5/4/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

From a single bottle purchased at retail. Coravin pour. Glass-coating concentration. Wow. That’s good wine. I bought this on sale for $23 US, but don’t let the price point fool you.

This is a bit shy on the nose right now, showing peonies and a bit of leather in addition to plums and cherries on the nose, but in the mouth, it’s a big, weighty, glycerol-drooling beast packed with well-concentrated black and red fruits and showing hints of licorice and dark chocolate covered cherries. It seems very soft at first and then it explodes, courtesy of an electrifying backbone of acidity that brings the juice alive with a zap without giving the least impression of too much acidity. Lots of ripe tannins here. Balance is excellent. Zero perception of the high ABV.

Young as this is, it is already a great wine that is drinking very well in a flashy, youthful way. There is a lot of juice and structure here. If this develops some complexity and nuance as its youthful in-your-face wow factor fades, it could easily become the 95-point wine some critics have called it. I have bought a case since this tasting. I’d buy two, but I just don’t have the cellar space. The Wine Searcher average price is $28 US. That would provide an excellent QPR for this, but at the sale price of $23 US, this is in back-the-truck-up QPR land. If you’ve got the space, you would do well to load up on this. 14.5% ABV (very good; distinctive/****/16.5/93)

8/9/2023 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

From a 750ml bottle purchased at retail. This is the real deal, with glass-coating concentration of red over black fruits and showing notes of chocolate-covered black cherries and toast, ripe tannins, and perfect acidity. The oak treatment is quite moderate, and the tannins are soft, making this more than approachable at this stage—it’s actually quite drinkable and very enjoyable if you are one who can enjoy very young wines. I have a case and now plan to buy a few more bottles to drink in the nearer term. I don’t have room in the cellar as is, but for this wine I will clear out some trash and store the lesser stuff badly at home if I have to. Wow. I came back to this on day seven, after putting the balance in a 375ml bottle and vacuum sealing it, and it had not lost a thing. The per-bottle case price at my local retailer is $45/bottle, making the QPR amazingly good.

I try not to give numerical scores to wines this young (just descriptors and star ratings), but this is so open and readable, I’m going to give numerical scores reflecting the current experience. 13.5% ABV (great; distinguished/****/18/95)

2/25/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Third of five bottles purchased at retail. Opened alongside a bottle of 2005 Potensac.

More black fruit here to the Potensac’s juicier, slightly candied red fruit profile. This was showing a little tertiary development, and it had a much more refined mouthfeel than the Potensac. There was no greenness on the nose or palate here as one might expect, yet this was not a modern take on this classic. This was a subtle, old-school wine in a hot year. I had an exceptional bottle of the ‘82 Sociando a week ago or so and they seemed to have a lot in common, although, amazingly, this was not as concentrated at eighteen as the ‘82 was at forty-one.

In finally, this was clearly a step up from the 2005 Potensac and a much better bottle than my last ‘05 Sociando several months ago. This bottle was still quite tannic, but the tannins were fine and ripe. This was firmly in the early-mature-phase drinking zone as far as I’m concerned and on cruise control. The concentration was good and the alcohol low, but for my remaining bottles, I’m not going to bet the farm that the tannins will resolve before the fruit fades. I’m going to keep drinking and enjoying these in the near term. I like tannins anyway. 13% ABV (very good/***/16.5/93)

4/12/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

From a bottle purchased a couple years ago on the secondary retail market with a fill well into the neck and a tight cork only soaked three-quarters of the way up in some spots and only half way up in others. Decanted for sediment and served. 53% CS; 42% M; 5% PV.

Very dark in the glass with really no bricking to speak of, even around the edges. A little cellar stink blew off in the glass, revealing an excellent nose of spicy red currants and undergrowth as well as a little mint and menthol. On the palate it was well-concentrated and bright, showing slightly candied red currants, bing cherries, and undergrowth. A very focused and complete bottle of wine. Only a bit more nuanced development on the nose and palate was all this was lacking for a higher score. 12.5% ABV (great/****/17/94)

12/13/2023 - Jake Barnes wrote:

First of twelve single bottles bought at retail. Better cork than other recent bottles—only soaked a quarter inch in one place. Crunchy cranberry and currants on the nose and palate on PnP. High acidity and very tart. Thin, too. Not into it today. Not sure if it’s me or the wine. I think I may be spoiled by the 2014 Domaine de Chevalier we had on Friday, but looking at my notes, the scores are trending down. Maybe it’s going into a phase. 13.5% ABV (good/**/14/85)

5/15/2023 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

A very nice young wine that is open for business but better on day two. Very good concentration and balance with a very cab franc nose (40% of the assemblage) full of rhubarb, strawberry, and raspberry and a very lush mouth. At full retail price ($29.99 USD) the QPR is questionable, and I’d feel much better buying this at about $24.99 USD. That would be solid. 14% ABV (very good/***/16/90)

8/22/2023 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Sixth of twelve from a case purchased at retail in late 2021. This is coming along nicely. This was relatively complex on the nose, showing very pure red currants and red cherries, pencil shavings, and cedar. Not as concentrated as the appearance in the glass would have you believe but not thin, either—and well balanced and very cohesive with a surprisingly long finish. The tannins are firm but ripe. Came back to the vacuumed bottle on day seven and this was even better 13% ABV (good/**/15/88)

3/29/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Second of twelve from an OWC purchased at retail. Accessed via Coravin. Not much development, like my previous example, but very solid and held its own against the 2004 Pichon Lalande Coravined alongside. Showing slightly austere red fruits and leather to the PL’s very pure blackberry. Less refined than the PL and definitely less concentrated, as one would expect, but ultimately, this was the more even and complete wine. There’s the vintage for you. 14% ABV (very good/***/16/91)

3/12/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

First of twelve from an OWC. Accessed by Coravin. Showing much younger than my last bottle, which was a single retail purchase. Black over red fruits, copious but dusty tannins. Very masculine and rough and tumble, with good structure, good concentration, and a very even, balanced, juicy palate. Very Potensac. Just needs some development and softness to score higher. 14% ABV (very good/***/16/91)

3/29/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Second of two bottles purchased at retail and the stronger of the two—a bit more even and complete and definitely open for business. This was very tasty, showing a big gulp of very pure, silky blackberry on the nose and palate, but there was some drop off in the mid-palate and on the finish. It was clearly more concentrated and refined than the 2010 Potensac Coravined alongside it, but concentration and refinement aren’t everything and it was neither more complete nor more even than the Potensac for all that. Very different wines, to be sure, but the Potensac definitely held its own and was arguably the more complete wine. 13% ABV (very good/***/16/91)

3/19/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Fourth of twelve from an OWC purchased at retail. This is on an upward swing, showing lots of softening but still primary blackberries and cassis and very ripe, dusty tannins. The whole thing had a very silky mouthfeel despite the medium-plus acidity. Excellent balance. I’m with Jane Anson on the score on this one. This is a great wine that is getting to be a lot of fun now. Next stop tertiary land. But not too fast. Let’s enjoy this phase for a bit. 13.5% ABV (great/****/17.5/95)

3/28/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

From a lot of bottles purchased at retail with like-new fills. A small glass was previously removed from this bottle via Coravin (on 3/16/24).

This bottle showed very well after uncorking and a decant of about an hour. Whereas it was previously thin and uneven, today it was quite concentrated, pure, even, and very well balanced. There were lots of dusty tannins and just a perfect amount of acidity. It was rather undeveloped, though, and there was nothing tertiary going on yet.

This is clearly a great wine with a ton of substance, but a lack of development is holding it back. It was a bit simple and slab sided at this point. I won’t touch another of these for maybe five years. 13% ABV (great/****/17/94)

1/4/2022 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Unbalanced and disjointed on day one, but fully approachable with very good balance after being vacuumed and refrigerated for 24 hours. Red fruit, oak, and roses on the nose; red currants, raspberries, and cedar on the medium-bodied, silky palate full of soft tannins and oak. A very accessible, elegant wine with a lingering and satisfying finish.

This is one of those producers that stumps me. The wines are not especially expensive on release, but then they’re not exactly cheap, either, and good back vintages rapidly climb in price. And yet, judging by CT notes, no one really seems to love this producer—ever. The same seems to be true of Calon Segur. I really don’t get it.

Make no mistake, this is a solid, very well made, and enjoyable wine, but I don’t think it’s good QPR at the full US retail price of about $55/bottle. When purchased on sale for $40, as this was, it’s a bit better, if still not great QPR or especially compelling. Except for it’s early accessibility, I’m not sure this really has a lot going for it given the price. 13.5% ABV (very good/***/16.5/91)

5/20/2019 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

This is an old note I failed to post, but I thought I’d put it in.

First of two bottles purchased at retail. Both bottles were listed at sale as having a mid-shoulder fill, but this one was closer to low mid-shoulder. The cork was soaked to within an eighth of an inch of the top and was depressed about an eighth of an inch. The cork broke off about halfway out and then got cored upon trying to screw in again and crumbled into mush. I picked the rest out with the tip of the worm.

The wine was garnet colored and had a lovely nose and was reasonably well concentrated, soft, and well balanced, with black cherry, nice acidity, and some soft, round tannins to give it a bit of texture. A little of the old library thing on the nose and palate was a bit of a distraction, but it was still the best old bottle I’ve had yet.

I see that in my later note on the second bottle from this lot that I described this bottle as a dud, which it obviously was not, but given how outstanding the second bottle was, I understand why I might have said that. 12% ABV (very good/***/15.5/90)

1/2/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

From a bottle purchased at retail late last year. Fill well into the neck and cork soaked only a millimeter or so. PnP. No longer the opulent wine Parker once described it as, this had become an attractive but somewhat staid drink with excellent color but concentration that was borderline thin. It had copious (but ripe) tannins, and there were candied cherries, mushrooms, and a touch of licorice on the nose and the grippy palate. Showing about 70/30 fruit to tertiary notes. Better nearer room temperature than cellar temperature. 13.5% ABV (very good/***/16/91)

3/16/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

From a lot of bottles with like-new fills purchased at retail recently. Tasted via Coravin (which was perhaps not the best way to do this), and it seemed very unready even after about an hour in the glass.

Absolutely zero tertiary development in evidence here, though it’s not exactly primary. Given the unevenness in the palate, I’d say this is not really even in its drinking window—or it’s in a phase.

The pure red-berry and cedar nose was by far the best part of this wine. And it wasn’t a big concentrated bruiser of a wine, either. Lithe and fine boned is the best way to describe it. Taut, is another word that comes to mind because of its excellent structure. There was a thin layer of dusty tannins to melt away yet before the evidently very pure red fruits were going to fully and evenly reveal themselves on the palate, so in this respect, it was a bit unbalanced.

I will uncork this bottle relatively soon and give it a proper decant, but my guess is that I won’t touch my next bottle for another five years.

It’s not fair to rate this at this point. Today, I’d have to give it an 87/100, which isn’t fair to a wine that’s probably just not ready to drink. 13% ABV (not ready; no score)

3/15/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

From a bottle purchased a couple years ago at a cellar sale, with a like-new fill and a strong cork soaked only one-quarter of an inch in one spot—so a well cared for example, it would seem.

Taking the advice of other CT tasters, I decanted for three hours and served. In the end, the concentration proved to be adequate at best, and although it filled out a bit in the decanter, the wine remained underwhelming. It wasn’t old and it wasn’t young, and while everything was quite correct, it came across as nothing more than a rather generic older wine lacking any real complexity. The nose was the best part by far, and even that was fairly generic. The palate was rustic and a bit uneven.

I didn’t get the feeling that more time in the cellar was what the doctor was ordering here. This just seemed to be what it was, but I won’t say that a longer decant might not have helped. I left three ounces out over night, and while the wine was clearly falling apart on the palate the next morning, the nose had become much more pure in some respects.

Old bottles being what they are, perhaps this was just this bottle—or me. To be fair, I’m seldom wowed by expensive wines. I guess I expect too much from them—the way one might expect a lot from an expensive diamond ring as opposed to a moderately priced diamond ring. At some point, though, they they’re both just diamonds and precious metal. Does the expensive ring sparkle more brightly and bring greater pleasure? Perhaps, but only in an incremental and almost intangible way that is out of all proportion to the premium paid for it. At some point, wine is exactly like this—it doesn’t really get better and better. It just gets more and more expensive. 12.5% ABV (***/16/91)

2/24/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

A three ounce glass from a bottle brought to a tasting by a very generous tasting group member. How to describe this without offending Napa cab lovers? I don’t think I can, so I’ll just be honest.

Let’s start by saying that I drank about an ounce of this and left the rest to return to some much more interesting, if not strictly speaking better, Bordeaux offerings. But I didn’t leave the rest because it wasn’t good. On the contrary—it was very, very, very good; it just wasn’t the least bit interesting, and like virtually all Napa cabs, of whatever level, it seemed very manufactured, leaving you with the feeling that maybe you shouldn’t even be putting it in your mouth. It didn’t even seem like wine. It seemed like something else entirely, like an ethereal, sugary, liquid confection of some sort.

That’s the best I can do. My apologies to Napa cab lovers, but to crib a line from Gertrude Stein: There was no there there. Unknown ABV (very good/***/16.5/93)

3/5/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

From a bottle bought at retail and accessed by Coravin. This showed lots of glass-coating, tart red fruits infused with heavy wood tannins. It rounded out a bit with air and was fairly approachable, showing excellent acidity, bags of ripe tannins, and good balance, but it was a bit nondescript at this point; one smallish glass was plenty. The wood tannins worry me a bit. They make me wonder if there is much behind them. I’ve run into a few lower-end 2020s with exactly this profile. I’m not convinced at this point. 14% ABV.

3/8/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Purchased during a cellar sale, this was a very nice bottle showing strong, youthful aromantics; excellent concentration; and a big mouthful of relatively uncomplicated, if dense and pure, black fruit. Nice tannins, good acidity, and excellent balance, too. The mid-palate and finish were a bit weak, but this was very solid for the vintage, and it was a much more complete wine than the 2004 Pichon Lalande I had recently. As with that wine, the QPR here is, of course, atrocious (it’s really no better than a 2009 or 2010 Cantemerle), but it was a very pleasant wine, and I’m glad to have tried it as I continue to explore vintages of Pichon Lalande. 13% ABV (very good/***/16/92)

2/25/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

One of five purchased at a cellar sale and opened for some friends, along with a 2012 Leoville Poyferre and 2000 de Fieuzal.

Decanted 1.5 hours and followed for 3 hours. Clearly there was something wrong with this bottle. It was still impenetrably dark and youthful looking in the decanter, but it was very flat on the nose and palate with a lot of barnyard. The barnyard cleared up a little over time, but nothing much appeared to take its place.

All in all, there was not much tannin and not much fruit—not much of anything, really. One taster detected a little of the barnyard but said it was nothing serious and liked this bottle very much. Another taster thought it quite tannic. But for me, this was a terrible showing and definitely flawed. I’ve had corked bottles that showed very muted like this… I have four more bottles. Hopefully, the others are better. 12.5% ABV (flawed; no score)

2/19/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

From a bottle purchased at auction with a top shoulder fill and a water damaged and heavily foxed label held on by plastic wrap. (That really instills confidence.) The cork was soaked almost all the way up. Decanted for sediment and served.

Despite the plastic wrap, this was a fantastic bottle. A little time in the glass helped the cellar funk/moldy cork smell dissipate, but otherwise, this was ready from PnP and packed with surprisingly youthful, well-focused, spicy red currants. It was showing the same on the nose as well as undergrowth and a little cinnamon, cardamom, and cigar wrapper. It had lots of dusty tannins left and a firm laser beam of acidity to give it a long, silky, satisfying finish.

