1/28/2023 - Purple Tooth wrote:

Ah yess...I remember this. That cold clay filled Bordeaux nose of wet pungent earth, potpourri of cedar laden flowers, and that flower shop scent that filled my empty glass after it was all gone, but still lingering the next morning. This is classy, old school Bordeaux, taking me back to my very first mind bending experiences. The wine still gains weight in the glass and shows health and power with a one minute finish. Really wished I would have held onto the other bottles. But then again, I would not have those memories. Drink

1/7/2019 - BradE wrote:

A quartet of Monfortino tonight (1971, 1997, 2001, 2010). All were in great shape, and all were very, very good. For me the surprising standout, given it's youth, was the young 2010 (decanted seven hours). Just a baby but it's drinking amazingly well. A fantastic nose on opening, and a sweetness on the palate that belied it's power. Simply outstanding. One of our group of four literally fell in love with the 2001 (decanted five hours), and I understood why. It was beguiling, and improved the most over the three hour dinner. I've been less excited about 1997 Barolos over time than others. And this perfect provenance magnum of 1997 Monfortino was very good, but for me just not as exciting as the other three. The 1971 was terrific, and easily could be called too young. A fine representation of Monfortinos, and a very enjoyable flight.

12/10/2020 - dchain wrote:

Dark and brooding. See my earlier rant about the 2000 vintage (GPL 2000 tasting note from the same night). So little pleasure to be had. Some ripe cassis fruit but all locked up in a straight jacket of not fully ripe phenolic tannins. This has not been pleasurable since tasting it en primeur and it is still hard to get much pleasure. I will sell my 2 cases bought en primeur bought at $45/bt as I cannot be bothered to wait to see how it finally turns out. Unlikely to set your world on fire however long you wait, it is simply the style of Montrose back when it was made. Again, other than the fluke, flawed, Bret laden 89 and 90 who has had a pleasurable, fruit driven, perfumed Montrose? Wines are for enjoyment right, rather than to be worn as a sackcloth like some endurance badge of honour...

6/30/2020 - dchain Likes this wine:

Drank side by side with the Salon 96 this was amber gold and a lot more advanced looking. Not as fresh as previous bottles and was a bit too oxidative and too much bruised golden apples without the freshness and balance I associate with Krug. Maybe an off bottle? Need to watch this as I have 44 bottles still and with auction prices getting to $475/bt might be time to trade some of these for the 2002!

6/24/2014 - Reiff Does not like this wine:

Honestly, I fail to see why people go on about this stuff. And maybe about St. Emilions in general. We had a glass of this at the chateau’s restaurant, with lunch. We tried hard to appreciate it. But all we could get off the nose, for at least an hour, was paint, paint thinner, acetone, and other solvent/insect-repellant aromas. The taste was concentrated but not nice--tight, acrid. After an hour, down to the last sips, it maybe relaxed a little and let out some very sour red berry tastes and smells, like under-ripe red currents. OK, it’s a few years too young for a serious Bordeaux and maybe hadn’t breathed enough. But this was at the domain’s own restaurant, so whose fault is that? (Plus, the bloody glassful cost 22 euros, so I'm giving them no break at all.) I’ll give it an 82 for the concentration, and because some wine aficionados are masochists. Trop long, indeed – if you’re stuck with some of this stuff, you’ll be waiting way too long. Try going up the right bank to Chateau Falfas in Bourg, a very nice organic operation, whose top label is rich, complex but doesn’t forget to be genial, at a fraction of the price.

3/20/2020 - dchain Likes this wine:

From magnum. Tasted side by side with Montrose 08 in same format and I didn’t like this as much this time. More closed and showing more obvious tannins. Just a little rough around the edges. Fruit locked back into the muscular structure of the wine. Maybe sleeping stage for the wine. Not the same brightness, fruit or depth compared with the Montrose. Felt a lot shorter too. I feel Leoville Barton and Langoa Barton could be so much better than they currently are with just a little bit more effort, discipline in the vineyard and to harvest with slightly better ripeness and manage the tannic extraction better. Sounds easy then...

Still nice to drink but almost the same price as Montrose in this vintage and currently I would have the Montrose over the Barton any day.

3/8/2020 - BillBell73 Likes this wine:

Distressingly brown around the edges but drank well after a 10 hour decant. Bottle had been upright for about a month and there was about a quarter bottle of hazy sediment. Autumnal, slightly maderized notes but plenty of sweet fruit underneath and a nice medicinal twang. A good bottle all in all.

1/1/2020 - Ajnate wrote:

Badly oxidized and undrinkable. purchased direct and stored well. so disappointing.

