john riddoch

natalie · Post by **natalie** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:28 pm

I need to buy a magnum of john riddoch I think it was 93 or 95 or 90 something. Can anyone tell me where I can look on line to buy it or similar? Thanks

Baby Chickpea · Post by **Baby Chickpea** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:23 pm

(1) Not made in 1995

(2) Cannot name retailers as this is a retailer-owned site

(3) Check www.wine-searcher.com or www.winerobot.com

(4) The 90 is far better than the 93. The ones to get are 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998.

(5) Price will be $200-$250.

(6) Last option is auction like Oddbins or Langtons or Sterlings. Look 'em up. Worth it as they sell cheaper here.

Chow Chow · Post by **Chow Chow** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:34 pm

Had the 94,96 & 98 JR and the '94 impressed me most.

Jakob · Post by **Jakob** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:03 pm

Agree on the '94; a stunning wine, tannin structure, length and flavour profile rivalling Margaux.

Christo · Post by **Christo** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:17 pm

Chow Chow wrote:Had the 94,96 & 98 JR and the '94 impressed me most.

have to agree with martin & jacob 94 now - a stunning wine, tannin structure . have not had the other two 96 & 98 but they need a while from all the reports.

christo

FatBoy · Post by **FatBoy** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:15 pm

Baby Chickpea wrote:(4) The 90 is far better than the 93. The ones to get are 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998.

This just looks like a list of good vintages ...

1992 very good too. Still a young wine of course, but the one I had for my birthday last year was a fine thing. Come to think of it, 93 isn't too bad either and some of the late 80's "off" vintages are good too ... and hang on, I think I remember someone raving about the 1999 ...

Really, only 1997 sucked.

Baby Chickpea · Post by **Baby Chickpea** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:31 pm

FatBoy wrote:
Baby Chickpea wrote:(4) The 90 is far better than the 93. The ones to get are 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998.

This just looks like a list of good vintages ...

1992 very good too. Still a young wine of course, but the one I had for my birthday last year was a fine thing. Come to think of it, 93 isn't too bad either and some of the late 80's "off" vintages are good too ... and hang on, I think I remember someone raving about the 1999 ...

Really, only 1997 sucked.

It is and the wines out ouperfromed in these years. For my palate, these vintages kill the 92, 93 and 97 JR's. Can I sell you my 92s or swap for 90, 91, 94, 96 etc?

Baby Chickpea · Post by **Baby Chickpea** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:31 pm

FatBoy wrote:
Baby Chickpea wrote:(4) The 90 is far better than the 93. The ones to get are 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998.

This just looks like a list of good vintages ...

1992 very good too. Still a young wine of course, but the one I had for my birthday last year was a fine thing. Come to think of it, 93 isn't too bad either and some of the late 80's "off" vintages are good too ... and hang on, I think I remember someone raving about the 1999 ...

Really, only 1997 sucked.

It is and the wines out ouperfromed in these years. For my palate, these vintages kill the 92, 93 and 97 JR's. Can I sell you my 92s or swap for 90, 91, 94, 96 etc?

Craig(NZ). · Post by **Craig(NZ).** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:35 pm

Just to add weight to opinion:

I reckon the 94 and 96 are the picks. I love the 94, not an over cooked jammy one dimensional aussie cabernet. Hugely structured and very very classical

FatBoy · Post by **FatBoy** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:36 pm

Given that on the secondary market 92 goes for half that of the vintages you list, you would have to give me 2-1, and at that point I would swap.

Secretly I think 1991 is the pick of the bunch, and I had 1982 only a month ago, so that's saying something.

I can't stress this enough though: 1997 sucked.

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:22 pm

I found the 97 extraordinarily tasty at the CD two years ago. My palate probably wasn't very well trained then, and I was evaluating it as it was then rather than trying to assess whether it would improve, but it was a nice drink. I'd probably pay $30 for it.

Kieran

Baby Chickpea · Post by **Baby Chickpea** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:47 pm

FatBoy wrote:Given that on the secondary market 92 goes for half that of the vintages you list, you would have to give me 2-1, and at that point I would swap.

Secretly I think 1991 is the pick of the bunch, and I had 1982 only a month ago, so that's saying something.

I can't stress this enough though: 1997 sucked.

Ahh, but my proposal was qualitative, not price based as you inferred the 92 was in the same league as my fave vintages?

As to prices, last price according to langtons was $44 for 92, $47 for 91, and $45 for 1994 and 447 for 96. Not much diff at all.