Page 1 of 1
TNs please! - Leasingham Bin 56 Cab Malbec 99
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:01 pm
by Daryl Douglas
Would appreciate any info on how the 99's drinking at present.
Had a bottle of Mamre Brook Shiraz 02 last night that lived up to it's reputation - big fruity Barossa Shiraz that excellent value < $20. The american oak component was noticeable but not intrusive, just added a bit more complexity. Lehmann Stonewell 98 is 4 times better at it's price.
Cheers
daz
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:11 pm
by Broughy
Hi Daryl,
Had both 98 & 99 recently , the later is a lighter wine in mouth feel but with good vibrant fruit. Will last a few years for sure, but not sure if it will get better, perhaps come into balance a bit more as it is farily acidic and you need food with it at present. Try some now and leave some if you have sufficient stock.
Re: TNs please! - Leasingham Bin 56 Cab Malbec 99
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:31 pm
by Guest
Daryl Douglas wrote:Would appreciate any info on how the 99's drinking at present.
Had a bottle of Mamre Brook Shiraz 02 last night that lived up to it's reputation - big fruity Barossa Shiraz that excellent value < $20. The american oak component was noticeable but not intrusive, just added a bit more complexity. Lehmann Stonewell 98 is NOT 4 times better at it's price.
Cheers
daz
Re: TNs please! - Leasingham Bin 56 Cab Malbec 99
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:39 pm
by daz
Anonymous wrote:Daryl Douglas wrote:Would appreciate any info on how the 99's drinking at present.
Had a bottle of Mamre Brook Shiraz 02 last night that lived up to it's reputation - big fruity Barossa Shiraz that excellent value < $20. The american oak component was noticeable but not intrusive, just added a bit more complexity. Lehmann Stonewell 98 is NOT 4 times better at it's price.
Cheers
daz
Oops
Edited my original post, adding the NOT re Stonewell 98 not being 4x better than the Saltram Mamre Brook 02, without logging on.
daz
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:49 pm
by 707
Daz, both the 1999 Leasingham Bin reds are drinking well at present, don't think they'll get any better but won't fall over either. From memory the Bin 56 had good plummy fruit with some oak interwoven and fair length. Probably should drink another in the next few days.
I have to keep reminding myself that it's 2005, the much vaunted 1998s are now seven years old, that's when I drink most of my reds but for some reason I keep thinking of 98s as youngish wine. Hey, 1996 is nine years old this year and I've got a heap of them too......better get seriously drinking!
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:12 pm
by Muscat Mike
707 wrote: Hey, 1996 is nine years old this year and I've got a heap of them too......better get seriously drinking!
You mean to say you don't already Steve
MM.
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:06 pm
by 707
You must have the wrong impression of me, I merely "look" at wines!
I remember a workmate quizzing me about it once when I said I was having a day off to go and look at some wines. Not being a wino, he thought I was actually going to look at them not drink them!
Bin 56 99
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:56 pm
by smithy
Saw it at cellar door, Bought it... Yummy!
Not overoaked,great structure, ripe berry fruit,
nearly made me plant Malbec....nearly!
Cheers
Smithy
Re: Bin 56 99
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:00 pm
by didgidee
nearly made me plant Malbec....nearly!
well Smithy, you could go far worse. the malbec in the leasinghams seems to lift the final result and you should certainly be able to ripen it in Rutherglen! whats your opinion on cabernet in the region. is it a bit less successful than the lusty shiraz of the region?
Cheers
Smithy[/quote]