1993 Château Palmer

Community Tasting Notes (17) Avg Score: 88.3 points

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View Cailles's profile
  • Report Issue

  12/28/2023 - Cailles wrote: 92 Points

  12x Bordeaux 1983 vs 1993: All wines tasted single blind. Not decanted. As anticipated, the 1983 vintage prevailed in our comparative tasting, scoring 8 to 2 wins against the 1993 vintage, with two ties. The structured, classic ’83s exhibited greater depth and harmony compared to the ‘93s, which tended to be simpler, sometimes slightly green and dry, or at their best, fresh and light. However, in both vintages, aside from a few notable labels, many wines were evidently beyond their peak. The standout was, unsurprisingly, the Margaux (94pts). Tasting the some of the same ’83s a second time a few days later with decanting showed a marked improvement, highlighting the need of aeration.
  
  TN: Solid showing on the nose – it's filled with ripe, expressive dark berries, complemented by toasty elements, and subtle minty and graphite hints. The palate mirrors this beautifully, showcasing freshness and a pleasant roundness. It's quite precise and clean. This wine epitomizes the vintage's freshness and ethereal quality, and Palmer has excelled in achieving perfect tannin ripeness not many wineries got right. It earns a robust 92pts, surprisingly close to the legendary '83, which I rated at 93pts.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View sirpat00's profile
  • Report Issue

  11/20/2023 - sirpat00 wrote: 90 Points

  Bordeaux 1983 vs 1993 face-off: Thin base of aging notes and not overly expressive in general. But did come across younger with a rather fresh fruit, just about sufficiently ripe, mineral notes of blood.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View sirpat00's profile
  • Report Issue

  1/30/2021 - sirpat00 wrote: 91 Points

  Tasted blind. ~2h slow-ox, but no double-decant (was not my call but I would highly recommend a quick one). From a private cellar where the case has rested ever since it was acquired en primeur. Not overly expressive and lightly structured. But fully alive with sweet red berry fruit as an anchor, circled by aging notes of barnyard and wet earth. The palate has sufficient tension. Tannin molten away almost entirely. Again red berry fruit with a close to medium length finish. Clearly precision was lacking, complexity limited to a single fruit and the structure was feeble overall. However, given the challenges of the vintage this was nevertheless a positive surprise. By itself, this was a nicely aged, unpretentious Bordeaux. However, we had the Pichon Lalande 1993 next to it and there was more than just one league difference between the two. Not much experience with 1993 to be honest, but this sample size of 2 would suggest if you must open a 1993, best to look for the power of Pauillac.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View NostraBacchus's profile
  • Report Issue

  1/26/2018 - NostraBacchus Likes this wine: 90 Points

  First slightly closed from Magnum but opens up quickly. Constantly changing in the glass notes of crushed flowers, dark raspberries, red bell pepper, tobacco, cedar wood, also some menthol notes. Medium+ bodied with medium+ tannin and medium+ acidity. So much fun to drink, really nice.

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View EMAZurich's profile
  • Report Issue

  1/26/2018 - EMAZurich Likes this wine: 89 Points

  Palmer Vertikale: Deutlich jüngere Farbe als 84. Auch breiter Wasserrand aber durchgehend bordeauxrot. Tolle johannisbeerige, paprikalastige Nase. Am Gaumen noch sehr jung irgendwie. Klar, jahrgangsbedingt keine breite Schulter, trotzdem wirklich tolles Aromenspiel. 88
  
  Später wird der Wein dichter, harmonischer, immer besser. Korrigiere auf 89-90

  Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

View all 17 Community Tasting Notes

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.