11/6/2023 - Paul Lin wrote:

This wine was firing on all cylinders tonight. Brought it to Houston’s ($15 corkage) and even though their stems aren’t great, the wine still shined. Opulent notes of chocolate lava cake with raspberry coulis, black cherry, vanillin oak. Velvety on the palette. Not a subtle wine by any means, but super yummy and terrific with the Hawaiian ribeye. Baby Schrader?

4/8/2018 - StainedGlass wrote:

Dark purple color. No sign of bricking but clearly the jamminess has subdued after 10 years. Blackberries, plum and oak. Tannins are subdued. Young Paloma is too sweet and jammy for my taste, but this vintage is well-integrated and in a good place. I don’t think it improves with age.

4/11/2014 - pmarlo Likes this wine:

I always have some concern when I open up one of these pricer wines that I've not had previously, as I wonder will it live up to the cost paid? I opened this about three days before. Bouquet came across as slight but thick, and the first taste didn't reveal much fruit nor flavor, so I had initial disappointment. But after the wine rested in the glass for a good hour, the fruit became apparent. It intensified and became what I was hoping it would. In addition, the alcohol was potents but the fruit over-layed it and the wine never came off as 'hot.' The wine reacts more with the back of the tongue and mouth. I tend to prefer Seghesio Zins but this one was very good. Would have went well with a obscenely rare steak. I'm always surprised that the corks aren't stained inky black for Zins, given what appears to be a highly extracted wine. It kept getting better one day two, where it was drinking very well, the fruit having stepped to center stage. My mouth wrestled with dispelling each sip for minutes. I feel this tasting justifies future purchases. Recommended, and would have probably aged for at least five more years, but I wanted to have this one sooner or later, as I'm not sure or sold on the aging potential of Zins. Recommended and hoping CT tasters can at least try this wine once somewhere down the line.

8/27/2013 - J @ y H @ c k wrote:

My recollection is that in about 1977, Frank Prial wrote an article in the New York Times about various second and third tier Bordeaux that would substitute well for first growths. I do not remember all of them, but I believe that two were Figeac and La Gaffeliere. He also recommended Gloria and du Tertre, but I am not sure if it was in the same article. I went out and bought a half case of 1971 Figeac, possibly from Zachys or the Sokolin that used to be on Madison Ave. This was the last one. We were sitting around the back yard waiting for the rest of the crew to show up for dinner so I decided to see how this was doing. Opened with a Durand - cork was fully saturated and on its death bed, but it came out perfectly. Poured directly from the bottle. Color was light with a bit more red brick that I had hoped, and I was afraid it was badly maderized. However, there was only a tyiny bit of that dflavor as part of the profile. Color was light and the nose was cherry fruit. The palate opened up after about 10 minutes of air to reveal some very nice red fruit withy just a tiny bit of Bordeaux bandaid in the background. No left bank "Cordier" dirt and leather. Quite smooth and enjoyable. This wine is past its peak, but not yet on a violent downhill slide.

1971 was not known as a particularly good year in Bordeaux. Actually, the entire decade of the 70s, when I started collecting, did not bathe itself in glory. 1970 and 71 were supposed to be OK, 72 was blah, 73 was bleh, 74 was eh (but I got a case of Haut Brion for $6 a bottle) and 75 was supposed to be great, but Frank Prial definitely missed on that one. I have had some good 1970s Bordeaux over the years, but not something I would seek out, nor something I would have stocked up on if I had it to do over again. BUT I did like this bottle quite a lot.