2016 Carl Loewen Leiwener Laurentiuslay Riesling Spätlese

Community Tasting Notes (6) Avg Score: 92 points

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View slabslovin's profile
  • Report Issue

  10/16/2023 - slabslovin Likes this wine: 92 Points

  A pleasant surprise. Was avoiding this wine for a long time because of the "spatlese" on the label(not a fan of sweet wines), but this was clean, light, fresh, full-bodied, and very drinkable. Clocking in at only 8.5% alcohol.
  No petrol taste with this riesling.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View RGCM Gananda's profile
  • Report Issue

  9/3/2021 - RGCM Gananda Likes this wine: 92 Points

  Prior bottle was nearly a year ago and the wine has evolved quite positively in that time. White peach, white pineapple and floral notes on the nose with background hints of apple/pear. Medium bodied with white apple and white peach upfront. Mid-body has increased depth of white peach along with white pineapple and white cherry. Citrus notes, acidity and minerals through the finish. Felt like the mid-body has opened up noticeably, the acidity and fruit are in better balance and while retaining the white orchard notes, it has added more fruit complexity and depth throughout. This wine has fully justified the scores I have given it for prior bottle and should be able to hold this level over the next few years. Based on how this bottle showed compared to my prior ones, the next 2-3 should be the best time to enjoy this wine at peak.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View RGCM Gananda's profile
  • Report Issue

  9/24/2020 - RGCM Gananda Likes this wine: 92 Points

  Prior bottle was only 7 months ago, but thought it would be educational to try it alongside the 2012 and 2015 - a good choice. Nose was quite similar to my prior bottle: Apple, pear/melon, white peach and floral notes on a nose that became more aromatic as it warmed. Medium bodied with apple and pear upfront, showing all whitefruit qualities - tartness, acidity and very well defined fruit. Mid-body shows more depth and roundness, bringing in white peach and then more tart melon and nearly a tart white cherry quality. Backside shows citrus, very good acidity and mineral qualities. As compared to the 2012 and 2105, this 2016 has perhaps a bit more liveliness in its acidity and is more definitively whitefruit and citrus dominant. Quality wise, I would say the three vintages are now fairly equal. The 2012 was slightly better when it was younger, the 2015 falls just slightly short of the vintage expectations while this 2016 exceeds its vintage expectations. My personal preference for wine with a bit more acidity, depth and fruit leads me to slightly prefer the 2016. I'll save my last bottle for June/July 2021 alongside the 2012.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View RGCM Gananda's profile
  • Report Issue

  2/11/2020 - RGCM Gananda Likes this wine: 92 Points

  Prior bottle was nearly 20 months ago and the wine has improved almost exactly as I'd hoped. Apple, pear, crunchy peach and mineral notes on the nose. Medium bodied with apple and pear upfront and then adding a combination of white peach and melon through the middle. Backside shows balanced citrus notes, good acidity and mineral qualities. While it doesn't have the depth of the 2012, the fruit feels better defined and the wine overall comes off as more balanced. The backside also feels a bit more integrated and focused than the 2012 from last night. Very pleased with the way this 2016 showed and was tempted to move it up, but I think this justifies the original score I gave it back in May 2018. Given how well this is showing, I may have another bottle as soon as Fall 2020, perhaps side-by-side with a 2015.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View grafstrb's profile
  • Report Issue

  9/13/2018 - grafstrb wrote:

  -- popped and poured --
  -- tasted non-blind over a couple hours --
  -- AP #: … 17 17 --
  
  NOSE: sweet --- sugar cookies; honeydew melon; no petrol
  
  BODY: pale yellow color; medium to medium-full bodied.
  
  TASTE: sweet tarts; a bit zesty; true Spat.; cotton candy; underlying mango (on the finish); 8.5% alc. not noticeable; medium acidity. Overall, it's good, and worth its $25 price of admission, but it doesn't exactly compel me to buy again.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

View all 6 Community Tasting Notes

Professional reviews have copyrights and you can view them here for your personal use only as private content. To view pro reviews you must either subscribe to a pre-integrated publication or manually enter reviews below. Learn more.