9/22/2006 - Golfer wrote:

Strong but monolithic primary fruits. Worth holding on to for several years yet, somewhat of a waste of a potentially very good wine to drink now.

11/1/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Rich, earthy, very good indeed. Despite reputation for longevity & stern tannins, this was very pleasurable and can certainly be drunk now. CT Start date of 2014 is ridiculous - dunno where that comes from, but I for one will happily ignore it and continue to drink it with gusto.

5/28/2005 - Golfer wrote:

A caricature of a wine. Gobs of hedonistic mint, with an unctuous touch of eucalyptus. No discernible fruit. Won the Jimmy Watson Trophy in 1996, and the judges should be made to drink it every day as a reminder. Dwells somewhere in the nether regions between vile and awful, with no evidence of improvement lurking in the background.

4/7/2005 - Golfer wrote:

I've no great depth of knowledge of burgundies, but this was a lovely drink - no doubt short of its zenith, but very pleasing. Nose a little muted, but lovely fruit, didn't notice any discernible oak - and I'm in good oak-spotting form after some 2000 Bdxs earlier in the week. Very pleased to have a few more of these, would certainly buy again. While obviously young, gave this non-burgophile great pleasure. Opened very promisingly in the glass (and I had several), not decanted.

3/5/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Unimpressed. Maybe I've been drinking too much shiraz lately, but this was stern, austere, lacking in fruit, and devoid of charm. Didn't even seem particularly tannic, so I don't think the good things were being masked - just have grave doubts that there are many good things there at all. Don't think it was a faulty bottle - no such indications. Will give my others a good few years, because there's little pleasure to be gained right now if this bottle is typical.

2/22/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Very impressive for the price. Chock full of fruit, smooth, tiny hint of mint. Must rebuy, as this makes exceptional value for an everyday drinker and can comfortably be kept for some years. Puts some significantly higher-priced wines to shame.

2/2/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Not impressed. Had a bright cherry look and flavour profile, nowhere near the depth and complexity we were expecting. Granted it's very young, but just didn't see the potential to come anywhere close to its lofty price tag. Note to self - do not rebuy even at half the price, and donate the survivors.

1/31/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Kinda strange. Definitely New World, lush, good fruit - just seemed to lack any definition or expression of the grape varieties or place. Enjoyed, would probably buy again, but a bit anonymous. Would like to put this in a blind tasting - think the guesses would be all over the place, but for sure not French. Drinking pretty well now.

1/28/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Quite impressive, significantly better than a previous bottle some months ago. Nice deep fruit & complexity, minimal acidity and soft tannins. Can be drunk with pleasure now, but doubtless still some improvement left.

1/18/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Expensive Winos Jan 05 (Michael): Well, I guess that's why they run the race. Based on name and rep, and age, was probably the favorite to "win" the tasting. Did not receive a single vote for top three from any of the six participants. My note read "definitely not a 707". Wrong again. Showed good fruit, hints of mint/eucalyptus, in no way flawed but simply not as complex or interesting as it should have been or as several of the others.

1/18/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Expensive Winos Jan 05 (Michael): Deep blackcurrant flavors, hints of caramel - drinking well today, without overwhelming anyone - tied for second with three seconds and two thirds, so obviously broadly appealing.

1/18/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Expensive Winos Jan 05 (Michael): Deep purple, no fading, obviously very young. Sweet and rich on the palate, hints of chocolate lurking in the background. Impressive if a little lacking in elegance, not a food wine - drink on its own and enjoy, reminded me of a good port. Runaway winner of the tasting, 5 out of 6 firsts and a third.

1/18/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Expensive Winos Jan 05 (Michael): Didn't taste typically Shiraz-y to me, had it down as a possible Bin. Very good structure, lots of fruit, oak nicely integrated. One first, 2 seconds and a third (tied second overall).

1/18/2005 - Golfer wrote:

Expensive Winos Jan 05 (Michael): Disappointing - not as deep and full-bodied as expected, tending even to be a little dilute or liquid in the middle.
One second and 2 third place votes, should certainly have been higher based on price and reputation.

1/16/2005 - Golfer wrote:

I was impressed by this bottle. Despite less than stellar provenance (was bought in the Caribbean some years ago) was in great condition. Classic Bordeaux on nose & palate, a little earthiness on the finish, pretty close to its peak I'd say. Wish I had a bunch more.

12/13/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Promising, but certainly not ready. Still tightly wound and relatively unyielding after a couple of hours decanting. Forget for a few years.

12/9/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Somewhat closed and mute compared to other '99s recently. I hope it's just a dumb phase, will certainly leave my others for at least a year, preferably more.

