This wine was much better than I expected. Initially a little hard but really came on over time. It took an hour and a half to show everything but it was quite good. Earth, wet leaves, hints of cherry and black fruit. A touch of barnyard and asian spices initially. Tannins were a little astringent for about an hour then became very smooth. Really a nice wine. Some tertiary flavors showing through but still has years of development.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Took a flier on this long lost bottle hidden in the back of a shop in the CO mountains. Was afraid by the other notes and disintegrating cork but this is showing quite well. Very pretty nose of intense floral/strawberry perfume with a dose of vosne spice. Seemless palate, pretty secondary, great length. Consistently evolved with spice becoming more prominent in the mouth. Solid bottle
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Caramel and red fruit on the nose. The palate was not expressive and elegant for a rsv. The 96 Jadot Grand Echezeaux I had few weeks ago was more floral than this rsv. But the structure of the RSV was slightly better. 96 Jadot red wine has not yet impressed me
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Faiveley vs. Jadot: 1993 vs.1996 (Hong Kong Country Club): Pre-dinner blind tasting.....all wines had been decanted for several hours. Dusky but transparent ruby with no orange rim....probably a 1996. Nose is completely shut.....just the merest hints of strawberry perfumed water. Palate is initially tart but quickly rounds out, approachable and easy, good fruit. Resonant and reverberant but all a bit simple and not a ine to keep much longer..... I pinned it for a Chambolle Musigny. My #10 of 11; Group #1.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Another Saturday at Knightsbridge - mostly blind (Northbrook, IL): Tasted double blind. Open approximately 20 minutes. Black and red cherry aromas with modest spice. Flavors are somewhat hidden and obscured today behind very prominent acidity. I think this might evolve into something more interesting in another 5-10 years but it needs better balance.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Burgundy Dinner at Mike's (Wellington): Unimpressive nose of light licorice and mint, a little VA, some oak, cardboard; no fruit. Seemed sharply acidic and tannic, perhaps because there was nothing soft to balance the hard components. Maybe it was an off bottle? If not, then I don't have enough experience with the producer to judge its present state or its potential to develop. No score.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
12/24/2020 - Boone's Farm Likes this wine: 91 Points
This wine was much better than I expected. Initially a little hard but really came on over time. It took an hour and a half to show everything but it was quite good. Earth, wet leaves, hints of cherry and black fruit. A touch of barnyard and asian spices initially. Tannins were a little astringent for about an hour then became very smooth. Really a nice wine. Some tertiary flavors showing through but still has years of development.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/3/2020 - gretsch2holton Likes this wine: 89 Points
Enjoyed. Low aroma but fully mature burg flavors. A treat with magret.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/9/2020 - The Guzz wrote: 91 Points
Took a flier on this long lost bottle hidden in the back of a shop in the CO mountains. Was afraid by the other notes and disintegrating cork but this is showing quite well. Very pretty nose of intense floral/strawberry perfume with a dose of vosne spice. Seemless palate, pretty secondary, great length. Consistently evolved with spice becoming more prominent in the mouth. Solid bottle
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
12/9/2015 - mnh Does not like this wine: 88 Points
Real disapointment. Seems unlikely that to will emerge.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/8/2015 - Burgnick wrote: 91 Points
Caramel and red fruit on the nose. The palate was not expressive and elegant for a rsv. The 96 Jadot Grand Echezeaux I had few weeks ago was more floral than this rsv. But the structure of the RSV was slightly better. 96 Jadot red wine has not yet impressed me
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/12/2015 - tinybubbles Likes this wine: 89 Points
Interesting enough nose with dark sap and cola, but the palate is weak and thin with undistinguishable fruit and unbalanced acidity.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
9/25/2014 - Goldstone wrote: 87 Points
Faiveley vs. Jadot: 1993 vs.1996 (Hong Kong Country Club): Pre-dinner blind tasting.....all wines had been decanted for several hours. Dusky but transparent ruby with no orange rim....probably a 1996. Nose is completely shut.....just the merest hints of strawberry perfumed water. Palate is initially tart but quickly rounds out, approachable and easy, good fruit. Resonant and reverberant but all a bit simple and not a ine to keep much longer..... I pinned it for a Chambolle Musigny. My #10 of 11; Group #1.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/3/2013 - Burgundy Al wrote: 90 Points
Jadot Dinner with Friends (The Bristol - Chicago IL): Ripe black cherry aromas, flavors. Very good fruit, but not well balanced, not completely pristine, showing too much barnyard for a Grand Cru this young.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/3/2013 - KenK Likes this wine: 91 Points
New Year at Bristol w/Jadots (The Bristol, Chicago): 1996 RSV
Nice sweet dark red fruit nose. Dusty earth.
Dark dusty black red fruits, stewy quality. Dark chalky. Slightly bitter. 91
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/4/2012 - Burgundy Al wrote: 90 Points
Another Saturday at Knightsbridge - mostly blind (Northbrook, IL): Tasted double blind. Open approximately 20 minutes. Black and red cherry aromas with modest spice. Flavors are somewhat hidden and obscured today behind very prominent acidity. I think this might evolve into something more interesting in another 5-10 years but it needs better balance.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
5/30/2008 - Barbara B wrote:
Burgundy Dinner at Mike's (Wellington): Unimpressive nose of light licorice and mint, a little VA, some oak, cardboard; no fruit. Seemed sharply acidic and tannic, perhaps because there was nothing soft to balance the hard components. Maybe it was an off bottle? If not, then I don't have enough experience with the producer to judge its present state or its potential to develop. No score.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment