11/8/2021 - egaible Likes this wine:

Excellent wine. Really fills my bill in re vintage port, in that the wine has clarified and tossed A major crust, leAving a raried and slightly stringent nectar. Leather and cherrires, a hint of tabac. Really lovely.

10/30/2021 - egaible wrote:

opened in oct. It's Ok. The nose is super. There is still alcohol in it, and the predominant tastes on the palate are: 1) sweetness; 2) cassis. I don't think it's great, but it's certainly far far far from lousy. (Personally cellared [I mean, who else would cellar it?] for at least 15 and more probably 20 years.)

5/12/2021 - egaible wrote:

Lovely without decanting in 2021. Leather, some barnyard early on, but resolving into a kind of vanilla or tobacco or... Very, very dark, impenetrable, without bricking but with sediment. Altogether a good bottle

5/2/2021 - egaible wrote:

Beautifully clear, amber, no cloying paroxysms of freshness. It's amazing to me how well this wine has aged, it's very pretty. No cough syrupy-ness, it's even got lemon foretastes to go with very slight cassis afternotes. No alcohol in the nose, a very pure and lovely experience. (Although some cork bits entered the bottle. If you are adept at using tongs, they're a better choice.)

3/5/2021 - egaible Likes this wine:

Good fruit. Perfectly mature in the bottle. I would not keep this wine for long as it lacks tannins and complexity.It was minerally enough, and surprisingly had a few citrus notes. Very nice.

1/9/2021 - egaible wrote:

It's OK. In 2020 there is still a medicinal note, also a deal of alcohol. I would save this for another 10 years or so. Creosote, minimal bricking, limited fruit, of the ports I've tried lately this is the least impressive.

12/15/2020 - egaible Likes this wine:

I'm biased as I had a great experience buying this port wine. But many years after the purchase it's terrific! Slight bricking (in 2020), nose of cassis and almonds (who wouldn't love that?), non-cloying texture on the palette, cherries at the back end. Really does everything that a vintage port should do.

10/26/2020 - egaible wrote:

It's good. But again for a declared year, and a fine year at that, it's underwhelming. Very very slight bricking, a bit oversweet and lacking that clarity that accompanies the finest vintage ports IMHO. Not a lot of nose, but what there was was cassis-ish. Initial taste was rich with cherries.

11/8/2019 - egaible Does not like this wine:

I'm afraid my exp w this wine doesn't track with others. Generally an overlush, oversweet port without the clarification of a good vintage. Cherries, too many cherries. I do not think that aging will help this wine, TBH. But YMMV.

11/5/2019 - egaible wrote:

Very decent vintage port, slight bricking and clarification reduces (?) the sweetness. Leather and berries on the palette. Not much alcohol in the nose. I gotta say, however, that for a year of general declaration it's not-yet-spectacular. Could be that holding it for another 10 will pay off.

12/6/2018 - egaible Likes this wine:

Surprisingly not bad. Reasonable fruit, no bricking but not cloying, some tannins, could last another 10,, could last another 20

10/18/2018 - egaible Likes this wine:

Very nice altho without a lot going on. Super-well balanced, with slight nose and taste on the vback palate of citrus, cherry or licorice. It’s a bit tight still in 2018, but not overly so, there is little upside to holding this wine I think.

10/9/2018 - egaible wrote:

Delightful nose, as mentioned by others -- leather, cherries -- quite, quite excellent. Just decanted, the wine is bricked without throwing any crust whatsoever (cork as extracted was intact too, btw). Initial tasting had a lot of citrus, no real tannin, no real astringency. After 3 hours, the citrus diminished but didn't disappear, remained the dominant note. This rioja resembled a decent and well-aged nebbiolo, IMHO. Not bad, perhaps not worth 30+ years of age. Drink it now, it's not getting better.

8/2/2018 - egaible wrote:

A decent to good Barbaresco, muted citrus with leather, cherries and non-overbearing tannins. Slight bricking in 2018 but not extreme. Very enjoyable

3/18/2018 - egaible Likes this wine:

I continue to think this is a very, very decent wine. I taste slight citrus right at the start, with some mellowing of that bitty sharpness within a few minutes. The wine is very balanced, no overabundance of tannins, alcohol, sugars, Barreling. I wouldn’t hold onto it for long however, to me it’s not tight at all. It’s ready to go, after now it will be flaccid.