11/16/2019 - felixp Does not like this wine:

no fruit, just acid. Perfectly cellared since release. The antithesis of a lovely, mature generous Volnay. Surely the tale of the Emperor with no clothes derived it's inspiration from this producer.

7/17/2019 - pclin wrote:

Lunch at Wah Lok. The case came in from London last month, finally got an opportunity to open one today. Heavy tobaccos on the nose so typical of a matured HB. Very clean on the nose. Sweet and smooth on the entry. Fine tannins. Previous taster was correct, this tasted so young. In blind tasting I would have guessed as a ‘89 or ‘90 HB. Vibrant acidity and no sign of fading over 2 hours lunch. This is going to last forever. Long may you run! Marvelous wine, so pure and elegant.

5/11/2019 - burgcamel wrote:

Happy it wasn't premoxed! This was an excellent bottle. The nose was a little reserved in the beginning but opened up nicely in 15 minutes. A nice floral and lemon finish that lingered.

10/13/2018 - DonDon wrote:

Struggling to score this to be honest. I had my last bottle of this in 2012 and left a tasting a note at that time which said the wine was disappointing and possibly in a bad phase of the wine and to leave it for at least 5 years. So a big tick to me for managing to wait actually 6 years! Well sadly not much has changed. My wife and I love champagne but this wine was honestly hard to love. The key problem for me was the end palate and length which, although very long, was slightly unbalanced and unpleasant. Perhaps a little too much acidity and a touch of bitterness. There is complexity here and very fine bubbles and a lovey first taste but as a drinking experience I’m really sorry but it’s just OK. You kid of find yourself trying to like it because you know it’s a Krug 96. It is possible I have a bad batch or bad storage before I got these but I’ve owned these (I have 2 more) for over 14 years. I’m really not sure if this is a bad batch or just me being inexperienced with aged expensive champagne? Should I give this more time before opening another bottle? Should I drink them soon if they are in bad condition? Should I sell them?? Comments and ideas welcome! Thanks

8/30/2018 - DonDon wrote:

Drunk at 67PM as part of a totally insane line up. Can’t believe I’ve drunk a wine from 1928!! And that I loved it. It sounds ridiculous to say but this has life left in it. Obviously this is all now about the tertiary flavours but has a great backbone of acidity. Must have got very lucky with bottle condition. What a treat.

8/31/2018 - Burgundy Al wrote:

Coche-Dury Lunch with a La Tâche Kicker, Then More Après Lunch Wines (Elements Restaurant at the Sanctuary - Paradise Valley, AZ): Almost everybody expected this was fake, given the number of questionable elements with the label, bottle and their respective conditions. Those expectations were correct. And the wine, while most likely from Vosne in a lesser vintage, was not particularly enjoyable. I would want to upload a photo of the label, but there is no way to indicate it as fake.

8/16/2018 - brigcampbell wrote:

Last of the DRC I purchased for $20 per bottle. Glad the crew was able share in a legendary wine experience.

Blind: But I knew what it was because I gave it to FMIII to share with Nordhoff. Well, all three of us were sitting at the table so I suspected it might show up in the blind bag. Love the feminine, lightly ripened strawberry flavor with sandlewood. I love sandlewood in Pinot, Grenache, and I guess everything else. Still alive and kicking with a nice tannin foundation in support. Nordhoff thought it was Rhy Swan Terrace. Ha ha!!! Good for Kevin Harvey I guess because it did show like a Rhy but with more age on it.

7/29/2018 - pavel_p Likes this wine:

Decanted for about 45 min. Slightly disappointing as this bottle lacked a bit of stuffing for a second Growth from the 2000 vintage. More red than dark fruit, elevated acidity, medium (-) body. Very good yes but does not justify the reputation and premium price of 2000

6/30/2018 - dcwino wrote:

A lazy Sunday afternoon gathering - Champagne and DRC (Eddie V's - Tysons Corner, VA): Beautiful mature nose displaying decadent sweet yellow fruit, apricot, cinnamon baked apple, a hint of delicate red fruit, honey, sweet spices and mineral. Fully mature palate, very fine but slightly shy mousse, beautifully layered decadent yellow fruit, perfect amount of acidity and mineral and a long decadent yellow fruit and honey driven finish with smoke at the end. The ripe expression reminds me the 90 a bit. Based on my experiences, most bottles of the 96 Krug have completely transformed from having incredible precision and structure to being very generous and round in the past five years. This is a divisive wine as for me, it is drinking beautifully and correct where Bryan and RJ think too advanced.

6/4/2018 - The Vines That Bind wrote:

Liger-Belair Dinner (Hong Kong): I far preferred the '15 La Romanee, which is in an infant baby fat stage, to this comparatively dry and mildly stewed showing. Inexpressive nose with dried cranberry and missing the detail of many of the lesser wines tonight. The '10 last week was was also far more accessible and pleasurable than this. This was however the last wine of a fairly lengthy program, but I still don't really see this one. With Louis Michel, bottles from the domaine.

6/7/2018 - dcwino wrote:

2006 RC and 2006 DRC Montrachet dinner - Stanley Cup Final (Proof Restaurant - Washington DC): Expressive complex nose displaying rich red fruit, raspberry jam, a hint of cherry, cinnamon and nutmeg, Vosne spices and earth. Excellent concentration, very finely layered subtle yet decadent red fruit, unctuous yet silky, perfect amount of acidity and mineral, and a long rich sweet red fruit driven finish. It has reach the first stage of the youthful peak.

6/6/2018 - Keith Levenberg wrote:

Krug Release Party (Zachys DC): 37% pinot noir, 39% chardonnay and 24% meunier. Very deep in tone (here the red-heavy blend is not a surprise), but there is a hollowness in the middle. This is completely beyond fruit, a little metallic, a little funky (like, quite vividly, body sweat), and a little spicy (like coriander). The winery notes characterize the year as "Luminous Freshness," which is not quite the experience I'm getting out of this bottle. Fair to call this interesting but it doesn't ding very high on my pleasure meter.

6/7/2018 - UFGators Likes this wine:

Not sure if I drank his too young but definitely not my favorite champagne. Loads of grapefruit notes and smoky finish. If you have some bottles of this hold.

6/1/2018 - wlayne Likes this wine:

Opened about an hour before serving, let it breathe out of the bottle for 20 minutes then replaced the cork per some of the previous suggestions about this wine losing its fruit after a few hours. Gorgeous floral bouquet and red fruits emanating out of the glass; strawberry jam, cherries, perfectly intertwined. Majestic Ponsot balance on the palate, everything intertwined just beautifully. Not a super long finish but delicious nonetheless. Another wonderful example of a very misunderstood vintage.

6/1/2018 - Pearls_b4Swine wrote:

Formerly one of the best bordeaux i had ever had; it's now too old, alas, for any great notes.

5/28/2018 - Rollerball wrote:

Exquisitely and reservedly complementary. Like a swoosh or vacuum with tri tip and chimmichurri, this cleansed and balanced everything. Dense, plush, gently fruit forward, and mildly tart, with no hard edges. Understated for the vintage but purring like a race car.

5/31/2018 - kakpoo Likes this wine:

This '95 Krug is open and more intense than the 2002 vintage that I drank last fall. There is some oxidation and many elements of freshness (butterscotch, brioche, nuttiness combined with tart to ripe apples and citrus.) The acidity is prominent but not sharp or overwhelming. At this time, the 95 Krug excels at balance, and still feels more youthful than I would expect for its age. This bottle was shared among 5 other people, so it only lasted about 1hr before the bottle was emptied. Its possible that additional time in the glass would have brought out more developed and complex notes. Although the Krug '95 is very enjoyable at this time, it doesn't seem exceptional. I would only open another bottle now if I was going to consume it by myself and retaste the wine over 2 days. Based on the freshness and acidity present in this bottle, I won't open my next bottle until about 2023-2025.

5/26/2018 - fcxj wrote:

From 3L. Floral, stem, expressive aromatics. Loved the silky, red fruit palate. (00001/18271)

5/25/2018 - ccn wrote:

(from magnum). In the early stages of a great drinking window, but with a lot of room to develop further. Aromatically complex, good length and depth, very classic, restrained St Julien. Boy, do I prefer this to hot-vintage bordeaux!

5/23/2018 - dcwino wrote:

Brother Jeff's visit to DC - Mostly Bordeaux (The Grill Room at the Rosewood DC): Surprisingly elegant nose displaying subtle fresh white fruit, pear, white peach, lemon, rose, rain water and crushed rock. Very elegant, fresh and precise palate, very finely layered white fruit, bright acidity, strong mineral presence and a long seamless fresh white fruit driven finish. I was expecting very focused and tight showing but surprisingly elegant and approachable. I believe I am the only one who prefers over the 96.

