Simonsig Kaapse Vonkel 1999

By , 8 April 2014





The South African Sommelier Association is set to become a significant force when it comes to shaping the debate around fine wine in South Africa if its monthly tastings are anything to go by – I signed up as a “Wine Enthusiast” member earlier in the year (R300 to join, precluded from voting at the AGM) and so far have attended “sweet wines of the world” in February and yesterday an exploration of the effect of autolysis on sparkling wine hosted by Simonsig’s Johan Malan.

Key take-out was once again what an extraordinary number of variables there are in the Méthode Cap Classique production process which go towards determining the quality of the end-product: the role of different varieties in the assemblage, the impact of different ripeness levels at picking, the use of oak, disgorgement and dosage and of course time on the lees versus time on cork.

What makes matters even more complicated is that the outcome of applying any one technique is not readily predictable – a Kaapse Vonkel 2003 disgorged in 2006 (pleasantly honeyed) was in much better shape than a 2003 disgorged in 2013 (overly autolytic) but it was the other way around when we came to the 2000 vintage, the wine disgorged in 2013 (really complex) outshining the wine disgorged in 2004 (oxidised).

Wine of the day was the Kaapse Vonkel 1999, which spent 150 months on the lees, before being disgorged in 2013. Intense citrus, honey, a lively mousse and bright acidity – still very much intact. Score: 91/100.

This wine, which originally won the inaugural Amorim Cap Classique Challenge in 2002, included 51% Chardonnay whereas Kaapse Vonkel is usually Pinot Noir led. “I started out thinking that the red varieties of Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier were best suited to this area but our stand-out vintages tend to see Chardonnay feature strongly. This is a business with very long-term time horizons,” says Malan.


2 comment(s)

  • Kwispedoor8 April 2014

    I’ve had four bottles of that 2000 (R.D.) in recent months and found one bottle slightly tired and perhaps overly autolytic, two bottles were pretty damn good and the last bottle, drank a week and a half ago, was just bloody gorgeous. Perhaps extended lees contact produces a bit more bottle variation (not necessarily a bad thing at all)?

    On a related topic, I wish the CCPA would pull finger and get their members to indicate lees contact periods on all MCC bottles. The practice of disgorging as and when you need stock makes sense, but not then indicating how much time it spent on the lees doesn’t. If my Platter’s indicates a bubbly has spent 14 months on the lees and I see the same wine on the shelf with an R.D. sticker (hand-written or otherwise) indicating it was disgorged after 24 months, I’m much more likely to buy it.

    It will actually stimulate sales as people would want to do comparative tastings of the same wine that has spent different periods of time on the lees. It will stimulate education, as questions will be asked about this. And people will actually know what they buy!

    I know what small stickers cost, as my business sells them from time to time. They are dirt cheap. Or are people just lazy? One can spend a lot more money elsewhere and get much less sales and marketing results, I think. MCC magnums often also spend much longer on the lees than their 750ml. siblings, but how many of your average customers out there know this? I think some great opportunities are being missed here…

    • Hennie @ Batonage9 April 2014

      Well put Kwispe. I don’t understand why producers don’t put more info on the bottles. And that goes for all varieties and styles. It would help sort out the identity crisis that Chenin has as well. The Germans get it right, why can’t we? Decide on a set of criteria and make it standard on labels.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Like our content?

Show your support.