3/14/2018 - egaible wrote:

Citrus and. Pepper at the top, which I find in all decent barbareschi,?, with undertones of cherry and a hint of leather. Sugar but not too much. Probably peaking now and for another 2 years. Very very nice

2/28/2018 - egaible wrote:

Surprisingly not bad. Bricked but still a hint of cherries.

1/25/2018 - egaible Likes this wine:

Totally decent. Leather and cherry a bit syrupy but balanced and not too sweet. Could stand a few more years to allow a remaining tannins to settle.

1/23/2018 - egaible wrote:

Well past its prime when consumed, this bottle had some citrus at the start, and tannins had softened to low-moderate bitiness. But the wine offered nothing beyond its start.

1/10/2018 - egaible Likes this wine:

A decent version of its type, still doing well after the bottle open 1 yr ago. Leather predominates, with a hint of barnyard (no fruit whatsoever survives). Likeable, but definitely a first glass or taste. it's light-bodied, but balanced. if you have anything that presents more fruit or sugar, drink this before that. Do not hesitate, this wine is not going to improve.

1/9/2018 - egaible wrote:

Not bad. I doubt that at this point it will improve, frankly. Balanced. Not bricked at all, without the delicacy that drives one to vintage ports. Some fruit (black cherry), some licorice, but mostly dominated by alcohol and sugar. I might have another bottle around -- note to self, give it a while, with low expectations, and see what happens. 1995 wasn't declared, but Croft clearly thought that this single quinta version would hold up. Bravo for them, it's far from horrible. It won't improve.

1/7/2018 - egaible Likes this wine:

Very balanced. Lighter with. Cirus and raspberries, no tannin. Drink it now.

1/5/2018 - egaible Likes this wine:

Very great version. Cherries black, abut of leather AND a bit of citrus.

1/6/2018 - egaible Likes this wine:

Semi-fine v port. Quite bricked, smoothed and nutty, approaching the lightness of a tawny but with additional (meaning some) fruit still showing. Cherries, currants, licorice, no leather. IMHO. Hard to say about the drink dates--1994 was a super year, but I can't imagine that these bottles will improve much over their current states -- that said, this note suggests that at least my attitude has improved since opening a similar bottle 6 months ago. ;)

11/17/2017 - egaible Likes this wine:

Very balanced. Some leather, cassis, cherry but blended and understated. Residual tannins are muted. Dark, slightest bricking and crumbs of a crust. Drink it now

11/16/2017 - egaible Likes this wine:

Really a superb wine. Grassy, with very soft tenants, the slightest barnyard in the nose. I wouldn’t wait to drink this anymore, it can’t get better

11/12/2017 - egaible wrote:

It's not bad, the degree of difficulty with vintage port being what it is. It's enjoyable, with figs, cherries, liqueur. Note that all of these things are sweet. Ish. Slight garnet or bricking, but the color betrays its lack of mature-ability. I don't dislike it, but a high-end vin santo (travignoli) is probably just as good.

11/3/2017 - egaible wrote:

Excellent (for a) vin santo. Really enjoyable, toasted almonds, raisins, very great.

11/1/2017 - egaible wrote:

Very decent. Still leather and cherries evident with like leather and Roquefort in the nose. Don’t hold this wine any longer however.

10/30/2017 - egaible Likes this wine:

Intense leather balanced by licorice and tobacco. The key to this wine is balance: at this late date in its life it’s thrown a crust but only shows a little bricking, the fruit is detectable but tannins are not. It’s very very nice

10/18/2017 - egaible wrote:

Not fine. astringent with little left of this delicate fruit. Unoaked, per the region, thankfully. And drinkable. With some hints of probably granitic soil (guessing here) But there is little to recommend it in this spectacular vintage.

10/13/2017 - egaible wrote:

Really a super wine in 2017. Slight bricking (but no crust). Fruit is hints of cherries, with some leather, without either tannins or sugar. This is a spectacularly balanced winel Plus it has that real sangiovese, uh, je ne se quois. There's something about it that is reflects the grape. I could not be more pleased with this somewhat off-brand label. Really, really terrific.

9/25/2017 - egaible wrote:

I hardly love it. Sweet, no tannins or residual oak, no bricking. None of the pale extrusions of caramel that make vintage port that elusive but overwhelming thing. No fruit. No tannins. Sugar.

