10/28/2021 - Julian Marshall wrote:

Quite attractive aromas of blackberry, cigar box and dark cherry, then an initially winsome mouthful of blackberry, with a trademark wave of creamy blackcurrant midpalate...before...wham...the tannins hit, coating the top of the palate with an unpleasantly bitter taste.
I had decanted it for five hours, but even then, it was undrinkable. Returning to it three days later there was some improvement, but the tannins were still quite fierce.
I'm reasonably confident that this will sort itself out, so the score is really a conservative guess for now. My only worry is the quite advanced colour, already bricking.

12/4/2017 - Kim Gerner wrote:

Yquem vertical winemaker's dinner with Jean Philippe Lemoine (Restaurant Frank - CPH): Tasted Yquem 2015, 2010, 2005,1990. I must admit my all time favourite is 2001 (my score 98 - among the best wines I have ever tasted), which was not represented. Compared to that vintage we were not close with any of the evening's vintages.
I have tasted 1990 some times and in general I find it too oxidative. I am fully aware that many like that style. For me 2001 has the freshness, which I love so much combined with complexity after all developed over 20 years. This btl was even more oxidized than usual (if it wasn't because it came directly from the cellars of Chateau D'Yquem i would have guessed "poor storage"). The colour was deep amber. Overwhelmed by so many tertiary aromas of caramel, walnut and cinnamon. I have no 1990's in my cellar. If a had I would drink it as soon as possible.

1/26/2021 - Remony wrote:

Can't decide whether this wine is still too young, or whether it may be contrived and over-extracted. Ormes de Pez in a good vintage has been a regular and good value banker in my cellar since the 1986, and I would have expected the 2005 to be more or less ready by now. But it (probably) isn't. Doesn't improve with 24 hours in the remaining half bottle. I will assume for now that it needs a few more years (NM says it does and he may well be right), but there is nevertheless a question mark too.

11/2/2019 - Schrager Does not like this wine:

I trotted this bottle out for a wine dinner and was terribly disappointed. For a 2000 Pauillac, it had very little depth, just hollow. I thought that maybe we had a bad bottle, but I've since tried two more bottles with similar results. Perhaps it's past its prime.

6/27/2020 - Larslatour wrote:

Beautiful deep yellow/brown colour. Ok but I think it was a bit oxidised. Too much sherry, miss the freshness of the fruit.

4/6/2020 - Stevelayden Likes this wine:

AP 17 11 and AP 23 11. Thought I'd do an interesting comparison. And something unique to the specific and clinical world of the German wine market. A side-by-side of two bottles of the same wine - JJ Prum's Wehlener Sonnenuhr Auslese 2010, but two different AP numbers.

For those unfamiliar with the practice, German wine producers must 'declare' a wine to the government bureau prior to sale. The first number is simply the order in which it was submitted to the bureau for license. So producers take a few different approaches. A few, such as Willi Schaefer and Fritz Haag chose to align their offerings in stylistic directions to help guide consumers. For instance, Schaefer's AP 5 is always the riper Domprobst Spatlese vs the leaner AP 10. Same with AP 14 vs 11 for their Domprobst Auslesen. Other vintners seem to take the approach of simply submitting casks to the authorities in the order they're ready. Prum and Loosen are notorious for producing sometimes 3-4 different AP numbers for a single vineyard and pradikat in a single year. I think 2012 takes the cake as I've tried five different Prum W-S Spatlesen.

Making things MORE complicated, the second set of numbers is the year declared (not necessary just a year following the vintage). Some of these producers will wait on a particularly stubborn vintage and declare a cask a few years later once it's settled down (a bit like Dom Perignon releasing 2008 out of order to allow for more development). So it isn't uncommon to see (for example) AP 11 15 and 11 16 -but both could be a 2014 wine. Only in Germany would such a system be viable!

It's fascinated me that these wineries don't often publish the differences between AP numbers so it's fun to guess what criteria may have been used. Perhaps just two tanks of the same pressing that just happened to be fermented separately due to quantity, in which case minute differences in yeasts may be the only factors at play. Or maybe a different selection entirely. But enough speculation and on to the wine...

The similarities. Poured side by side there was an immediate difference in color and preponderance of small bubbles. The AP 17 was noticeably more golden and the lack of that 'young Prum' spritz immediately gave the impression of an older, more oxidized wine. This was certainly borne out by smell, where the petrol scent of the AP 17 was more noticeable than the AP 23.

