5/23/18, 1:33 AM - I've had the 2005 only recently and it's still fresh as a daisy. You must definitely have had a flawed bottle
12/8/15, 2:11 PM - Could have been bottle variation?
5/6/15, 5:44 AM - Judging on below recent tasting notes it seems my bottle was simply defective. Shame.
1/15/15, 8:06 AM - Checked e-RobertParker soon after this review: "Best enjoyed sooner rather than later. 2010-2015." - whoops, looks like I was a little late!
11/25/14, 10:45 AM - Just read your notes after writing mine and was surprised to see a strong correlation between the two - a rarity on CellarTracker I find!I still have three bottles of this left and look forward to the remainder - I hope you manage to find a few more!
6/20/14, 7:58 AM - Too late I'm afraid - non-vintage Champagnes are only meant to be kept a few years, not a few decades!
6/23/14, 11:19 AM - Wow, a Dom '85 - now you're talking!! Hope you enjoyed it!!
1/21/13, 3:15 AM - Agree, it sounds like a defective bottle. Best then to mark it as 'flawed' instead of 72.
1/2/13, 11:30 AM - Surely a 'decent wine' is worth more than 75 points? That score implies it's faulty at best!
9/20/12, 1:56 PM - The most gracious tasting note on a flawed wine I've ever seen! Hope you get another bottle of the Musar '85 soon!
1/12/12, 10:08 AM - So why give it 87 points?
9/30/11, 2:51 AM - Congratulations!!
3/28/11, 1:04 PM - "Drink over the next 12-12 yrs."?? That's a very narrow drinking window! ;-)
Thanks for letting us know about this problem. We will review your comments and be in touch soon with an update.
Search