12/31/2011 - arappaport wrote:

Really aging well. Beautiful structure now, has at least another decade. Opened between a 78 Martha's and a 96 Screaming eagle. This wine lacks the purer Bourdeaux character of the 78, but is aging much, much better than the Screaming Eagle. The SE was all fading fruit, while this one had nice complexity, typical Martha's eucalyptus, etc. Looking forward to seeing what it does from here.

12/31/2011 - arappaport wrote:

A perfectly good wine, but not aging into anything special at all. A Heitz Martha's vineyard 96 we opened right before this one was already more complex and interesting. There will be no contest at all in 5-10 more years.

12/31/2011 - arappaport wrote:

Still drinking beautifully. Surprisingly good structure for its age --possibly even a few years left.

12/31/2010 - arappaport wrote:

Very pronounced odd nose on opening, like magic marker. Settled down after a while in the glass. Still decent fruit, but losing complexity. Not bad, but definitely past it's prime.

12/31/2010 - arappaport wrote:

Magnum in perfect shape. Almost imperceptible orange tinge. Very little of interest upon opening; started showing very well after a couples of hours in the bottle. Probably no more than 5 years left for this one, but a worthwhile wine now.

12/31/2010 - arappaport wrote:

There might be a better vintage than 2001 for this wine, but I've never found it. Drinking great now, but still has a lot of time left.

12/27/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Less body and complexity than other, better vintages of this wine. Ok within an hour of decanting. Seemed to close down after that and then came into balance after a few more hours. Will give this one a few more years before trying again.

12/31/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Opened and decanted New Year Eve together with a magnum of Phelps 78 Eisele and a 750 of Phelps Backus. A nicely made wine, still drinking well, but I would have pegged this as a late-60s california cab had I tasted it blind. Much less forward fruit than either of the Phelps. Wonder what this was like when younger.

12/31/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Opened and decanted New Years Eve together with a magnum of 78 Phelps Eisele and a 750 of 78 Caymus Special Selection. This wine is drinking well and similar in character to the Eisele, but more one-dimensional. Has perhaps 5-10 years left.

12/31/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Opened a magnum on New Years Eve, together with 750s of 78 Caymus Special Selection and 78 Phelps Backus. This wine is still my all-time favorite California Cabernet. Quite a contrast with the Caymus. This wine is drinking at least 10 years younger, and is of a much more modern style. Presages the big-fruit cabs of 20-years later, but with much more subtlety. Has at least 10 years left.

8/8/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Much better than I remember from a couple of years ago. Seems to be aging well -- fruit is backing off a little. Still a big wine, but less overpowering, better balanced and with a longer and more interesting finish. Surprisingly good but probably not done improving.

7/3/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Magnum. Beautiful, huge wine, but still very young. Seemed a shame to be drinking it now, although it has started to come into focus with very nice fruit and noticeable tobacco notes. Look forward to drinking this again in 10 more years.

7/3/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Magnum. Very funky nose on first opening, settled down nicely after decanting. Drinking well now and maybe for a few more years.

1/30/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Much bigger and more forward fruit than immediately earlier vintages, but with nice complexity. Strong horse-manure nose on opening settled down to pleasant earthiness, which was a good counterbalance to the fruit. Still seems a bit young.

1/30/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Drinking pretty well now, at least this bottle.

1/31/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Farily generic sangiovese, although with a bit of "new nike sneaker" in the nose. Improved after a few hours but never became noteworthy.

1/31/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Very late-90's style wine. Very big fruit, but also nice complexity. Setlled down a couple of hours after decanting. No match for a 1998 Ornellaia or 1996 Masseto also opened the same evening, but a decent wine. Probably has another decade or so left.

1/31/2009 - arappaport wrote:

1.5L bottle opened. This vintage is drinking very well. Fruit was a bit forward upon first uncorking, but it setlled down nicely about an hour after decanting. Nice balance of spice and fruit, very long finish.

1/31/2009 - arappaport wrote:

Great wine, still drinking quite young.

12/31/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Opened with a 1999 and three 2000s. A little backwards and with somewhat less complexity compared to the other two vintages. Still great wine, but needs more time.

12/31/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Opened with three 2000s and one 1998. This was the star of the group. Took a little time to open up, but had much more of the complexity I expect from this wine. Still drinking young, but might eventually rival the 1990 vintage.

12/31/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Opened 3 bottles along with one each of 1998 and 1999. This one drank oldest right out of the bottle but couldn't keep up with the 1999 as the evening progressed. Of the three, this will probably peak earliest, but it still has plenty of time.

12/31/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Absolute knockout wine. Strong ripe fruit, great nose of vanilla, butterscotch, etc, but not overpowering. Ever so slight hint of effervescence on the tongue was a surprise. Great finish.

