans have trouble with. It's converting hectares to
> acres that has us stymied!

Where's the problem?

1 acre ~ 0.4 hectares (0.40468564224000003 to be exact)

1 hectare ~ 2.50 acres (2.471053814671653 " " " )

M.

"Tom S" > wrote:

> Converting metric tons to Avoirdupois tons is not the part most
> of us Americans have trouble with. It's converting hectares to
> acres that has us stymied!

Where's the problem?

1 acre ~ 0.4 hectares (0.40468564224000003 to be exact)

1 hectare ~ 2.50 acres (2.471053814671653 " " " )

M.

"Dana H. Myers" > wrote in message
...
> NEWSXTRA wrote:
>
>> For the past four years, average yields were around 7 1/2 tonnes per
>> hectare (sorry USAns, you will have to do the conversion!) - whereas
>> '04 yields were approaching 12 tph.
>
> I suppose that's 1000 kg per 1 hectare? Converts to 2204.6 lbs per 2.47
> acre,
> or 892.2 lbs/acre. So 12 tph would convert to 10.7 tons per acre ?
> Yikes.
> Even 6.7 tons per acre is a very healthy yield.
>
> Is my math correct?

It doesn't look right to me.

In the first case,
7.5 metric tons * 2204.6 / 2000 = 8.27 tons (US)
8.27 (tons/hectare) ÷ 2.47 (acres/hectare) = 3.35 tons/ac

So, 12 metric tons/hectare converts to 5.36 US tons/ac

That high number isn't _that_ outrageously high a crop load compared to San
Joaquin Valley yields, which can run ~3x that. Of course that would be
Thompson Seedless table grapes - not wine grapes.

Still, even the low number is pretty high compared to e.g. hillside grown
Pinot Noir, which can be less than 1/3 of that - even in a "normal" year.

Tom S

"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S" > wrote:
>
>> Converting metric tons to Avoirdupois tons is not the part most
>> of us Americans have trouble with. It's converting hectares to
>> acres that has us stymied!
>
> Where's the problem?
>
> 1 acre ~ 0.4 hectares (0.40468564224000003 to be exact)
>
> 1 hectare ~ 2.50 acres (2.471053814671653 " " " )

Yes, I know - but will I remember it as easily as I remember that 2.2 pounds
= 1 kilogram? I doubt it. :^(

Tom S

Tom S wrote:
> "Dana H. Myers" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>NEWSXTRA wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For the past four years, average yields were around 7 1/2 tonnes per
>>>hectare (sorry USAns, you will have to do the conversion!) - whereas
>>>'04 yields were approaching 12 tph.
>>
>>I suppose that's 1000 kg per 1 hectare? Converts to 2204.6 lbs per 2.47
>>acre,
>>or 892.2 lbs/acre. So 12 tph would convert to 10.7 tons per acre ?
>>Yikes.
>>Even 6.7 tons per acre is a very healthy yield.
>>
>>Is my math correct?
>
>
> It doesn't look right to me.
>
> In the first case,
> 7.5 metric tons * 2204.6 / 2000 = 8.27 tons (US)
> 8.27 (tons/hectare) ÷ 2.47 (acres/hectare) = 3.35 tons/ac

Silly me. Off by a factor of two.

The conversion is 1 ton/acre = .446 tonnes/hectare

Good thing I'm not an astronaut.

Dana

Tom S wrote:
> "Dana H. Myers" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>NEWSXTRA wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For the past four years, average yields were around 7 1/2 tonnes per
>>>hectare (sorry USAns, you will have to do the conversion!) - whereas
>>>'04 yields were approaching 12 tph.
>>
>>I suppose that's 1000 kg per 1 hectare? Converts to 2204.6 lbs per 2.47
>>acre,
>>or 892.2 lbs/acre. So 12 tph would convert to 10.7 tons per acre ?
>>Yikes.
>>Even 6.7 tons per acre is a very healthy yield.
>>
>>Is my math correct?
>
>
> It doesn't look right to me.
>
> In the first case,
> 7.5 metric tons * 2204.6 / 2000 = 8.27 tons (US)
> 8.27 (tons/hectare) ÷ 2.47 (acres/hectare) = 3.35 tons/ac

Silly me. Off by a factor of two.

The conversion is 1 ton/acre = .446 tonnes/hectare

Good thing I'm not an astronaut.

