Jade Palace, Forum
Tasted Thursday, December 16, 2010 by Dbrane with 824 views
Very pale. Definitely no signs of pre-mox here. This is a light-weight village Meursault, almost like a mini-me. The style is bordering on elegance but lean. Finish is reasonably short for a village. Not an overtly friendly and approachable wine. Fashioned in a dryer style, this is a good food wine.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
This is still quite young as the oak has not integrated well into the voluptuously textured palate with tongue-staining intensity which culminates in a super long finish all wrapped in a firm acidic spine. There is clearly enough extract here to absorb the wood in due time. This is fashioned like a medium-weight Batard with white flowers, citrus and chrysanthemums.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Deep golden, it is arguable whether this was pre-mox or just a creature of the warm 2006 vintage. I get a lot of resiny aromas and an oily texture on the palate. Some ripe stone fruits too. This comes across as riper than normal which might be mistaken for a Cali Chard. A tasting wine. This straddles the border between good and very good, but at the moment I am inclined to round it down.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Pale. Quite approachable both aromatically and on the palate but again this was a creature of the 2004 'greenness' which did not blow off within 3 hours despite decanting. To be fair it was not aggravating like other examples but still could be picked up easily in a blind-tasting. Menthol, Malay spice and orange peel were discernible on the medium-bodied and rather under-ripe palate. I can't deny that the tannins were super silky and the length was definitely grand cru standard but the element of 'presence' which exists in great Richebourgs is missing. It could be due to the vintage and the lack of phenolic ripeness (mentioned in BH's tasting note). However, this is still a technically well "made" wine chez Mugneret albeit one which lacks a soul.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Literally black! I had a tiny sip of this and the only discernible aspect I got out of it was freshness.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
I get lots of sweet cherries and this wine personifies the Burgundian power without weight. Very pure and terroir-driven, I enjoyed this much more than the Beaucastel 1983 tasted together.
Read 1 Comment / Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
I believe this wine has reached its plateau and should be drunk up soon. Very smelly barnyard nose which kinda puts me off though to be sure this was an entirely enjoyable wine, just not something I would choose to drink.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Together with the '89 Beaucastel, this was darker, more aged and very smelly (of the barnyardy kind). At the peak now. Drink up!
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Together with the '88 Beaucastel, this was so much younger. Very fresh, vibrant and pure. This is built for the long haul.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Very fragrant in the way the best Pomerols are. Plums dominate the sappy but serious palate with silky but firm tannins. Interestingly I get a lot of minerality in this wine. I like the way this is drinking now and would go very well with red meat. Very good plus.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Young (still rather tannic), fresh (vibrancy to it) not smelly (fruit dominated). A fruity wine and hasn't develop much complexity yet.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Very pure and terroir driven but as expected the tannins and alcohol heat was still very much prominent. I can see this with a bright future ahead in say 10 years?
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
This had an "old nose", kinda like when you browsing through old newspapers. Austere, serious, a wine of breed.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
I don't understand it but I get a creamy white Burgundy on the nose. Other than that I can't remember much of it.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
To be frank I was expecting to rate this wine at least 89 but this wine did not bring me the ecstasy that I've learnt to expect from a Tokaji. Sure this had a complex, non-cloying, bittersweet palate supported by a good acid spine but the peacock tail and >1min finish was missing. Definitely an intellectual wine but lacks the pleasure I am looking for.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Almost black and reminiscent of motor oil from its viscosity. The high alcohol did show through as I can only take minute sips at a time (which is how it should be drunk anyway). Coffee is the prominent flavor I got out of it. Killer >1min finish for sure. A tad one-dimensional though.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
© 2003-24 CellarTracker! LLC. All rights reserved. "CellarTracker!" is a trademark of CellarTracker! LLC. No part of this website may be used, reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of CellarTracker! LLC.
1988 Krug Champagne Vintage Brut 87 Points
France, Champagne
Medium yellow. This wine is extremely young at the moment but bold as a Krug should be. Tasted blind I would not have guessed this as a '88. No secondary development yet and this is a calm and not showy wine which ends with a long citrusy finish. Develops further in the glass. This is a long-runner. Very good now, potentially outstanding in >10 years.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue