1/21/2022 - mdavis Likes this wine:

Beautiful wine, pronounced spicy dark fruited aromatics, love the style of the Gibourg 13s, but this wine is barrel tasting young…great acidic backbone, acid/fruit balance, very cool climate, suave and polished like most Gibourg which I’d characterize as a gateway wine..Hold for 10 to 15 more years, don’t be stupid | this wine is showing a fractional part of what it is capable of…

5/12/2018 - mdavis Likes this wine:

Really in a good place right now, just outstanding.

4/28/2018 - mdavis Likes this wine:

Great showing, acid driven, young, long. Delightful. No sign whatsoever of pre-ox.

11/18/2016 - mdavis Likes this wine:

Good wine, but it needs time to shed the reduction.

8/16/2014 - mdavis wrote:

Really underwhelming wine - aromatics were nice...but the palate fell off on the back end and the finish was quite short. Outclassed by various 1er cru at the same event.

10/27/2013 - mdavis wrote:

Considerable acid, oak that isn't quite integrated, and lemon dominated fruit. Good, but perhaps not as integratedor balanced as I'd like.

10/27/2013 - mdavis wrote:

Quite geeky - decanted for 4 hours. Comes across as an orange wine and slightly oxidative on the nose...on the palate, strong notes of Apple Cider - reminds me of Radikon, yet there is still some stone and mineral and good acidity for '09 to provide some tension. Cool wine.

10/27/2013 - mdavis wrote:

Past prime, confirmed on 2 occasions. DRINK UP!

10/27/2013 - mdavis wrote:

A great wine in a great place right now - the complexity that comes from all the ancient varieties is amazing. elegant, cool climate, and really quite contemplating and intellectual....

10/27/2013 - mdavis wrote:

Pronounced acidity and cut, too young. Can't wait to drink the rest in 10 years.

10/27/2013 - mdavis wrote:

Slightly oxidized, interesting, but not profound or intellectual. Definitely not typical of the region (in a good way). With less oxidation and more fruit, perhaps 5 years ago, this was a good wine.

10/27/2013 - mdavis Likes this wine:

No sign of pyrazine. Aromatic, elegant, delicate, long, and in a perfect place right now. Outperformed my already high expectations.

3/1/2013 - mdavis wrote:

Drink up!

12/27/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Preoxed!

12/16/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Brilliant.

12/12/2012 - mdavis Does not like this wine:

Tasted two bottles with consistent notes: VA beyond belief, plus some microbial and other off putting elements. DNPIM - no not put in mouth.

12/12/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Oxidized beyond drinkability.

12/5/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Mineral driven. Signs of pre-ox, but not progressed too far. Pronounced acidity on the palate. Medium finish. Given the pre-ox, I'd recommend drinking them -- and with shellfish.

11/25/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Doesn't have the precision of 2007. This version is more forward, fuller, riper but not sur mature. Balanced - no sign of heat on the back-palate, great acidity, good depth. Citrus driven aromatics and palate. Long on the finish. Doesn't speak of the soils like 2007, but I suspect 2008 will age really nicely ...no hurry on these.

11/25/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Wonderful bottle of wine.

11/11/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Upon opening, this initially presented some green herbalness and asparagus notes...the structure and density of the wine was significant, dominated by black fruit and rasberry...Overall, the wine was more about fruit than earth, it was more about density than elegance...Definitely new world in terms of density and extraction. Young, smooth tannin and limited astringency make the wine somewhat drinkable now. Certainly well made. Medium length. I'm always wanting these wines to be more Burgundian than they have presented themselves, but they are a lot like good Oregon Pinot....

11/5/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Faint signs of heat on this final bottle, yet great depth of somewhat ripe fruit and pronounced aromatics. Medium finish. This one was more enjoyable than the last.

11/4/2012 - mdavis wrote:

One of my house Champagnes...showing more mineral and zippy acidity this time around. Nicely balanced. Beautiful on day 5,6,7. Amazing life ahead of it....if you can wait. Drink or hold.

11/4/2012 - mdavis wrote:

This wine is wide open and showing very nicely - aromas and palate showing forest floor with prominent dark fruits, tad bit of secondary, pretty long finish for the appellation. I can't imagine this wine improving too much -- perhaps it will become a little more complex with a little bit more development and secondary. Really good for what it is.

11/4/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Adequate. Lightly bodied, acid driven, yet nicely balanced, medium finish. The wine was good, but not great, with fish. I like the style of the wines; the thing this lacks is complexity and minerality.

11/5/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Oddly, there is more precision and focus in this vs. the 2002 (2nd). The ripeness of the vintage is there, but not in a distracting way. Enjoyable.

