My second time with this wine over the past few months and just as before - brambly, flinty, good dark fruit. Rich texture. I found this much more multi-dimensional than the 1990.

4+

I really love the mineral element going on here, but it's really quite dominant. There's just not that much else to this particular bottle; the fruit is somewhat overshadowed by the 89's. In fact, this seems to be the a bit of a stylistic outlier compared to other vintages of Cos I've had recently (85, 88, 89, 94, 97). Still, this is lovely if a bit simple for the chateau and the vintage.

Mature now and will probably stay on the plateau for a few years. No reason to wait.

4 to 4+

All gravel and mineral here, dark fruit and leather notes accompanying. With more air, the minerality became more complex, picking up a bit of mint as well. Of course, that was more true of the nose than the palate, which remained decidedly flinty. Still very tannic.

Drinking very well now, but I imagine this will last for ages. Impressive quality, but this just wasn't tugging on the heart strings.

4+ to 5-

Horsey nose, but I was expecting more animal based on previous notes. The fruit here, really rather dark in quality, certainly stood up to the barnyard. Even more convincing on the palate though, picking up some great earthen, clay notes as well. Lovely wine, but still mouth-puckering tannin. Drinking beautifully, but will go for years on this level.

Stylistically, this is of course different than the '89, but I'm not sure that qualitatively either outmatches the other. Both excellent. Just different.

4+ to 5-

Red fruits more than dark on the nose; the oak has integrated well. If not remarkable for depth, certainly notable for elegance and poise. Nice mineral streak follows on the palate. I'm surprised by how tannic this still is. A pleasant wine, but I can't imagine this has anywhere to go but downhill. I don't think I'm being stingy with the score by virtue of the company - this was the first of the night!

4

Extraordinary! Rich and ripe, plump nose that's simply kaleidoscopic - not only across the fruit spectrum but throwing in chocolate and leather notes with such beautiful concentration. This is pungent. Velvet across the palate, the 90 Margaux just exudes class. With more air, it got even better and picked up some gorgeous floral notes. Decadent. Sumptuous - but how can you really put a wine like this into words? Heavens.

5

A very different wine than the 90 here; sweeter quality to the fruit. Not overblown, not California Cab styling, but noticeable. The oak here is well integrated at this point; just a bit of rusticity on the nose. Still tannic of course, but not oppressively so. I don't think this has got anywhere to go but down.

Altogether more elegant than the 1990, but still quite outgunned. Even if I had tasted this on its own, I don't think it would have bowled me over.

4

Early on this was overpoweringly oaky. Monolithic even. Thankfully with air it filled out a bit, dark fruit and tobacco notes cropping up - eventually becoming a little nutty. More walnut on the palate, beef blood. Absolutely drying tannin. An impressive wine to be sure, but not a moving one (for me, anyway). It needs more time to develop.

4+ to 5-

Plump, rich nose. I love the chocolate and violets here. The palate seems much more driven by ash, smoke, minerality, though. Rich, luscious texture on the palate. I love how you can chew this without it being horrifically tannic. Overall a terrific bottle of wine and fun to drink.

5-

Tasted after the 89, the two are certainly more similar than dissimilar. Again a rich, fat, sumptuous wine. Gorgeous nose that's similarly dark and chocolatey, but even more complex for the floral and earth components. But the palate here stands in contrast - where the 89 traded its fruit for an ashen/mineral sort of tone the 90 retains the thick, juicy fruit. It's sumptuous! I prefer the 90 stylistically, but the quality doesn't seem to differ between the two. Drinking beautifully and although I can't imagine it will improve, I don't think it's going anywhere soon either.

5-

My second time with this wine recently and quite like the first. Oaky, ashen, very much a beef-blood sort of wine. I like this, but it's a bit lean on the palate and I think that it would benefit from the company of a meal more than the company of the 1990!

4+

Rather a step up from the 89 for my stylistic preference. This is a very similar situation to the 89/90 Lynch Bages where the 90 largely shares the nose of the prior vintage, but the palate retains the rich fruit rather than trading it for mineral/smoke. And what beautiful fruit the 90 has - deep, dark, and oaky; not elegant, but forceful without being overpoweringly tannic. That said, it doesn't shy away from Pauillac classicism. Drinking beautifully.

5-

As always, beautiful. Perfumed is the right word here. Potent but lithe at the same time. Floral and fruited, the image of elegance. Not quite as sumptuous as the 82, but fine.

4+/5-

My second time with this recently and this pretty much showed the same. A fair amount of controversy with this one and I'm not sure I see why some people are so violently against this wine. True, it's a bit of a disappointment given what Pichon can do in great vintages, but despite its relative lack of elegance and the floral force you can usually expect, it's still a wine I like. Leathery, pencil-lead, red fruited, and yes a bit herbaceous, but still lovely by my lights. I suppose I fall into the British camp on this one.

4+

Rich, dark roasted Graves fruit here, smoky. Still remarkably tannic and dark in disposition on the palate. Beautiful finish. Certainly an impressive wine, but I don't think this one is really ready to go. Save these! There are only so many. There was pretty uniform agreement that this wasn't in full form yet. Still, far from dumb. Beautiful. I'd love to see this in another 10 or 20 years.

5-

The nose here is more expressive than the '89 - the difference is that this one has come to a beautiful, comfortable maturity. Red, brick-inflected Graves fruit with some great baked apple, horsey notes. Not exactly lithe, but not quite the meat on its bones that some of the Medocs show. This is a style I really enjoy.

Altogether less smokey, less brooding than the '89. Ready to go and while I don't think it will improve, I think this will last beautifully. I loved this.

5-

Wow! This is just such a perfect Graves archetype. Very much baked brick, smoke, mineral Graves with fruit across the spectrum. What more can be said? Mature. Expansive. Awesome.

5

Fascinating tasting this with the '89. Yes, the mineral and baked brick aren't present in quite the same dimensions as the '89, but the '90 does offer some very, very pretty floral notes. All red fruit and flowers on the palate with refreshing acidity. Slightly more relaxed than the '89 and eminently drinkable. I love it.

5-

Really a beauty on the nose. Rich floral, chocolate, dark fruited nose. Carries through on the palate, picking up a pleasant mineral streak - lots of iron filings here, a bit of a beef blood kind of thing. Lovely.

5-

Rich and dark on the nose, darker yet than the 89. No doubt more extracted, more lush than the former vintage but this is a case where I don't think this makes the wine more convincing - the price it pays in this case is complexity. Still an excellent wine, if a bit heavy-handed for my taste.

4+

Bonus bottle served without the corresponding '90. Quince meets dark chocolate on the nose. Good fruit here, but it picks up a slightly rancio note on the palate that I dislike. Drying tannin. I don't think the bottle was off. I wasn't all that impressed.

4-