Tasting Notes for Sycamore

(623 notes on 543 wines)

1 - 50 of 623 Sort order
Red
1/4/2018 - Sycamore wrote:
Nowhere near ready. Wait 3-5 years to try again.
1 person found this helpful Comment
Red
12/23/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
85 points
Probably generous rating here. Aromatics were scant, as others have noted; main note being a slight corked-like thing. Tired and uninteresting on the palate for the most part -- and fairly sour. Would have been passable over all if 1/10th the price. But alas.....
Red
8/23/2017 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
90 points
Drinking surprisingly well right now. I didn't detect any steminess, and am normally pretty sensitive to that note. Very earthy. Beautifully textured. Mostly on the dark fruit end of the spectrum. Some friendly tannins on the backend. Excellent!
Red
4/20/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
Good fruit, Wine consistent with the house style. Quite tannic at this juncture, however; try again around its 10th b-day....
Red
3/30/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
88 points
Yep -- pretty much what Keith said in 2015. Good texture and elegance, which bodes reasonably positively. Try again late 2019.
Red
3/6/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
Good, but still in need of a few more years of cellaring.
Red
3/4/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
Some pepper on the aromatics. Good fruit. Starting to come into its own overall, but no doubt better 3-5 years down the line....
Red
3/3/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
Nowhere near ready. Still quite tannic and stiff. Has a few bright spots (e.g., texture after a lot of air), but needs 3-5+ years to shine.
Red
3/2/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
85 points
Serviceable, but an overall disappointment. Maybe bad timing here -- this is somewhere on the secondary-tertiary spectrum, but not firmly in either. "Awkward" comes to mind. Some decent aromatics (including anise) from time to time, but nothing too noteworthy. The palate is decent but not totally "agreeable" if that makes sense; there's always something pushing it to a slight astringency. Hard to call drinking window -- either drink up now and 'enjoy' what we did, or wait 3-5 years and maybe one has a tertiary wine giving more on all counts. Or maybe it won't.....
Red
2/9/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
87 points
Holding up well for a 1997. Good Chambolle notes aromatically, with the occasional smoked meat action showing up as well. Elegant for the most part with a little bit of sourness here and there on the palate. Wouldn't hold much longer if I had more...
Red
2/3/2017 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
90 points
Much better on the palate than the nose. Latter is a stewy mélange gone wrong. Palate, on the hand, dials back the vintage effects with a smooth delivery with nothing overcooked. That said, this was quite the atypical burgundy (or, even, pinot noir); not even sure what to equate it to, but it was enjoyable. Fruit quality and skilled winemaking definitely show. Little perceptible reason to hold much further (though it should hang on for a while).
Red
1/25/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
87 points
Pretty grossly underperforms for the climat and vintage. No visible reason why this would be the case -- i.e., still strong red color. Aromatics are really quite nice -- very earthy, which is appealing in this corner of the tasting world. Lack of focus, balance, and all that goes with those negative marks on the palate is what brings this down. A rather surprising overall disappointing experience. There is no evidence in this particular bottle that holding this wine will yield any measure of improvement. Hopefully others show better......
Red
1/20/2017 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
91 points
Excellent stuff. Earthy and fairly tannic right out of the gate; earthiness (happily) never fades, but tannins wane/integrate as the bottle opens over the course of three hours or so. No rush at all to drink, but a pleasure right now.
Red
This will be an excellent bottle in time. Starts very tightly wound -- almost to the point of being unenjoyable. Really opens up and evens out over the course of several hours, though -- ending with great texture, vibrant fruit, and excellent overall balance. The fact that it took a good bit of time to get there indicates that this will be far better from the pull of the cork 3-5+ years out...
Red
1/16/2017 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
96 points
Totally brings it: elegance, red fruit, darker fruit, acidity (vintage rings through), but through it all -- balance. Fantastic. has that (close to) weightless quality. Lovely stuff. Don't 'score' wines like this very often....
Red
1/7/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
87 points
Vegetal aromatically -- like freshly-cut asparagus. Not the worst aroma ever, and certainly not off-putting like some 2004's, but fairly surprising for the vintage. Better on the palate. Quite red-fruited and acidic. Very minerally as well. Likely better in 3-5 years.
1 person found this helpful Comment
Red
1/7/2017 - Sycamore wrote:
Excellent stuff here, but needs more time -- 2-3 years at the very least.
1 person found this helpful Comment
Red
12/30/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
92 points
Outstanding. Excellent balance; just a little dysfunction on the finish -- but nothing major. Very elegant. No rush to drink, but excellent now.