10/28/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Undrinkable to me, due to the alcohol on the back end.

10/17/2012 - mdavis wrote:

The wine is typical of quality muscadet, it is actually young, long, and well made. The wine has good minerality. Perhaps a bit full bodied for a muscadet. Perhaps a bit round. Yet enjoyable. I can't believe it. Perhaps not quite a good as a fine Clos de Briords, but wow, this is decent.

10/14/2012 - mdavis wrote:

This wine is incredibly ripe for a 2010. The wine lacks mid-palate depth, interest, and any level of complexity whatsoever...it is so uninteresting when you can buy other Fleurie that wipes the floor with this wine - Vissoux, Metras, Foillard, Coudert to name a few.... Not recommended. I don't normally give scores, but for this I will make a special exception.

10/13/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Pronounced dirty, gamey, beefy aromas with a similar palate, strong acidity - perhaps slightly out of balance....great structure and fruit...the wine continues to have a great backbone and will age for another 5+ years...secondary significantly contributing to the interest of the wine. Long finish. A great and complete wine.

10/13/2012 - mdavis wrote:

The green-ness from '04 was not apparent upon initially opening this wine, but became more noticeable over time. More structured and younger than I would have thought. Great aromas, but disappointing mid-palate. Pronounced acidity. I think it will improve with time.

10/13/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Young, yet really enjoyable wine right now - fine tannins, astounding aromas, long finish. Folks like to poo-poo CDLR from Rousseau, but there are vintages like this that contradict the general beliefs about the wine. Drink or HOLD for a wine with more secondary and interest.

10/13/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Young, yet precise. No signs of pre-ox. No sign of secondary, but great acidity and a long, refreshing finish. Doesn't have the body or mouthfeel of a grand cru (this can sometimes approach grand cru quality)....but with time it may develop the secondary it needs to be a bit more intellectual. Oak is integrating - could integrate a bit more...HOLD for 5 more years.

10/6/2012 - mdavis wrote:

A wine of balance, '08 base? Good wine for the price.

10/6/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Tasted like '09 base as it was ripe and dominated by tropical notes

10/13/2012 - mdavis wrote:

A winemaker making Blaufrankisch as if it was grand cru Burgundy. Terroir driven - a wine that speaks of the terroir. Geeky. Good wine.

10/6/2012 - mdavis wrote:

A bit oaky for me.

9/30/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Infanticide at this point -- really wound up with tannin, astringency, concentration, structure, density...certainly not about elegance or terroir at this point in time...too fruit driven, too young...clearly way too early to drink this, but I have high hopes for the wine in 5-10 years -- great balance.

9/30/2012 - mdavis wrote:

This wine is really firing on all cylinders...While it may be a bit ripe and tropical per 05, it also has great balance, surprisingly acceptable acidity, and good minerality. I'm happy to have a few more of these. Super enjoyable.

9/17/2012 - mdavis wrote:

A bit affected by the ripeness of the vintage, but still showing good minerality and...lots of fruit. no sign of pre-ox. Enjoyable, if not as classic as I'd like.

9/6/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Showing a bit of 2004, yet the complexity and balance really shined.

9/6/2012 - mdavis wrote:

On the downhill, but drinking well and still enjoyable.

9/25/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Now this is a vintage I like a lot and a great effort from my favorite producer in the region. Still young, but then again, you have to worry about Pre-ox...and Niellon is greatly affected. Brilliant wine.

9/20/2012 - mdavis wrote:

In a good place right now, brisk, precise, pure, really enjoyable.

9/20/2012 - mdavis wrote:

I'm not a huge fan of big house Champagne, but this spoke volumes of 1996...Wish the roundness and dosage wasn't so annoying to me.

9/26/2012 - mdavis wrote:

A bit round and slightly more oak than I prefer, but otherwise well balanced and well made. The folks I opened this with said it was the best Champagne they have had all year....not for me, but it was interesting.

9/26/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Today this is more about fruit and freshness, than complexity. Enjoyable with pasta. Has a long way to go.

9/30/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Out of magnum. The oak is well integrated. The palate has depth and the finish has good length. Notes of secondary on the palate, yet it has enough freshness and fruit to hold for a number of years....But why would you do that? Really balanced and enjoyable NOW. One of the most complete wines from the region I've had this year.

9/16/2012 - mdavis wrote:

Acceptable for a Wed night, but nothing profound. I liked the tension for a 2005.

9/14/2012 - mdavis wrote:

A really nice showing w/Salmon. While I wouldn't claim that the acidity is pronounced, it was higher than expected...and the wine was more in balance than I expected for the vintage. Super complex, as usual, and long. Mineral. Yeasty. Shows good precision for 2006. Exceeded expectations.