12/6/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Still big, dark, and brooding. I had an image of an infantryman putting his head above the parapet, then quickly ducking back out of sight. A little acidic when first opened, after an hour or two that disappeared and there was intense fruit and still a little oak. No mint/eucalyptus. Worth holding for a few years, or at least giving a good couple of hours + of decanting. Very enjoyable, but hold for now.

11/16/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Deep, rich, complex - unmistakeably Italian and proud of it. My last bottle, sob sob. Drinking superbly, well worth the cellar time I'd given it, hard to see it getting much better, not that it's in any danger of being over the hill.

11/10/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Disappointing. Lacking in fruit and complexity, with sourness verging on the unpleasantly acidic. Since I have a few more, hopeful that time will allow it to come together better, but wouldn't bet money on it. Would definitely not repurchase, and it's headed for a beef casserole (into, not with) if it doesn't significantly improve.

9/23/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Very good, refined, smooth and powerful. Still lots of tannin, and no rush to consume, fruit perhaps a little muted yet. Try again in a couple of years.

5/14/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Big, bold and juicy - without much from the minty end of the spectrum. Will probably get better over the next few years, but can be drunk with great pleasure today.

5/8/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Big blast of minty fruit on the nose, which continued in the taste. Too minty for my taste right now, but there's big shiraz fruit there and oak. Will definitely give my remaining bottles a few years, and hope that the mint is more subdued.

4/26/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Impressive balance of fruit with good backbone of acidity. No discernible smells or flavours from the earth/barnyard end of the spectrum, but very pleasing to both nose and palate. Very glad that I've a bunch tucked away.

4/13/2004 - Golfer wrote:

At Winos tonight - to begin, a little tart and acidic. With time, developed most encouragingly, smooth and well-rounded, beautiful fruit with very well-integrated oak. A pleasure to drink, but only after an hour or so's exposure to air. Consensus joint second, with '90 Cos, just pipped by '90 Pichon Baron. In fact, those 3 were for all practical purposes rated equal.

3/31/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Drinking very well, so much so that I see no point in waiting with this. Excellent concentration, complex, long - somewhat more sweet than the vast majority of its fellow-Italians, could have been taken for new world quite easily. Overall a greeat pleasure to drink, wish I had a few cases lying around instead of the odd bottle.

3/30/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Pleasant, beginning to lose some of its earlier tannic mask, should continue to improve over next few years. Still somewhat stern, and much more enjoyable with food than on its own later.

3/28/2004 - Golfer wrote:

This is one big wine - 14.5% alc printed on the label, but there's an ugly white oversticker with 16% obscuring the original, and I'm sure that's no over-estimate. Somewhat chunky and uncoordinated right now, but still enjoyable, great concentration and hints on coming complexity. One to look forward to as it matures over the next few years.

3/27/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Disappointing. Vaguely floral aroma, certainly a long way from tar and roses. Unyielding, monolithic, not much of anything flavour-wise. Just don't know if it's shut down - didn't get the sense of lots of tannin, but wouldn't bet big money on it getting better - will wait a few years before retrying, nothing to lose since it's not giving anything now.

3/26/2004 - Golfer wrote:

I'm not sure why I kept this bottle this long - had drunk the others of a mixed case of this and the La Guiraude several years ago. It had developed very well, and goes to show what can be achieved by a good maker in a good vintage even in a "lesser" appellation. If it weren't for the colour, which was still very much at the purple end of the spectrum, you might have been able to sneak this into a Burg tasting - red fruits, earth, no discernible oak, nicely complex range of flavours, overall a pleasure. A tremendous value, not as big a wine as the Jaboulet Thalabert of the same vintage, but in its own way every bit as good.

3/25/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Deep purple colour, hardly any fading. Rich, concentrated, good fruit, complex. While not cheap, stacks up very well from a value point of view - no way I'd trade 4 of these for (say) a Mondavi Reserve or Beringer PR. A pleasure to drink now, but doubtless some years of improvement ahead.

3/24/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Pleasant without making the earth move. Pretty forward, good fruit with minimal, or at least well-integrated oak. Perhaps a little too sweet and lacking a little backbone. No point in waiting as far as I could judge - few discernible tannins, probably as good as it's going to get.

3/22/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Well, if I had to sum this up in one word....dull. Subdued nose, some sour cherry fruit (but not much) and not a whole lot else. Disappointing, hard to tell if it was over the hill or had never got to the top.

3/17/2004 - Golfer wrote:

Much improved from last tasting a couple of years ago, when it didn't register a top-3 vote in a 5-runner field of fellow Aussies - some of signifcantly higher repute and price, admittedly. This time - nice, sweet blackurrant fruit, very well-integrated oak, some tannin remaining suggesting even better things to come. Not very complex, but can still taste that blackcurrant - showing very well, happy to have another couple to look forward to, whereas after previous tasting regretted having any! Shows the value of patience.