This held strong for the four hours during which the bottle was followed on day one and was arguably even better in certain respects (greater purity of fruit) after the remaining 7 ounces were vacuumed and refrigerated for twenty-four hours, suggesting this bottle could have been heavily decanted on day one. A really great bottle of wine. 12.5% ABV (great/****/17.5/94)

1/13/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

From a bottle purchased at retail. Decanted two hours in anticipation of the backwardness the vintage can show. Very dark (there was just a wee sliver of garnet starting to appear at the edge of the glass) and showing cassis, plums, and the start of some undergrowth on the nose. Fairly tannic yet. Good concentration but lacking a bit of intensity for a higher score. It was better closer to cellar temperature than room temperature.

I like this wine quite a bit. The balance was very good, but if I had to guess, I would say this is not concentrated enough to make more than middle-age, let alone old, bones. But that’s not at a bad thing. Not every wine needs to last fifty years. 13.5% ABV (very good/***/16/91)

2/8/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Third from a lot of about thirteen bottles purchased at retail. Dark and glass coating still and showing a fat nose full of cassis and blackberry lined with leather as well as a touch of brett. Still a bit backward and flat on the palate, much like the last bottle, though it obviously had bushels and bushels of ripe cassis and blackberry in it. Unlike my first bottle from this lot, the acidity on this one was perfect, but with this bottle it was just hard to get excited about it. It was a nice drink, but it was not the exciting drink it once was. I suspect this has entered a phase of some sort between youth and maturity. There’s plenty of everything here to make a great wine, and Cantemerle can age a long time in good vintages, so we’ll just have to wait and see. 13% ABV (very good/***/16/91)

2/10/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Third bottle from an OWC of twelve purchased at auction. It’s been about eighteen months since my first of these and about fifteen months since my second. Both of those bottles came across as young, but this bottle had moved into its first maturity. Gone was all the baby fat of youth, leaving behind a softer, well-delineated form filled with very ripe cassis, blackberries, and black cherry. It also displayed dusty tannins and a little cedar and leather on the nose. There were no tertiary notes showing yet, but they should be along shortly. Drink at will. 13.5% ABV (very good/***/17/93)

2/9/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

From a bottle bought at auction with a base-neck fill and a strong cork that was only soaked three-quarters of the way up. Reportedly a one-owner bottle purchased on release and stored in a subterranean passive cellar. Excellent color—garnet with a solid ruby core. Decanted one hour and followed for an hour.

This displayed a lovely nose of aged red currants Christmas spices, and decaying wood and leaves and had a medium-bodied palate filled with aged black and red fruits. It had excellent grip courtesy of the remaining tannins, which were very soft, and a nice juicy finish thanks to the perfect acidity.

Overall, this was a very good bottle of old Bordeaux, but there was little complexity. By the third glass, it was delivering an experience that would have garnered the bottle a 95/100; however, I realized that it wasn’t the wine that was changing but my taste buds, which were becoming progressively more coated, making the wine seem denser and deeper and more flavorful. A very good bottle, nonetheless. 12.5% ABV (very good/***/16/92)

2/6/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

From a bottle purchased at auction, with a base-neck fill. Reportedly stored in a passive subterranean cellar. Excellent cork that was a bit spongy and crumbly but only soaked three-quarters of the way up and came out fully intact with the Durand. Decanted for sediment and served.

Very dark in the glass, showing garnet at the edge and while pouring. Initially, it had a nice nose of decaying leaves and indistinct aged fruit. It was not heavily concentrated but not at all dried out. Sweet on the attack, showing thinning, aged black fruits, bitters, and orange zest on the palate with a bright vein of acidity and dusty tannins. It had a very nice mouthfeel. An hour of air made the most of this bottle allowing the bitters notes to give way to some fresher red fruit.

Nice on the whole, but in the final analysis, this was just a very well-kept old wine with fairly generic old wine characteristics. 12.5% ABV (good/**/15/87)

3/27/2023 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Second of a bakers dozen of 750s purchased at retail. Glass coating concentration and a nice nose, but it’s still not ready for prime time. It was out of balance, thin, and just not very good on day one. Day two, however, was a totally different story. Very cohesive and plump with cassis, cigar wrapper, and the start of some undergrowth. This is going to be dynamite in a few more years. 13% ABV (great; distinctive/****/17.5/93)

1/28/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

Second of two bought at retail. Better than the first bottle. I’m seeing more in this wine now—not a lot more but more. It’s not my style and I won’t buy it again (bad QPR), but it has definite qualities. This is most definitely a now wine. Red over black fruits, talcum powder tannins, a little sweetness, and bright acidity. Jeff Leve called out the notes of thyme in his note. I wouldn’t have been able to put a name to this without his help. Another critic gave this very commonplace wine 94/100 points and called it one of the wines of the vintage. This is utterly beyond me. To each his own, I guess… 13.5% ABV (good/15/**/87)

1/23/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

Tasted at the UGC at the Drake Hotel in Chicago.

First, a few words about the vintage as it was revealed to me this evening. I was always taught, of course, that if you don’t have anything nice to say that you shouldn’t say anything at all, and in the words of twentieth-century British poet Philip Larkin, I’m struggling to “find words at once true and kind, or not untrue and not unkind.” I’m afraid, however, there are no two ways about it—this is not a good vintage, and it can be summed up as thin, tart, sour, cranberry, acidic, and oaky. Critics have said this is a heterogenous vintage, but I don’t think that’s true based on tonight. I felt like I was tasting slightly better and slightly worse versions of the same mediocre, tart, oaky, cranberry-filled wines all night.

Critics are also spinning 2021 as a vintage for lovers of classical, low alcohol Bordeaux. I quite like a stoic, low alcohol wine myself, but this is just…. Well, let’s just say that for me this vintage will probably not even serve as an early drinker while waiting for better vintages to come around. The quality is just too low and the prices too high for that. In virtually all cases here tonight, the quality seems to be magnitudes lower than it is in the 2014 through 2020 vintages, and in most cases, the wines are only marginally less expensive than the 2020s were. In some instances they’re even more expensive (Prieure Lichine, for example). I can’t see buying any of these wines over virtually any of the same wines from the 2014 through 2020 vintages, many of which can still be had for nearly the same price or just a bit more than what is being asked for the 2021s.

In finality, there’s just no value proposition here. I’m going to forget about this vintage and load up on the 2014 through 2020 vintages.

Tasting Note:

I will say it was fun being served by a real count (Comte de Niepperg himself was at the table doing the pouring), but that won’t make me buy this wine. Comte de Niepperg assured us that this was an “elegant” vintage, which maybe it is for this wine, but in the larger context, I would say it had much better concentration than most of the wines I tasted. Of course, it was full of crunchy cranberry fruit, like all the wines, but it had very good focus and balance, unlike so many of the others. Clearly, they made the most of what they had. A fairly complete wine showing a judicious use of oak, too. Second only to Lynch Bages and tied with Brane Cantenac, Giscours, Les Carmes Haut Brion, and surprisingly D’Angludet as the best of the rest. Unknown ABV **(*)

1/23/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

Tasted at the UGC at the Drake Hotel in Chicago.

First, a few words about the vintage as it was revealed to me this evening. I was always taught, of course, that if you don’t have anything nice to say that you shouldn’t say anything at all, and in the words of twentieth-century British poet Philip Larkin, I’m struggling to “find words at once true and kind, or not untrue and not unkind.” I’m afraid, however, there are no two ways about it—this is not a good vintage, and it can be summed up as thin, tart, sour, cranberry, acidic, and oaky. Critics have said this is a heterogenous vintage, but I don’t think that’s true based on tonight. I felt like I was tasting slightly better and slightly worse versions of the same mediocre, tart, oaky, cranberry-filled wines all night.

Critics are also spinning 2021 as a vintage for lovers of classical, low alcohol Bordeaux. I quite like a stoic, low alcohol wine myself, but this is just…. Well, let’s just say that for me this vintage will probably not even serve as an early drinker while waiting for better vintages to come around. The quality is just too low and the prices too high for that. In virtually all cases here tonight, the quality seems to be magnitudes lower than it is in the 2014 through 2020 vintages, and in most cases, the wines are only marginally less expensive than the 2020s were. In some instances they’re even more expensive (Prieure Lichine, for example). I can’t see buying any of these wines over virtually any of the same wines from the 2014 through 2020 vintages, many of which can still be had for nearly the same price or just a bit more than what is being asked for the 2021s.

In finality, there’s just no value proposition here. I’m going to forget about this vintage and load up on the 2014 through 2020 vintages.

Tasting Note:

A bit thin and full of crunchy cranberry fruit, like all the wines this evening, but with very good focus and refinement. Much softer than many of the rest, which were quite acidic and strident. They made the most of what there was. A fairly complete wine showing a judicious use of oak. Second only to Lynch Bages and tied with Brane Cantenac, Les Carmes Haut Brion, Canon la Gaffiere, and surprisingly D’Angludet as the best of the rest. Unknown ABV **(*)

1/16/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Fifth of five bought at retail. This one was pretty much ready to go from PnP, but an hour in the decanter would have helped.

Dark roasted plums, cassis, leather, and a little licorice and greenery on the nose and the well-concentrated, velvety palate. This showed better closer to room temp than cellar temperature even though the acidity was a little too low. The acidity is all that held it back from a higher score. This is a nice little wine to have in your back pocket. 13% ABV (good/**/15.5/88)

1/21/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Second of twelve purchased at retail. After a few nice, open bottles of this over the last eighteen months, I would say these are in a phase. More coherent on day one than my last bottle but still not great (86/100), this was disjointed, tart, and acidic.

I packed half the bottle off into a 375, vacuumed it, put it in the refrigerator, and forgot about it for three days. Amazingly, it had hit its stride, with virtually no loss of form, when revisited on day five. Unbelievable. It was in perfect balance then and showing good cohesion with much softened red fruits and little tartness. Amazing. Never count Potensac out. I should take my own advice on Potensac, which can take a long time to come around and can last a very, very long time in good years, and wait on these. I think they will come good yet. 13.32% ABV (good/15/88)

1/25/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Second of three bought during a cellar sale, with a like-new fill, very shiny capsule, and a perfect, very tight cork that was only soaked a quarter of an inch. Didn’t need the Durand at all but used it just to be safe.

Very dark, only showing some garnet while pouring. I decanted for sediment and it was off to the races with a glorious nose of black cherry pipe tobacco and a very silky, highly concentrated palate filled with notes of undergrowth, aged black cherry, tobacco, some soft red fruits, and a core of roasted black plums. The finish was very long.

This bottle was probably at the apex of its mature development phase. Everything was not only still there but more importantly still there in the right proportions so that the wine was in excellent balance—there were plenty of aged fruits to go with the perfect acidity and dusty tannins. A tour de force. There was a port-like note that came and went, suggesting, perhaps, that decline was imminent, but this did not detract very much. The only thing that could have elevated the score for me would have been a bit more nuanced complexity.

This really must have been a big, fruity, tannic monster in its youth, to still have such a high concentration of fruit and tannin. My first bottle from this lot (all the bottles had the same slip label), was thin and dried out. Just serves to remind what a gamble old bottles are. Just like a slot machine that you keep pumping coins into, hope springs anew with every pull of the cork…. I guess you’ve got to take your jackpots where you find them. This was a jackpot. 12.5% ABV (great; superior/****/18/95)

10/5/2023 - Jake Barnes Does not like this wine:

First of three bought during a cellar sale, with a fill well into the neck and a perfect capsule. Cork soaked three quarters of the way up. Excellent color with very little bricking. Indistinct red and black fruit, some generic tertiary things, and no tannin to speak of. Thoroughly drinkable but clearly drying out. Not much joy here. 12.5% ABV (good (barely)/** (just)/13.5/84)

1/23/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Tasted at the UGC at the Drake Hotel in Chicago.

First, a few words about the vintage as it was revealed to me this evening. I was always taught, of course, that if you don’t have anything nice to say that you shouldn’t say anything at all, and in the words of twentieth-century British poet Philip Larkin, I’m struggling to “find words at once true and kind, or not untrue and not unkind.” I’m afraid, however, there are no two ways about it—this is not a good vintage, and it can be summed up as thin, tart, sour, cranberry, acidic, and oaky. Critics have said this is a heterogenous vintage, but I don’t think that’s true based on tonight. I felt like I was tasting slightly better and slightly worse versions of the same mediocre, tart, oaky, cranberry-filled wines all night.

Critics are also spinning 2021 as a vintage for lovers of classical, low alcohol Bordeaux. I quite like a stoic, low alcohol wine myself, but this is just…. Well, let’s just say that for me this vintage will probably not even serve as an early drinker while waiting for better vintages to come around. The quality is just too low and the prices too high for that. In virtually all cases here tonight, the quality seems to be magnitudes lower than it is in the 2014 through 2020 vintages, and in most cases, the wines are only marginally less expensive than the 2020s were. In some instances they’re even higher (Prieure Lichine, for example). I can’t see buying any of these wines over virtually any of the same wines from the 2014 through 2020 vintages, many of which can still be had for nearly the same price or just a bit more than what is being asked for the 2021s.

In finality, there’s just no value proposition here. I’m going to forget about this vintage and load up on the 2014 through 2020 vintages.

Tasting Note:

A bit thin and full of crunchy cranberry fruit, like all the wines, but with very good focus and refinement. Much softer than many of the rest, which were quite acidic and strident. A fairly complete wine showing a judicious use of oak. Second only to Lynch Bages and tied with Giscours, Les Carmes Haut Brion, Canon la Gaffiere, and surprisingly D’Angludet as the best of the rest that I tasted. Unknown ABV **(*)

1/23/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

Tasted at the UGC at the Drake Hotel in Chicago.

First, a few words about the vintage as it was revealed to me this evening. I was always taught, of course, that if you don’t have anything nice to say that you shouldn’t say anything at all, and in the words of twentieth-century British poet Philip Larkin, I’m struggling to “find words at once true and kind, or not untrue and not unkind.” I’m afraid, however, there are no two ways about it—this is not a good vintage, and it can be summed up as thin, tart, sour, cranberry, acidic, and oaky. Critics have said this is a heterogenous vintage, but I don’t think that’s true based on tonight. I felt like I was tasting slightly better and slightly worse versions of the same mediocre, tart, oaky, cranberry-filled wines all night.

Critics are also spinning 2021 as a vintage for lovers of classical, low alcohol Bordeaux. I quite like a stoic, low alcohol wine myself, but this is just…. Well, let’s just say that for me this vintage will probably not even serve as an early drinker while waiting for better vintages to come around. The quality is just too low and the prices too high for that. In virtually all cases here tonight, the quality seems to be magnitudes lower than it is in the 2014 through 2020 vintages, and in most cases, the wines are only marginally less expensive than the 2020s were. In some instances they’re even higher (Prieure Lichine, for example). I can’t see buying any of these wines over virtually any of the same wines from the 2014 through 2020 vintages, many of which can still be had for nearly the same price or just a bit more than what is being asked for the 2021s.

In finality, there’s just no value proposition here. I’m going to forget about this vintage and load up on the 2014 through 2020 vintages.

Tasting Note:

I can see how this might end up being the wine of the vintage, as some have suggested. That being said, it wasn’t all that convincing, especially at $115 per bottle. It was, of course, full of tart, crunchy cranberries, and it was rather clunky, too. It had, perhaps, the best concentration of any wine I tasted, so it had that going for it. In the end, it was second only to Lynch Bages and tied with Brane Cantenac, Giscours, Canon la Gaffiere, and surprisingly D’Angludet as the best of the rest. Unknown ABV **(*)

1/23/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

Tasted at the UGC at the Drake Hotel in Chicago.

First, a few words about the vintage as it was revealed to me this evening. I was always taught, of course, that if you don’t have anything nice to say that you shouldn’t say anything at all, and in the words of twentieth-century British poet Philip Larkin, I’m struggling to “find words at once true and kind, or not untrue and not unkind.” I’m afraid, however, there are no two ways about it—this is not a good vintage, and it can be summed up as thin, tart, sour, cranberry, acidic, and oaky. Critics have said this is a heterogenous vintage, but I don’t think that’s true based on tonight. I felt like I was tasting slightly better or slightly worse versions of the same mediocre, tart, oaky, cranberry-filled wines all night.

Critics are also spinning 2021 as a vintage for lovers of classical, low alcohol Bordeaux. I quite like a stoic, low alcohol wine myself, but this is just…. Well, let’s just say that for me this vintage will probably not even serve as an early drinker while waiting for better vintages to come around. The quality is just too low and the prices too high for that. In virtually all cases here tonight, the quality seems to be magnitudes lower than it is in the 2014 through 2020 vintages, and in most cases, the wines are only marginally less expensive than the 2020s were. In some instances they’re even higher (Prieure Lichine, for example). I can’t see buying any of these wines over virtually any of the wines from the 2014 through 2020 vintages, many of which can still be had for nearly the same price or just a bit more than what is being asked for the 2021s.

In finality, there’s just no value proposition here. I’m going to forget about this vintage and load up on the 2014 through 2020 vintages.

Tasting Note:

The most complete wine tasted, showing a very focused cranberry profile with the tartness well under control. Soft and approachable with dusty tannins. Decent mouthfeel, with decent concentration. WOTN, marginally beating out Brane Cantenac, Giscours, Les Carmes Haut Brion, and D’Angludet, which was the big surprise of the night. Unknown ABV ***

1/20/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Second of five bought at retail. Near perfect cork and fill. Decanted two hours. Still very dark but showing a little change in color when pouring. Powerful nose of chocolate covered black cherries, sous bois, and menthol on the nose with black over red fruits on the tannic but slightly thinning palate. I like tannic bite, so for me this is open for business, unlike my first bottle about 10 months ago, which only came together on day two. I do wonder about the concentration here, though. There is an alcohol bitterness in the finish, which suggests this might already be losing fruit and falling out of balance. The tannins would definitely have outlasted the fruit here.

In the end, I like this wine, and it’s a decent value for money in today’s market, but my reservations about the 2005 vintage are growing. Granted, I’ve not had any of the really grand 2005s, but as my modest data points grow, I’m becoming skeptical about this being a great vintage top to bottom as conventional wisdom would have us believe. I guess the answer is I need to try some of the better ‘05s now. 13% ABV (very good/***/15.5/90)

1/17/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Small pour at a walk-around tasting hosted by a local specialty retailer. This was the only truly interesting Bordeaux on offer and also WOTN for me. Not because it was especially good but because it was was my first LMHB.

Like the other Bordeaux offered (mostly 2012s), this was lean by more recent standards, but it had decent concentration in the context of the vintage and was very well balanced and pleasant. It was still showing quite dark for its age, and though there was perhaps a touch of brett on the nose, which blew off in the glass, it proved to be very a charming, soft wine in which it was easy to find sous bois, cigar wrapper, and a bit of unresolved tannin. This was, perhaps, in the back nine of its life but definitely not in decline and a reminder of what great wine makers can do in less than stellar vintages.

Unfortunately, at $245 bottle, it was also a reminder that there is no reason (barring a birth year or anniversary, perhaps) to buy wines like this from such a forgettable vintage when much better wines, such as the ‘96 Montrose and Pichon Baron, can be had for the same money. Unknown ABV (very good/***/16/91)

1/17/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

Small pour at a walk-around tasting hosted by a local specialty retailer. This thin, anonymous wine only cements my belief that there is almost never a reason to buy second wines—especially the expensive ones. This was not a bad wine, but there was virtually nothing to it. It was very soft, lacking any structure or complexity. When I got home, I opened a 2012 Poujeaux. This had its own challenges, but it had bags of character in comparison and was better than the Petit Cheval. These wines are separated in price by nearly $200. Now that’s a problem. Unknown ABV (good/**/15/87)

1/17/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

Small pour at a walk-around tasting hosted by a local specialty retailer. The cepage from this producer is typically very cab franc heavy, and the house style is accordingly on the light, herbal side. Given these facts, the leafiness was to be expected, and the lack of concentration only put it in line with many other 2012s and was not the issue. The issue was that like the other 2012s on offer that night there was just no there there—and a short finish to boot—making it bad QPR at about $120 a bottle when you could have such good wines from other only slightly younger vintages for the same money or less. Unknown ABV (very good (barely)/*** (just)/15.5/89)

1/17/2024 - Jake Barnes wrote:

Small pour at a walk-around tasting hosted by a local specialty retailer. Case and point for why most 2012 Bordeaux is a hard sell in the current market—thin nondescript red and black fruits (call it elegant, if that makes you feel better about the price), a touch of some generic age on the very light nose, and a short finish. This was nothing that couldn’t be thoroughly trounced by an ‘09 or ‘10 Cantemerle, which costs about $55 in today’s market versus the $149 price on this. 13.5% ABV (very good (barely)/*** (just)/15.5/89)