Red
2010 Domaine Pierre Gelin Chambertin-Clos de Bèze Chambertin-Clos de Bèze Grand Cru Pinot Noir (view label images)
12/28/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
This is a huge, brooding hunk of a wine that needs 5+ years. Opened in the name of science in all try
Red
12/28/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
80 points
Major underperformer, at least as judged with this bottle. Stiff, uneasy, and all things that 1996 has brought on the negative side to date (note: many other 1996's seem to be coming around these days...). Excessive acidity + tired fruit = this result. Don't wait around for day 2 -- it's worse!
Red
12/19/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
92 points
Really enjoyable. Still fairly youthful looking. Quite sauvage/earthy aromatically (which this taster loves) -- arguably better there than on the palate. Not that the palate is bad -- not at all. Great fruit. Earthiness shows here too. Fairly pronounced acidity as well. Not the best balance, but that's sort of a nit. Acidity would indicate that there's no rush to drink. No reason to wait a lot longer though, it seems.
Red
12/18/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
90 points
Quite the counterpoint to the '96 H-N Malconsorts tasted at this wine's side tonight. This one came across as way more youthful out of the bottle (despite the horrifically broken cork) -- and had more acidity throughout -- both aromatically and on the palate. This also offered more tension throughout -- which cuts both ways: on the downside being a relative lack of balance. Excellent wine, though, for the class, and not far behind, qualitatively, a wine that's probably 4X its price!
Red
12/18/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
92 points
Comes across both visually and aromatically as quite 'unfiltered'. No judgment cast there, just statin' the facts. Builds quite a bit aromatically, though, as the bottle opens -- very earthy and quite of the place. Palate: smooth and sublime almost throughout. Great balance and texture. Quite ethereal, really. Never powerful -- which is quite fine by this taster's POV. No need to rush to drink, but no perceptible reason to wait, either.
Red
2005 Pierre Bourée Fils Charmes-Chambertin Charmes-Chambertin Grand Cru Pinot Noir (view label images)
12/3/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
93 points
This is fantastic -- best wine ever sampled from this house, I think. Quite ethereal, light and elegant, and flat-out delicious. Great aromatics too, and fine balance. Excellent.
Red
12/2/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
88 points
Agree with the high-80's score that seems to be the consensus with this guy. Serviceable and (relatively) reasonably priced, but nothing to really make it stand out -- screams neither this (great, IMHO) producer, or NSG Chaignots place IMHO. No hurry to drink; no perceptible reason to hold a lot longer, either.....
Red
12/2/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
92 points
Needs a good bit of time to really open up. Once it does, it's breed certainly shows through. Relatively pedestrian from time to time before that, though -- a little bit of tomato soupiness here and there, along with some heat. Those things blow off with time and the texture becomes fantastic. Sadly I don't, but if I had another I'd for sure save it for it's 20th b-day.
Red
11/30/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
88 points
Some pre-purchase evidence of seepage, so decided to open. A little before it's time. A fair bit of menthol on both the aromatics and palate initially, almost to the point of being off-putting. Gets markedly better from there, which bodes well for those who hold this a few more years. Nice Gevrey earth and excellent texture over time.
Red
11/11/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
92 points
Underwhelming overall. Very youthful from a color perspective. Some earth and red fruit aromatically; nothing special there. High notes on the palate but, again, nothing to blow one away. Red-fruited, which is fine and quite on-vintage, on the palate. Once in a while shows its pedigree, but not on a sustained basis. Balance a bit disjointed. No other bottles in the cellar to sample, but not shedding tears over that -- not sure what this has to offer on the upside down the road. An overall disappointment given the price and pedigree.
Red
10/30/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
91 points
Big, sappy, and not yet ready for primetime. Very dark in color. No signs yet of secondary components. Nice texture. Excellent dark fruits. All of that leads to the conclusion that this will be better out in time. Try again in 3+ years.
Red
10/28/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
88 points
Still in the same range as five years ago, but for different characteristics. Now: a bit reduced + fairly red/tart fruit. Still some oak and earth, but this wine is generally a mess (considering the producer and vintage). Not another bottle to verify, but I suspect this might hit its apogee in five-plus years -- if ever....
Red
10/25/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
88 points
A little underwhelming given the vineyard and the vintage. Slightly better aromatically than on the palate. Somewhat thin on the latter, with less texture than expected. Good wine, certainly, but would not seek out. Side note: not even the remotest sign of browning -- so still young.
Red
10/9/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
92 points
Fantastic bottle of wine. Great texture and balance. More finesse than power. Excellent fruit; secondary components. No rush to drink, but really nice right now.
Red
9/29/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
88 points
Sort of a weird result here. Not as concentrated/powerful as previous bottles. Almost dilute on opening, it gained weight with air and time. Not sure what it says for the future, except to say that the texture was a knockout by the bottle's end. Hold for a year or two maybe and try again?