5/4/2018 - dchain Does not like this wine:

Dark purple. Blackberry, tar, earth and charcoal on the nose. Tannic beast, monolithic graphite framed palate which locks away all the fruit. Over extracted and trying way to hard. Totally lacking in any pleasure. I have been trying a lot of 08s most of which are surprisingly accessible. This is not and I don’t think this will come into balance due to the over extraction resulting in bitterness and grainy tannins. Extremely disappointing and avoid this unless you are a lover of point scores over flavor, elegance and drinkability!

3/1/2018 - Jeff Leve wrote:

This is a monumental wine. The surreal texture is off the hook. The wine coats and stains your palate. This is decadence with a backbone. Pure velvet with countless waves of perfectly ripe fruit, that expresses a wonderful purity. Inky, dark in color, this is only getting started. 2 hours in the decanted allowed the blackberry, plum, espresso, smoke, licorice, extremely dark chocolate and earthy notes to appear. Make no mistake, this is all about the incredible levels of density and decadent mouthfeel. Prices have not moved much. In time, my bet is, this will be considered one of the stars of the legendary 2009 vintage!

1/19/2018 - englishmen’s claret Likes this wine:

I would like to drink this beside some other "great" 86s. I am still not sold on the 86 being the legendary vintage it has been hyped to be. Yet another letdown in 1986 but this time from a Chateau I love and find to be so consistent. Looking for bottles that will change my opinion of 1986 left banks.

12/22/2017 - dcwino wrote:

A lost Friday afternoon gathering – 96 Krug mag, 99 Fourrier CSJ, blind CDB flight and etc. (Blacksalt, Washington DC): En magnum, absolutely perfect vinous nose displaying exquisite sweet yellow fruit, also subtle fresh red fruit, tarte tatin, apricot, diluted pomegranate, red currant, fresh cep, honey, brioche, smoke, subtle floral perfume, sweet spices and limestone. There is a clear white truffle note which I have never gotten before which is fascinating. Absolutely gorgeous noble palate, the palate of a great Chevalier, pure, harmonious, fresh and weightless, beautiful interplay of decadent yellow fruit and subtle yet vibrant red fruit, incredibly fine endless beads, perfect amount of acidity, strong chalky mineral and a beguiling symphonic finish that subtly resonates. At the similar stage of development as the fifth which is a bit surprising, however noticeably more complex and purer, also finer and more generous mousse. Absolutely perfect showing, retaining incredible purity and freshness yet so decadent and complex.

12/18/2017 - VoteferPedro wrote:

seems correct in terms of a Ducru which tends to make me think of raspberry in some way or another but the tannins on this were too thick to enjoy the wine. Two days in the cellar later it is about the same. Not sure how others were able to enjoy it. it is not flawed just tannic. Not sure if the fruit will hang past the tannin..

I bought this on release and stored relatively cold cellar so it is drinking young...too young to rate at this point

11/9/2017 - dchain Likes this wine:

Popped and poured. Deep ruby showing little signs of ageing. Amazing explosion of plum, kinky spice with that Cabernet Franc given it that forest, leather, peppery undergrowth element. Absolutely seductive and ripe and exotic, the nose is really something to marvel in. It did drop off in intensity after about an hour in the glass so please don’t decant this and enjoy it immediately upon pouring.

On the palate there is no harshness and impressively ripe balanced fruit. I much prefer Angelus in the less ripe less blockbuster years as they cannot go over the top and it is such a better drinking experience. Who wants to be smashed in the mouth with a wine screaming “look at me, I am the ripest and most extracted grape in the world and I am going to destroy your palate with my superpowers...”. I am glad to see the Chateau starting to mellow up again now it has attained first growth status and bring some subtlety and elegance back to its wine making.

Enjoy this now and look out for other cooler vintages of this wine for a more pleasurable experience!

12/1/2017 - fcxj wrote:

Quite enjoyed this, nice fruit and balance.

12/1/2017 - galewskj wrote:

Going Big at Dan's (Dan's House): Everyone seemed to love this champagne, except me. And I brought it. The nose has power and depth. The palate is lean, tight and high-toned. For my taste, this is not ready to drink. I've enjoyed NV Krug much more than this bottle. I was shocked to hear other people talk about how much they loved this. Style preference? Still, it doesn't suck.

10/11/2017 - acyso wrote:

Chicago 2004 Krug Release (Chicago, IL): 116006. This is good, but simply too young. It's a tight and dense coil of energy right now. Lots of citrus extract on the palate, this almost veers towards some lemons or limes. It's got power for sure, as well as some of that characteristic Krug richness. Air tames the acids a little. This is much too young; time is needed to round out the palate and let the acids cool down a little. No denying the quality of this wine though; it is certainly head and shoulders above the 2003, but eclipsed by the monumental 2002.