Dana

NEWSXTRA (??) wrote:

>
> I have recently returned from a wander through Marlborough and Canterbury,
> where it is quite apparent that a near perfect growing season has resulted
> in, what I would call "serious over cropping"
>

Oh, dear. Too much of a good thing, as it were.

>
> I think my favourite mainstream Marlborough wine of this vintage is the
> Sacred Hill SB, whilst Lawson's Dry Hills; Jackson Estate and Nautilus
> Estate I also rate highly.

Thanks for the tips, St. H. My only '04 to date has been the Kim Crawford,
which was stunning IMO -- indeed, far superior to his '03. I'll have to keep
my eyes out for those labels. Aside from the Nautilus, which is almost
ubiquitous Stateside, those are not commonly encountered labels. As we are
about to temporarily relocate close to Big Jean and Sidney, stocking up on
white wines is imperative. ;-)


>
>
> Palliser Estate from Martinborough is still way up there - in both quality
> and price - a domestic increase of 25% over last year does not impress - I
> will be interested to learn how it is priced in the USofA.

I will let you know when I see it. Local suppliers are still carrying the '03.

Mark Lipton

NEWSXTRA (??) wrote:

>
> I have recently returned from a wander through Marlborough and Canterbury,
> where it is quite apparent that a near perfect growing season has resulted
> in, what I would call "serious over cropping"
>

Oh, dear. Too much of a good thing, as it were.

>
> I think my favourite mainstream Marlborough wine of this vintage is the
> Sacred Hill SB, whilst Lawson's Dry Hills; Jackson Estate and Nautilus
> Estate I also rate highly.

Thanks for the tips, St. H. My only '04 to date has been the Kim Crawford,
which was stunning IMO -- indeed, far superior to his '03. I'll have to keep
my eyes out for those labels. Aside from the Nautilus, which is almost
ubiquitous Stateside, those are not commonly encountered labels. As we are
about to temporarily relocate close to Big Jean and Sidney, stocking up on
white wines is imperative. ;-)


>
>
> Palliser Estate from Martinborough is still way up there - in both quality
> and price - a domestic increase of 25% over last year does not impress - I
> will be interested to learn how it is priced in the USofA.

I will let you know when I see it. Local suppliers are still carrying the '03.

Mark Lipton

"Mark Lipton" wrote .....

> NEWSXTRA (??)

Yes, had just changed isps and hadn't quite set up properly!!!

>
> Oh, dear. Too much of a good thing, as it were.
>
>>
>> I think my favourite mainstream Marlborough wine of this vintage is the
>> Sacred Hill SB, whilst Lawson's Dry Hills; Jackson Estate and Nautilus
>> Estate I also rate highly.
>
> My only '04 to date has been the Kim Crawford,
> which was stunning IMO -- indeed, far superior to his '03.

Agree - but if you find the Sacred Hill Marlborough, imnsho the best of
Marlborough this year.


>> Palliser Estate from Martinborough is still way up there - in both
>> quality
>> and price - a domestic increase of 25% over last year does not impress -
>> I
>> will be interested to learn how it is priced in the USofA.
>
> I will let you know when I see it. Local suppliers are still carrying the
> '03.
>

To be fair, Martinborough did get have a difficult vintage, and perhaps they
struggled in '04.

> As we are about to temporarily relocate close to Big Jean
> and Sidney, stocking up on white wines is imperative. ;-)

And please pass on our very best wishes.

--

st.helier

"Dana H. Myers" > wrote in message
...
> Silly me. Off by a factor of two.
> Good thing I'm not an astronaut.

So, it was _you_ who augured in the Mars Lander a couple of years ago? :^D

Tom S

"Dana H. Myers" > wrote in message
...
> Silly me. Off by a factor of two.
> Good thing I'm not an astronaut.

So, it was _you_ who augured in the Mars Lander a couple of years ago? :^D

Tom S

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:17:12 +1300, "st.helier"
> wrote:


>
>To be fair, Martinborough did get have a difficult vintage, and perhaps they
>struggled in '04.

Andrew,

I recall tasting a 2nd tier Palliser (Pembroke ??) which I thought was
an excellent softer version of the Palliser. I believed it was going
to be substantially less Retail than Palliser.... (around $20AUS per
btl as opposed to mid to high 20;s for the Palliser). which I thought
would be a great intro for those a tad reluctant to shell out that
kind of money on Palliser.

Any info Sir?

Hooroo......

PS: I am still waiting for a certain Kiwi to come good with his lost
bets on Rugby & Cricket.... :>)