(BTW most port reviews, pro and consumer, are in my opinion exaggeratedly positive. Perhaps as a result of price.)

This wine, in any case, meh.

9/17/2017 - egaible wrote:

Pretty great for a zin. Not overwhelmed by alcohol, retaining some nuance not lost to jam. Really OK, some tannins tasted, a slight bit of oak (but not too much), fruit is apparent. No bricking so I suspect this wine will stand another 3-4 years of cellaring if called on to so be stored. Pepper. Did I mention pepper? Slight pepper per a medium-bodied zin's best characteristic, IMHO.

9/7/2017 - egaible wrote:

Pretty great -- tons of refined fruit now (2017), no wood, still not-bricked in terms of color. Not overwhelming in terms of alcohol. OK, I praise this wine in terms of what it isn't, mostly. But a 20 year old vintage of Syrah is likely to suck, and this bottle is really great.

8/17/2017 - egaible Likes this wine:

Not bad. Stlll has some of the unrefined, cloying quality of a lesser vintage port -- and 94 was a vintage year, a very good one at that. So perhaps DG is unredeemable. But: leather, some tobacco -- what you are looking for, except that sugar / alcohol substitute themselves for even the most minimal hint of fruit.

7/26/2017 - egaible Likes this wine:

Great color, like a tawny, with more complexity, less nuttiness. A very decent vintage port. Not perfect by a long shot, '94 was a great year and this port doesn't deliver 1) power; 2) complexity. Not bad, but this is as good as DG can get. Like the guy said in '14, "Drink now, but not dead yet."

7/20/2017 - egaible wrote:

Surprisingly not bad. Still had fruit, some jamminess from a wine that wasn't too jam-laden from the start IIRC. Mostly notable for what it lacked: zero bricking; zero nose; no leather or other notes of bottle age.

7/20/2017 - egaible wrote:

Showing a little flaccidity at this point, but not horrid. Fruit still present and tannins softened as appropriate, a bit too much taste of alcohol

4/13/2017 - egaible Likes this wine:

Still decent in 2017. Residual tannins, a bit of black cherry. Very enjoyable.

8/14/2016 - egaible wrote:

Tasted way late in the lifecycle of this wine. Would have been better 5 (?) years ago or so. The tannins have softened mightily but not disappeared. The fruit remains discernible but not marked. It might have been a mighty wine at one point, but that point was likely to have been short lived.

4/3/2016 - egaible Likes this wine:

A little too much grapefruit for my taste, but the fruit shows well with hints of minerality. Very decent.

4/3/2016 - egaible Does not like this wine:

Not a stunning example of the type IMHO. Tannins obscure the lack of fruit. Will not improve with age.

3/14/2016 - egaible wrote:

Indistinct but only slightly heavy -- leather and some fruit, but not enough of either to be noteworthy. Tannins are moderate, but there won't be much left when they're gone. Drink it soonish or don't.

12/1/2015 - egaible wrote:

Very, very fine. Clear/tint color, but well modulated fruit in combination with sugars (not too much) and tannins (never overpowering).

11/26/2015 - egaible Likes this wine:

Exceptional wine in relation to its age. Very much a treat of leathers and fruits, still, without a hint of tannin.

4/15/2015 - egaible wrote:

Very great example of a Fleurie Beaujolais, slight citrus, delicate fruit (grape, why not?) and minerals, and a grand level of complexity. At $30 or so, it's unclear that it is 2x as good as some lower-priced Morgons that I have around, but it's very nice.

3/19/2015 - egaible wrote:

Quite OK, the slightest of bricking, residual tannin, but not too strong, not too much alcohol. Cherries & blackcherries, tiny whiff of leather. Surprisingly still good long after I would have guessed it had pooped out.

3/16/2015 - egaible wrote:

Good enough, with the expected fruits (cherry or berry), some minerality from the region, a lot of alcohol (14%) that substitutes on some level for earthiness but that adds to the wine's impressive body.

At $29, a bit overpriced IMHO, but who knows?

Color is quite nice, reddish but not saturatedly so for wine this young.

3/3/2015 - egaible Likes this wine:

Terrific burgundy, a bit fruit forward, extremely well balanced, absence of minerality and of other tones (barnyard, leather). Slightest of cherry tones.. Acidic on opening but it mellowed substantially with a 15 minutes' glass time.

Plus, it's a killer label, very beautiful in a "Babar and Celeste" kind of way.