8/20/2017 - Ecbatana wrote:

Glass pour from Coravin. Now in the winter of its life. The fruit has faded, shows layers of mineral, earth, wet stone and some green forest leaves. Soft, feminine and elegant. Consume remaining bottles within a year.

7/30/2017 - tsde123 Likes this wine:

treat yo self. not overly experienced with vintage champagnes but this was fantastic. did not pick up the lemon flavors or vanilla mentioned in other reviews. pale citrine in color fine bubbles that lasted forever in the glass. I picked up pear on the nose and on the palette it was very dry, minerally, and crisp/tart like an under ripe green apple. nice acidity long long finish. I am sure this will age well but today was a day to treat yo self and someone special.

6/27/2017 - fcxj wrote:

Santenay. Ruddy brown, heavily bricked. Earthy aromas and tart cherry palate. Deep, ripe palate. (19050/22140)

3/28/2017 - dchain Likes this wine:

At Acker HK auction. Deep ruby. Looks like a wine from the early 90s! Very interesting nose. This was probably one of the best bottles of Latour 70 I have had- cassis/cherry fruit with a nut (toasted pecan?), chocolate, leather, tobacco undertone. Quite burly and massive on the nose and almost intimidating, showing off the power of Latour. Power rather than beauty! On the palate it is still a bit tight, tannins are still present and there is that serious structure that just is a bit unforgiving. Impressive for the vintage and perhaps still needs more time! An impressive wine but I enjoyed drinking the Beychevelle 1989 more!!

3/2/2017 - fcxj wrote:

Liked underlying fruit and freshness.

2/28/2017 - Nanda wrote:

50th Birthday Winefoolishness (Chicago, IL): Far preferred this to a 67 Cheval Blanc served side-by-side. The aromas in the Mouton had more depth and power -- dried plums, cedar and a killer cigar box note. The nose actually picked up depth with time. Palate is light bodied, but balanced. An interesting spice note in the finish.

1/21/2017 - Tim Heaton Likes this wine:

Hard to argue and of the points that dchain makes in his/her note of Sept 2016. Which is to say, this comes across as 1er material and NOT GC worthy. While there's a fair amount to enjoy (as a simple companion to food), it never really becomes exciting in any way, it never reveals any nuance or chance for hidden nuances. Agree with others, not sure there's really any reason to let this age any longer. Good, but short of very good or excellent; leans modern, with some gratuitous flab.

Served non-blind.

1/5/2017 - fcxj wrote:

Mahler Besse bottle. Should sell the case I bought. Dusty nose and very dried out.

10/18/2016 - dchain Likes this wine:

Dark, clear ruby. Quite restrained. Initially quite minerally and austere but with a bit of coaxing you can sense a lovely raspberry, summer pudding undertone of red summer berry fruit. Still tastes very young but multi layered and complex and quite a lot to contemplate. Still needs more time but delicious. However at current prices you would expect more excitement and passion coming from the glass. Check again in a few years time!

12/9/2016 - dchain Does not like this wine:

Light gold. Quiet closed. No sense of the grape or underlying fruit. Very austere on the palate and light. Painfully acidic. Poor value for money. Avoid unless you love drinking acid...

9/28/2016 - TheUsualSuspects Likes this wine:

Wow. What a wine. Tasted alongside Cheval Blanc 1990, which I initially favoured due to its more sexy luxurious nature, the Haut Brion however kept on getting better and better. Fresh, vibrant, perfectly balanced, beautiful aromatics, superb mouthfeel, coats the mouth with sweet dark fruits and touches of spice. an incredibly long finish. New notes and aromas hit you well after the last drop in your glass has gone. Sensational experience, this is what it's all about. It's in a perfect place right now but as previous posters have elaborated, it's got plenty of life left!

I love 1990 Bordeaux, and this might now sit atop a quite wonderful tree.

3/31/2016 - Ramberg wrote:

No formal notes.
PnP.
Ouuf!
This is Pauillac as it should be, indeed.
This bottle behaved great tonight.
Nose is marvelous & very classical, lively blackcurrant and blackberries with graphite and gravel dust, lead pencil, leather, cigar box cedar wood, touch of dusty herbs & mint , tobacco, stable/barn yard.
Palate shows a semi mature spiffing Left Bank profile, with a good amount of life left in it, fresh red berries & black currant, dusty gravel, herbs and tobacco.
Good length and very balanced.
Classic stuff in all aspects, bring it on!
(95 – 96+)

8/26/2016 - Charlie Carnes wrote:

These were never received...Premier Cru fiasco!