Bought 6b as part of a 12b mixed lot at a Michael Davis auction 23 years ago; this is #2. Average bottle price of the lot was 24/b, and I think the other bottles were 3b each of '90 and '92 Whitehall Lane CS. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Darker ruby with some amber edge; mature black cherry, some cinnamon, hint of eucalyptus that follow on the palate, fair mouthfeel. Tasty and interesting, past prime. Glad I have more, hope to do a vertical. Europat55's notes suggest there may be bottle variation: we'll see. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Whitehall Lane Vertical Tasting Nose: A-/A Palate: A- My #1, Group's #2 (36 pts) Tasted blind. Much better than the previous bottle I've had a couple of years ago!
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Medium ruby, no bricking. Very leathery nose of mint, menthol, cassis, tobacco. Light tannin, balanced acidity. Quite the decent quaff for a well-stored unheralded $13 purchase in 1989. Not a special wine tonight by any means, but I appreciate the correct, full herbal cabernet fruit and olives, and a dollop of oak-y roundness. Oakville-sourced cabernet, clearly. Bottle #12 of twelve.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
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.
4/11/2021 - VAVintner Likes this wine: 89 Points
Nice. The wine needed to open for about an hour. Good structure still but fruit is fading
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
4/14/2020 - Oenecnist wrote:
Bought 6b as part of a 12b mixed lot at a Michael Davis auction 23 years ago; this is #2. Average bottle price of the lot was 24/b, and I think the other bottles were 3b each of '90 and '92 Whitehall Lane CS. Decanted with normal sediment for its age. Darker ruby with some amber edge; mature black cherry, some cinnamon, hint of eucalyptus that follow on the palate, fair mouthfeel. Tasty and interesting, past prime. Glad I have more, hope to do a vertical. Europat55's notes suggest there may be bottle variation: we'll see. Stored horizontally in a cool, dark basement since purchase. My evaluation: For me, scores on a "100-point scale" are misleading. I use a 4-category scale (perhaps with +/-)--not including flawed--which runs outstanding/notable/drinkable/poor. This is notable when considering quality, age, and price.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/16/2018 - europat55 wrote: 93 Points
Whitehall Lane Vertical Tasting
Nose: A-/A Palate: A-
My #1, Group's #2 (36 pts) Tasted blind.
Much better than the previous bottle I've had a couple of years ago!
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/17/2012 - europat55 wrote: 89 Points
1987 Cabernet Retrospective, Part 1 (Tom's house in Palo Alto, California): Very smooth.
Nose: B+ Palate: B My #5, Group's #5 (61 pts) Tasted blind.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/1/2011 - Hodby wrote: 88 Points
Medium ruby, no bricking. Very leathery nose of mint, menthol, cassis, tobacco. Light tannin, balanced acidity. Quite the decent quaff for a well-stored unheralded $13 purchase in 1989. Not a special wine tonight by any means, but I appreciate the correct, full herbal cabernet fruit and olives, and a dollop of oak-y roundness. Oakville-sourced cabernet, clearly. Bottle #12 of twelve.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment