The Auswine Forum

I have been so impressed with the 05 JR that I now want to explore the history a bit more. Am a massive cab fan but have never got around to trying many of these for some strange reason .

So, in ranking order please let me know your opinions on these John Riddoch vintages that I am looking at. I'm sure many of you have tried most of these.

86
90
96
98

Thanks

Sam

86 is da bomb!!

I think the 1990 will just shade the 1986. The 1996 and 1998 are very similar, just a teeny bit behind the other 2.

deleted

Sean, from educated guessing thought these would probably be great vintages (as well as what I’ve heard) and am not necessarily only wanting drinking now wines. That said, I am very keen to here that info because I would also like to try those that are drinking well now. I would also guess that 86 and 90 would be drinking well even if they had more time in them.

So thanks for that Sean, any other underrated drinking well now vintages would also be appreciated (and any other 92 fans).

Sam

Don't forget 1994 either guys, that was another cracker of a vintage. 1993 wasn't far behind, and although I haven't tried it 1991 is supposed to be right up there with 1990...

... actually it's easier to probably list the vintages to avoid instead. Top of that list would be 1997.

Cheers,
Ian

I've had the 1990, 1996 and 1998.

1990 is lovely but needs 5+ years.
1996 and 1998 way too young, did not really enjoy.

Under-rated wine, can be well priced, an old-skool classic?
Thanks Ian, might look for some '94, it's priced okay here.

Jay

The 94 is an absolute cracker. Still got yrs ahead of it too.
Glad I bought plenty of the 04 under screwcap - one very fine wine that just needs yrs.

Unfortunately my recent experience with the 1994 isn't as good as some others. For me it was a very good wine that is now drying out/the oak is taking over a little too much and was better younger (maybe less than ideal cellaring compared to the 'cracker' bottles mentioned by others?).

The under-appreciated JR vintage in recent times is the 1999.

Agreed the 04 was sensational - unfortunately didn't buy any. Looking forward to trying the 05.

deleted

I think sometimes the fruit struggles to keep up with the oak in JR. I suspect that John Wade (82-86?) did a better job than anyone, although (83)-4-5 weren't easy vintages in Coonwarra.
I haven't drunk many JRs repeatedly, so I'm hesitant about making claims which would be based only on a single tasting, except to say I expect all the wines post-94 are too young, 92 & 93 are lesser wines drinking quite well now (my preference is for 92), and I've always found 88 rather hard and uninteresting.
86 is singing, I'd expect 90 & 91 to be great, although I've only tasted the 90 recently and it was a bit diffuse and dull.
I have some of 96 & 99 in the cellar, but haven't drunk them yet.
If I recall, the wine wasn't made in 83-89-95-00-01-02.
84, 85, 87 I've either not tasted, or it was so long ago as to be useless...
cheers,
Graeme

I'v had them all a few times in the last couple of years - bar the 90 which I have only had once.

The 86 is a top JR. It's still young but it goes all right if you want to try one.
The 96 is really good but very backward. Another 10 years for that.
The 98 is a big style - lots of oak and big round fruit and tannin. Needs much more time. Big decant if you drink it now.

I'd have them in the order above most likely although they are all good wines. I'd also try the 99 - like that one a lot. The 93 is under-rated and drinking very well now. The 94 is also a good wine. Pretty much you can't go wrong with a JR.

GW

My tip for you is that unless you just enjoy oak, JR only comes into its own as an integrated wine as the BL is on the downhill slope/fading.

On that note for my palate:-

well-cellared 1982 (the first JR) & 1988 are the best drinking at present - with the 82 likely to remain superior until it starts to fall over.

The 1986, unsurprisingly, is barely at the leading edge of its drinking window and has plenty of improvement likely over the next few years.

THe better later vintages are just too young: 90, 91, 94, 96, 98, 99 before we even mention 04 and 05!

Long decanting may take the edge off the tanin, acid and oak but is only a poor approximation of what should be wrought in the fullness of time. If you have a reasonable cellar or storage site available, do yourself a favour and put them all away for at least another 5 (preferably longer) years. Yes - even the 86 has that much improvement (and I have tasted it out of both bottle and magnum over the last 6 months), but if you must drink any now, drink the 86 as the others have a really long way to go.

regards

Awesome info, just what I needed.

So, I have already eyed out some 86, 90 and 96 but will look to buy some 92 and 94 for a bit of JR palette education. Definitely do not shy at oak as long as there is great fruit to go with it.

In fact, we (some friends) used to occasionally get together and theme a tasting night. Sounds like a JR theme is now the go (86, 92, 94 maybe).

Cheers for the responses so far.

Sam

Looking in the batcave, I found the following, could be a good tasting.
91 John Riddoch
91 Katnook Oddesy
91 Thomas Hardy
and a 91 Dorrien for fun.
I suppose it all comes down to the corks!

Brucer wrote:Looking in the batcave, I found the following, could be a good tasting.
91 John Riddoch
91 Katnook Oddesy
91 Thomas Hardy
and a 91 Dorrien for fun.
I suppose it all comes down to the corks!

My money's on the Dorrien.

I haven't tried the JR, but if the Dorrien's a good bottle it will have to be something mighty to top it.

Cheers,
Ian