12/14/2023 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Purchased at retail. Taken to a walk around holiday party wine pot luck where by the looks of it everyone (including me) was dumping their off vintages and large format mistakes. Looked quite young still, with a little undergrowth developing in the nose. Good concentration for the vintage, good palate consistency, and good balance but short on the finish. I don’t know that decanting would make much difference. A nice wine, but with less exalted (and less expensive) 2010s drinking fairly well, there’s no real reason to pay this kind of money for a rather middling experience. A different proposition, perhaps, if you bought this on release or as a future. Tastes will vary, of course. 13.5% ABV (very good/***/16/91)

1/12/2024 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

First of two bottles purchased at retail. Perfect fill and cork. Decanted for sediment (of which there was almost none), and away we go with a big, nicely concentrated mouthful of cassis and dark plums, dusty tannins, and perfect acidity. Still very dark in the glass. There was an initial greenness here, but it mostly disappeared and was replaced by leather and cigar wrapper.

As others have said, this lacked horsepower, depth, and finish and isn’t really showing anything you might call tertiary yet, but what was there was extremely well delineated. This is what you get from a great second growth in an off year, and I would say I got just about what I had hoped for from this bottle. I’ve had much lesser ‘04s, and they weren’t nearly this complete.

In the final analysis, this was very enjoyable and I’m certainly happy to have one more bottle of this, but just understand that if you’re buying this now and looking for great QPR, this ain’t it. This is a relatively inexpensive Pichon Lalande. That’s what this is. A 2009 Gloria, 2010 Cantemerle—hell, even a 2010 Potensac—will beat this wine silly every time where completeness is concerned. 13% ABV (very good/***/16/90)

9/4/2023 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

First from a case of twelve purchased ex-negociant, with perfect fill and the cork only soaked a millimeter here and there.

On day one, this had a beautiful, mature nose full of undergrowth and black cherry. Unfortunately, the nose had to carry whole experience. The palate seemed to be thin and a little out of balance, showing too much alcohol and acidity in the finish. The tannins could have been finer and more resolved, too. Very disappointing.

On day two, however, this was the wine I recall having two years ago out of a half (that led me to buy this case)—deep and dense and with years of life and development ahead of it. The palate, though firm with tannins, was very plump and cohesive now, showing a mass of black cherry and cassis.

One of the best Potensacs I’ve ever had. Right now, this is a wine to decant all day on day one or to have on day-two. Given that the 1996 Potensac has only just given up the ghost in the last few years, I would expect this to go on and on. 13.5% ABV (very good; distinguished/***/16.5/92)

11/24/2023 - Jake Barnes Likes this wine:

Second from a case purchased ex-negociant, with perfect fill and the cork only soaked a millimeter or two here and there.

Wasn’t able to decant the way my last notes on this wine suggest I should have, but this bottle was not at all disjointed the way the first from this case was on day one.

No visual sign of aging. Red and black fruits, cigar box, and a whiff of truffles on the nose. This had an austere, high-toned, tannic palate of black and slightly candied red fruits that was holding back considerably, so I tried my first ever hyper decant after having one glass. Did it make a difference? Hard to say. The wine seemed more rich and relaxed, but who knows? Best at room temp. 13.5% ABV (***/16/90)

11/18/2023 - Jake Barnes wrote:

Second of three 750s purchased together on the secondary, this one with a top shoulder fill and the cork soaked all the way up.

This bottle was nowhere near as youthful as my first bottle from March 2022, which was unbelievably concentrated and young. This bottle was decanted for an hour, pouring deep ruby with just a touch of garnet at the rim. Initially, there was heavy cellar stink and decaying undergrowth on the nose, but the wine was fairly sound underneath the stink with a core of simple, dried red fruits and medium-plus acidity. The moldy cellar smell receded with time but never really went away, detracting from the experience. There was no particular complexity to be found on the nose or the palate. The famous ‘86 tannins were completely resolved, and despite having a fair amount of fruit left, there was a good deal of acidic dryness in the finish, suggesting this bottle was pretty much done. Short finish. 12.5% ABV (good/**/14/86)

12/26/2023 - Jake Barnes wrote:

Had while away for the holidays. With no other red wine in the house, this was a sufficient accompaniment to a rather indifferent NY strip. After looking this up on Wine Searcher, I wasn’t sure what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised.

Though still very dark, the color was just beginning to turn a bit, and the nose was showing a pleasant touch of age. It had decent cab characteristics on the palate and nose, and the balance was pretty good. There was a huge hole in the mid-palate, but I suppose that’s par for the course.

All in all, not at all bad and about what you would expect from a seven-year-old, thirteen-dollar cab—simple, aging fruit and a little very light, generic tertiary stuff. The CT average score has this one pretty well pegged. 14.5% ABV (good/**/14/86)

12/17/2023 - Jake Barnes Does not like this wine:

A bottle purchased at retail at a very low price to fill out a mixed case. Cork soaked 3mm. Fill well into the neck. Not over the hill per se and very alive but thin and just older—not better. Decaying leaves and thin, aged red fruits with slightly granular tannins. 13.5% ABV (good/**/14/86)