But something interesting happened upon tasting the wines. Whereas the AP 17 seemed more obviously developed in appearance, both actually exhibited a similar degree in their actual flavor. Both wines were undeniably 2010 - ripe peach flavors, completely free of botrytis, but also as acidic as one would expect a Kabinett from a cooler vintage. But there was something a bit extra in the AP 23. It was as though the 23 exhibited more structure and cut which really supported the developing flavors. The fizzy spritz certainly helped to give liveliness to the wine, but there was a salty minerality that just worked so very well with the wine. The 17 just seemed a bit, well, flabby and lacking in structure.

I wouldn't say the AP 17 was mildly corked or heat damaged. The wine tasted phenomenal in all regards. But it was just next to its more dynamic sibling that it paled a bit. Both excellent wines but I have a definite preference for the verve and liveliness of the later bottling. Unfortunately most vendors just get whichever AP they get. But if you have a choice, the AP 23 is the bottling for the long run. 94p for the 17 and 95+ for the 23.

6/11/2018 - ricard Does not like this wine:

I continue to find it baffling that anyone in their right mind would pay more than £10 for this nonsense. I am not doubting its provenance, authenticity, or even honesty. But why the prestige? This wine was desperately flabby, lacking any sort of acidity or definition whatsoever, soupy, vaguely syrupy, had no discernible tannin, no structure at all, and all fragrance pretty much died within 10 minutes. What aromas there were included maybe figs, blackberries, tar, and that's about it. A waste of time and money. The only possibility of redemption is that this wine was once very good (not great - that's inconceivable) and died years ago. A pathetic showing, and one that doesn't help at all to convince me that Bordeaux is not the world's most pompously overrated wine region. Let the Chinese and Russian oligarchs have it all! Maybe they're right to mix this syrup with Coca-Cola - I guess it makes the wine more exciting...

10/4/2018 - BenBlu Likes this wine:

Splash decant small taste. My notion so far on 2000 is that it is overrated - this was a very solid classic left bank effort that showed a good potpourri of what we look for in aged left bank - library, tobacco and spice box on the nose and classic palate with some wild strawberry notes and (less so) blueberry. Good but knowing that the chateau only went on a qualitative biodynamic tear being inundated with very high scores a few years later this is probably not going to be the best they can get out of their terroir. Does little to change my impression that the millennial year was a good but not necessarily great year across the region.

4/6/2018 - rieslinghoarder Likes this wine:

Tasted at the winery side-by-side with the 2012 vintage. Again, some petrol that blows off quickly. Ripe peach, apricot, star fruit, and herbs on the palate. Super smooth on the palate and light on its feet, not sappy at all. Strong acidic backbone to hold up the sweetness. This wine is starting to enter its peak drinking window.

4/3/2018 - mmh wrote:

Eight years after buying this bottle i finally popped the cork with high expectations....which were not quite met. Decanted for 2 hours. Fairly complex on the nose, worked very well with food but on its own it was slightly astringent and boring. I am not sure if it was past its peak (doubtful), too young or just a slightly off bottle.

3/11/2018 - dream Likes this wine:

Quite suave with a full middle and lovely dark cherry fruit. Needed an hour of air to show best and then the finish developed a fine mineral complexity. I like this for drinking over the next 5 years. 92+

2/4/2018 - Remony wrote:

Very good over 2 nights. A touch disjointed on opening on the first night without a decant, but mellow and beautifully balanced on the second day. Excellent QPR at £22.50 delivered.

9/5/2017 - Remony wrote:

Deep colour, no watering. Subdued nose, good red berry flavours, but weak in the mid-palate. Julia detected acetone, but I did not. I wondered about mild TCA, but half a dozen bottles from the same case in 2012 were very similar, so I conclude that this is simply no more than a moderately good wine for its class and reputation. 1995 has been a consistently disappointing red bordeaux vintage for me.

11/2/2017 - Remony wrote:

This wine is delicious, beautifully mannered, charming and well-made, but all in a limited way. It lacks the bite, the animale quality, which Las Cases usually has. Whilst not short, neither does it have the savour and length which it should have. It is much too benign. As before, I am convinced that the reverse osmosis machine has done its work far too well. It is a lovely, easy-going wine which has missed its way in this very fine vintage -- it should have been up there with Ch Latour and Ch Margaux, but it isn't.

3/7/2017 - Tim Heaton wrote:

I felt kind of out of place as we tasted this double-blind - others really liked it (especially after the reveal), but I thought it simple and boring; my guess was (generic) Cali Cab/blend with 12-15 years on it, fwiw. No formal note here, all I can say was I couldn't wait to be done with it and taste the next wine. And, while some said this was just getting going, I think it's already arrived, and that's not saying too much. 13,0% abv.

1/14/2017 - lesz Does not like this wine:

Unfortuanately over the hill. Luckily I had a second bottle of another wine as backup.

11/5/2016 - dcwino wrote:

2016 Villa d’Este Wine Symposium - Kelly, Alan and Kevin's excellent adventure; 11/3/2016-11/12/2016 (Villa D’este, Lake Como, Piedmont, Milan and Frankfurt): Absolutely hedonistic, incredibly decadent Pauillac nose displaying intense crème de cassis, dark caramel, lead pencil, floral dust, tobacco and cedar. Incredibly concentrated and intense yet so polished and sensual, starts with intense sweet cassis and ends with a strong note of lead pencil. This is at the youthful peak, still showing intense cassis but also the secondary and tertiary elements. Absolutely perfect showing. Mind bogglingly perfect!

11/13/2016 - flashvictor Likes this wine:

Decanted 2 hours prior to drinking. Medium ruby color leads to a nose of blueberry, glove leather, clove and a hint of camphor. Medium plus body has wonderful cassis, raspberry, and dark cherry with some underpinnings of mushroom and red pepper. Silky tannins envelope mouth for 50 seconds.

This is flat out delicious. Equally wonderful with food (bourbon marinated chicken & roasted butternut squash) and one its own after dinner. I do strongly recommend a decant.

10/29/2016 - rocknroller wrote:

Brisket Bash Deux: 10 Vintage Vertical of Clos de Papes and more (Siggy & Jenny's Place, Mpls, MN): Another stewed, heat damaged bottle. I've never had this when it was at its best. Happy to keep trying though. Drank as part of a vertical of Clos des Papes (95, 98, 99, 00, 01, 04, 05, 06, 08, 09)

3/25/2016 - Collector1855 wrote:

During a Left Bank 1996 tasting dinner. Dark ruby. Discrete nos of dark fruit and earth. Unfortunately rather closed on the palate and a bit unyielding. Still tight but good length. Will this turn around at age 30, who cases. I think the team has extracted too much tannins here in relation of the ripness of the fruit they harvested. Given the price, I would honestly stay away from this vintage of LLC.

8/29/2014 - Remony wrote:

A half bottle. Straight from the cellar to show dinner guests what Yquem should be like after serving them 3 half bottles of the 1990, all sadly oxidised. Light in colour, good nose, fine complex flavours, but still young. More complex than the half bottle of '04 Climens served alongside it.

5/22/2016 - Battersea James Likes this wine:

This wine never fails to disappoint. Classic Bordeaux nose of leather and pencil shavings. Lots of complexity and depth. Drinking beautifully right now but still has plenty of live ahead.

5/1/2016 - David J Cooper wrote:

Berry Bros. Fairly intense nose but spirit as well. Red fruit, brown sugar and maple but with a fair amount of alcohol. Nice aged port flavours and a dry finish.

Others at the table commented that this was a bit of a disappointing bottle.

3/14/2016 - Julian Marshall Likes this wine:

Typical earthiness of a PL, with a good attack of redcurrants and an impressive second wave of cherry which lifts the wine to the top of the palate. Very enjoyable but just a little lacking in complexity for greatness.

7/28/2015 - Remony wrote:

My last remaining bottle (of any wine) from my father's cellar (he died in 1972). Shared with my sister, niece and brother-in-law. Fill base neck. Short capsule. A little musty on nose and attack, but fruit has held up pretty well, and the dusty acidity, while present, does not dominate. (Tannins not otherwise noticeable.) Some pyxellation, but again not too intrusive. Overall the wine has done very well, but it is probably now in gentle decline.

9/3/2015 - dsiii wrote:

I have this wine in 375s and have been waiting for it to come around. After 10 years, I am ready to conclude that it is never going to open up. A wine with great promise, but the fruit never caught up.

7/7/2015 - webbaker wrote:

One of the strangest wines I've tasted in recent memory. Decanted about 8 hours. Thin, dessicated, very little fruit. Improved somewhat over the next couple of days. I'd probably give this an 80, but I'm going to assume this bottle was bad, perhaps stored in a hot warehouse for years. It wasn't corked and didn't really taste oxidized. Not a pleasurable tasting experience.

1/29/2015 - PanosKakaviatos Likes this wine:

Bordeaux 2005 : Ten years on (Bordeaux Index London): Tasted next to Smith Haut Lafitte. Very pure crushed tobacco. Heady aspect. Alcohol is quite elevated? And yet the body is rich and sustained, like a note on a guitar that lasts a very long time. The SHL shows well by comparison! Bravo to the Cathiards. It is not as impressive – in terms of veritable tension – but it has stuffing and power. Going back to Haut Brion, once again this time after tasting LMHB, it seems smoother and fresher than the LMHB, more elegant and refined. A great wine in the making...

12/27/2014 - Ibetian wrote:

Repulsive nose and taste, poured down the drain.