The Auswine Forum

Had a mini Limestone Ridge tasting with friends recently, with some unexpected outcomes. Excuse the lack of colour descriptions, as I am colour blind, and therefore would only be guessing !

1990 – nose of smoky oak, mint and eucalyptus. Medium bodied, fruit losing its sweetness (ie drying out), leathery, earthy characters coming to the fore. Finished a little short and my view is that is time to drink up the remaining bottles in the cellar.

1991 – slightly disappointing wine and probably a bad bottle given others have written this wine up favourably in recent times. Perfumed coconut and vanilla nose with a trace of pepper. The palate was again medium bodied with savoury / spicy notes leading to a reasonable, but definitely not long, finish.

1993 – corked, and to Southcorp’s credit, in the process of being replaced.

1994 – slightly closed on the nose despite three hours air. Traces of coffee and vanilla became evident by the end of the night. Medium to full bodied, lovely sweet fruit with grippy tannins. The only detraction was that in my view (not shared by others) it finished slightly hot. Voted 2nd best WOTN.

1996 – perfumed nose of caramel and coffee, with secondary layers of cherry and plum. Medium bodied, cherry and plum dominated palate with sweet, dusty tannin finish. Everyone’s WOTN and all agreed it had many more years in front of it.

1997 – fairly closed nose, eventually revealing mint and vanilla and if anything, a touch of VA. Medium bodied palate with flavours of bitter chocolate and mulberry. To my mind, this wine was a tad disjointed and perhaps the tannins a little unripe.

1998 – nose of charry oak , pepper and dark fruits. Medium to full bodied wine with an overt choc-berry palate, leading to a long, clean dusty tannin finish. This has another 10 years in front of it if well cellared

The 91 is a renownedly American oaked wine. I have never been impressed. Rub some reef oil round the neck of any old wine to achieve the same results.....Shame about the 93 LR. It always over delivered based on vintage reputation.
GW

Thanks for the notes Mike!

I agree with you Gary about the 1993 - I tried it for the first time a couple of months ago after a somewhat disappointing bottle of the 1996 not knowing what to expect. It was pure class with many years left in the tank.

I'm not surprised about the VA comment on the 1997 - the last bottle I tried it was pretty obvious.

It's interesting how the 1996 and 1997 have travelled over the last three years. The first time I tried the 1997 it blew me away with it's tobacco and ground coffee and sweet chocolate and black cherry characters. The 1996 was more green, bigger boned and tannic, with some obvious VA. The next 1996 I tried was from a magnum, which was like the first 1997 I tried, and the last 1997 was more like the first 1996! The 1997 does seem to be following the same pattern as the 1996 as it ages.

Cheers
Ian

Gary W wrote:The 91 is a renownedly American oaked wine. I have never been impressed. Rub some reef oil round the neck of any old wine to achieve the same results.....Shame about the 93 LR. It always over delivered based on vintage reputation.
GW

Must beg to differ on the '91 being a "reef oil" special, GW. The half dozen or more bottles I've consumed over the last few months revealed copious quantities of complex, heady, sweet fruit on both nose and palate, leaving the (acknowledged) use of US oak in its' considerable wake. The '93 of same, I tried several months ago, was full of herbaceous, weedy fruit and not within a bulls roar of its' older sibling. What's say pistols at 10 paces at the next offline, ol' boy

Gary W wrote:The 91 is a renownedly American oaked wine. I have never been impressed. Rub some reef oil round the neck of any old wine to achieve the same results.....Shame about the 93 LR. It always over delivered based on vintage reputation.
GW

and down to the Chucky Laksa swimming pool at Mrs Macquaries Chair. I'll be a second, Smothers!!

David Lole wrote:

Gary W wrote:The 91 is a renownedly American oaked wine. I have never been impressed. Rub some reef oil round the neck of any old wine to achieve the same results.....Shame about the 93 LR. It always over delivered based on vintage reputation.
GW

Must beg to differ on the '91 being a "reef oil" special, GW. The half dozen or more bottles I've consumed over the last few months revealed copious quantities of complex, heady, sweet fruit on both nose and palate, leaving the (acknowledged) use of US oak in its' considerable wake. The '93 of same, I tried several months ago, was full of herbaceous, weedy fruit and not within a bulls roar of its' older sibling. What's say pistols at 10 paces at the next offline, ol' boy

You must have a special smothers supply because as you well know I am never wrong.

GW