12/31/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Bottle could have been flawed. Didn't show well compared to 2005 Ramey Ritchie Vineyard opened just before.

12/29/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Drinking great now, but probably has another 10 years left.

12/29/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Too much going on, fruit and acid not very well integrated.

12/28/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Very odd, but nice wine. Ovepowering tanins and nose when the bottle was first opened, but it settled down nicely after about a half hour. Much more like a good Australian Shiraz than a typical Cornas.

12/27/2008 - arappaport wrote:

From magnum. Relatively subtle, but beautiful balance. Just starting to drink well.

11/1/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Very disappointing given the build-up. A nicely made wine, but a little backward with not much finish. Drank after a 2004 Jasper Hill Emily's, which is a tough comparison (and, at least, the wrong order). Will try again in another couple of years.

11/1/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Very big yet pretty complex. Cabernet Franc adds a nice note. Drinking surprisingly well already.

8/31/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Huge and complex wine. Drinking well now, but probably has another couple of decades in it.

8/31/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Opened three bottles, all bought from the winery in one lot in the mid 90s and stored together since. All very different. One was badly oxidized; two were in good shape, although different and both clearly past their prime. One bottled developed a little finish after being opened for a while. But the fruit is disappearing and the complexity I remember from this wine is already almost completely gone. Still worth drinking, but probably not for long and certainly no longer great.

5/18/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Wow. A pinot that thinks its a syrah. I had heard that this is an unusual wine, and it certainly lived up to its reputation. Very dense fruit, caramel, tobacco, etc. A very well made wine., although still very young. I have two bottles of this vintage left an am eager to see how it ages.

5/25/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Nice wine for the money. relatively light nose, good oak in the mouth. More California that SA in style.

1/11/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Still a bit young, but starting to drink well. A great Barolo.

1/1/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Fantastic Champagne! Very subtle but still interesting palate and finish.

1/1/2008 - arappaport wrote:

Opened three bottles, which I believe had been acquired recently from Borgogno. All were somewhat oxidized. First bottle was not necessarily corked, but was at least over the hill. Other two bottles were fine. Drinking about as one would expect a Barolo of this age, and an interesting contrast with more modern ones. A nice wine that got more interesting over a couple of hours in the bottle and glass. I probably won't give the balance of my inventory of this more than another couple of years.

12/31/2007 - arappaport wrote:

Terrific wine, but not quite as distinct as the 1990. Very good balance and complexity. Probably needs another 10 years to come into its own.

12/31/2006 - arappaport wrote:

Teriffic champagne. Very Austere, low sugar. A big hit.

12/31/2006 - arappaport wrote:

Disapointing. Not sure this is aging well. Very tanic still, but without the strength of fruit or complexity I remember from when it was younger. A bit backwards. Might also have suffered by comparison to the '78 Phelps Eisele opened earlier in the evening. Not in the same league, at least at this point.

12/31/2006 - arappaport wrote:

Pronounced nose of menthol annd shoe leather upon opening. Abated after 15 minutes in the glass. Very strong fruit; quite interesting but not terribly long finish. A very good wine, probably peaking now.

12/31/2006 - arappaport wrote:

Opened two bottles for New Years. An absolutely perfect cabernet. Still had the strength of a more youthful wine, but with perfect balance and long finish of a well-aged Bordeaux. So good it made it hard to drink anything else afterwards. Curious to see if any of the superstar late 90's cabs will have aged this well in another 20 years. A '96 Shaeffer Hillside opened later in the evening couldn't hold a candle to it.

12/30/2006 - arappaport wrote:

Still very young, but what a wine. Tanins better balanced now than many much older Syrahs. Quite drinkable, but it seems a shame not to give it more time.

12/27/2006 - arappaport wrote:

Somewhat earthy nose, but the wine itself generally lacks character and finish. Drinking fine now, but not nearly as strong as other 80's chabots.

12/16/2006 - arappaport wrote:

A bit disappointing compared to other 1990 Leroys. Nice fruit, reasonably complex nose, but a little acidic still. Might need more time.

8/25/2006 - arappaport wrote:

Over the hill. Still shows signs of having been a good wine, but most of the character is gone.

8/25/2006 - arappaport wrote:

What a great wine! Still drinking well. Not as big as later vintages, but wonderfully complex.

10/28/2006 - arappaport wrote:

Lots of character, but not overwhelming. Definitely a burgundy-style wine.

10/28/2006 - arappaport wrote:

Still very tight and tanic. Great wine, absolutely clean, but needs 10 more years, at least

10/28/2006 - arappaport wrote:

Wow! terrific wine, drinking great right now. Strong nose of fennel, less prominent in the mouth. Nice, reasonably long finish.