Red
2001 Pierre Bourée Fils Charmes-Chambertin Charmes-Chambertin Grand Cru Pinot Noir (view label images)
9/21/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
87 points
Not really sure what to think of this bottle. Aromatics start with each pour being slightly corked-ish. That thankfully blows off with air, but the aromatics are never really compelling; some earth, a little heat....Palate is better, again, particularly with some air. Has some pretty decent aspects here and there, including smooth texture. It's tempting to say this should be better in 3-5 years, but that's not entirely clear.
Red
9/16/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
91 points
As good as you'd expect a '99 Corton GC to be. Best aspect is the aromatic intensity -- wonderful stuff there. Full-on mélange of flowers, fruit, spice; the works. Quite good on the palate too, but best with small pours -- gets tired quickly in the glass. Good fruit, nice earth. Pleasing. No rush to drink, but no perceptible reason to hold, either.
Red
9/16/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
91 points
Still rockin' to the free world, this. Drinking as well on its 10th anniversary as it was four years ago, but with arguably more sophistication and texture. Secondary stuff creeping in, which is just fine....
1 person found this helpful Comment
Red
9/15/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
92 points
Tried as sort of a flyer tonight, with great results! Very young fruit, of course, but beautiful -- somewhere between red and black, which is a fairly irrelevant distinction because this wine's calling cards are its balance and texture. Both wonderful. Will it get better? Maybe. Will it shut down? Probably. But fantastic at the moment, particularly if one likes young Burgs.
Red
9/11/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
88 points
Very secondary, borderline tertiary at this point. Very little off-coloration. More earthy than the usual Chambolle; excellent aromatics throughout. Good fruit, excellent balance on the palate. Very well-made, as expected from Roumier. Now+5 years or so.
Red
9/2/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
flawed
Corked. Seems I'm not the only taster here to experience that particular phenomenon with this wine....
1 person found this helpful Comment
Red
8/27/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
85 points
Considerably past its prime. Pretty damn fine on the nose; not so much on the palate. Former = fantastic earth/game. Latter = tart/stewed badness, generally. A couple of high notes here and there, but suckalicious on the overall.
1 person found this helpful Comment
Red
8/24/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
90 points
Always good, this. Every bottle, every time. Big, sure, but pretty balanced (with some alcoholic heat here and there). Love it.
Red
8/24/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
80 points
This bottle = relative "yuck". Quite stewed. Not a fan of pureed prunes, but that's what this particular bottle is noted for. Hope for better the next time around...
Red
8/18/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
92 points
This is exceptional right now -- showing much better than 10 months ago (despite not having heeded my own "wait till 2017" guidance...). Maybe bottle variation, or maybe just a touch more time was all this needed. Exquisite balance. Has that "ethereal" aspect that one seeks in red Burgundy (or at least I do). Great fruit. One piece of continuity from the prior TN: this seems like more of a creature of the vintage than of the site. Either way, yum!
1 person found this helpful Comment
Red
8/13/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
91 points
Indeed much improved over five years ago. Much better balanced, with excellent texture. No green notes perceived whatsoever. Still strong on day two.
Red
1997 Domaine Jacques Prieur Chambertin-Clos de Bèze Chambertin-Clos de Bèze Grand Cru Pinot Noir (view label images)
7/30/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
88 points
Better than advertised, though not by a lot given the climat. Mostly speaks to the vintage - at this point big, sort of cooked, and alcoholic. Wouldn't want another, but intrigued by what it was in the context of the vintage and the scarcity of the bottle in question.
Red
7/29/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
90 points
Agree with the previous tasting note.
Red
7/23/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
92 points
Excellent. Still quite youthful, and qualitatively superior to the Suchots tasted alongside. Very true to its Vosne roots -- great spice. Fantastic balance and texture.
Red
7/23/2016 - Sycamore wrote:
90 points
More advanced from an aging perspective than its Beaumonts sibling. A little more bricking. Very earthy nose -- quite nice there. Solid acidity and red fruit on the palate; less balance than noted in the Beaumonts. A little more sauvage here too. Quite good on the overall, with no obvious reason to hold a lot further.
Red
6/15/2016 - Sycamore Likes this wine:
90 points
Still 90 points-ish (what does that mean, anyway?....) five years after the other note written on this. Very, meaning VERY red-fruited to start, but in a good way. Chills out a good bit in that regard in the direction of fairly neutral fruit (red vs black) and picking up a distinct and quite pleasing earthy aspect. Quite good on the overall. Fantastic for a Bourgogne, but not so much from a QPR perspective, wherein lies the conundrum on where wines like this have gone from a market perspective. Bottom line: very much enjoyed but no way a rebuy at current pricing.
1 - 50 of 623
More results
  • Tasting Notes: 623 notes on 543 wines
© 2003-19 CellarTracker! LLC.

Report a Problem

Close