This is very stemmy on the nose. In fact it’s generally just very stemmy. It’s otherwise extremely elegant, perfumed and balanced with a lovely sweet core of very pure fruit. It’s actually a seriously gorgeous wine behind the stems.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Sexy, perfumed, feminine and penetrating. This is Dujac CSD at its best in this era. Compare to the 96 CDLR side by side, it is more sensual and alluring. So good. 95-96
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Saturday dinner ft. 1996 Dujac (Chicago, IL): Decanted for 2-3 hours before service. Served next to the CdlR and the differences between the two wines was stark. To be sure, these two bottles are from different sources, but this bottle was much more up my alley tonight (and in the few instances where I've had the two flagship Dujac wines side by side, I think I've preferred the CSD). For tonight's flight, while the CdlR seemed fully mature and at peak, the CSD was much more intense and burlier, and seemed to have a darker complexion. The tannic structure here was more pronounced and I think this still has a long way to go. The Dujac spice was more obvious on the CdlR though, I think because the wine was just overall a little lighter. Thrilling.
As a bit of a post-script, I re-read Jeremy Seysses's comments in Jasper Morris's Inside Burgundy 2nd Edition regarding the differences between CSD and CdlR, and I would be in broad agreement with what he said, the only difference being that in this case I found the CdlR's tannins to be the silkier of the two and the CdlR the more readily approachable wine.
2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Tanzer & Meadows were overly negative on this wine, but Gilman and Martin were overly positive. There is more here at the start versus the 1996 Dujac CDLR, which was served alongside it. Bright acidity on the nose, and that acidity negatively affects the fruit, much as with the the CDLR. With time in the glass it loses its vibrancy.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Professional reviews have copyrights and you can view them here for your personal use only as private content. To view pro reviews you must either subscribe to a pre-integrated publication or manually enter reviews below. Learn more.
5/27/2023 - tinybubbles Likes this wine: 95 Points
Frim magnum. Beautiful spice. Mature red fruit. Preferred this format to recent 750s.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/13/2021 - jamesabdavis wrote:
This is very stemmy on the nose. In fact it’s generally just very stemmy. It’s otherwise extremely elegant, perfumed and balanced with a lovely sweet core of very pure fruit. It’s actually a seriously gorgeous wine behind the stems.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
11/4/2021 - Burgnick Likes this wine: 95 Points
Sexy, perfumed, feminine and penetrating. This is Dujac CSD at its best in this era. Compare to the 96 CDLR side by side, it is more sensual and alluring. So good. 95-96
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
10/30/2021 - acyso wrote: 98 Points
Saturday dinner ft. 1996 Dujac (Chicago, IL): Decanted for 2-3 hours before service. Served next to the CdlR and the differences between the two wines was stark. To be sure, these two bottles are from different sources, but this bottle was much more up my alley tonight (and in the few instances where I've had the two flagship Dujac wines side by side, I think I've preferred the CSD). For tonight's flight, while the CdlR seemed fully mature and at peak, the CSD was much more intense and burlier, and seemed to have a darker complexion. The tannic structure here was more pronounced and I think this still has a long way to go. The Dujac spice was more obvious on the CdlR though, I think because the wine was just overall a little lighter. Thrilling.
As a bit of a post-script, I re-read Jeremy Seysses's comments in Jasper Morris's Inside Burgundy 2nd Edition regarding the differences between CSD and CdlR, and I would be in broad agreement with what he said, the only difference being that in this case I found the CdlR's tannins to be the silkier of the two and the CdlR the more readily approachable wine.
2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
5/12/2021 - lepetitchateau wrote: 92 Points
Tanzer & Meadows were overly negative on this wine, but Gilman and Martin were overly positive. There is more here at the start versus the 1996 Dujac CDLR, which was served alongside it. Bright acidity on the nose, and that acidity negatively affects the fruit, much as with the the CDLR. With time in the glass it loses its vibrancy.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment