The nose is aged Bordeaux. It is delicious with dark fruit, spice, and tobacco. More like a nicely aged Pauilliac. The smoky finish is deliciously long.
The label was in such bad shape that I had to fill in the torn G for it to be ID'd. — 12 years ago
Thinking the 2009 was a bad bottle. This was the essence of minerality. — 13 years ago
Very good for CA! — 13 years ago
2011, not bad. Nice oaky notes — 11 years ago
Still youg, a lot of fruit, soft tannin, a beautiful wine. Prouve that good chateau can make beautiful wine with bad year. — 11 years ago
..........RESPECT!.......... — 12 years ago
The color is very opaque a deep dark purple almost black.
The boquet is so amazing I was sipping it before I realized what I was doing. It has absolutely no tanic smell. It smells like blackberries fresh on the vine. The initial palate taste is dry and not very rich. It has a light feel to it. It has a smooth light beginning and a dry almost tongue tantilizing finish. The flavor is of black currant, blackberry, and chocolate with a slight himt of acidity, but in a good way. It tingles the sides of my anteroir tongue. It has a very dry finish with no aftertaste. This is an amazing wine. This is Alexander Valley at its best. In a nut shell, its a big bold smooth and yet light wine. Almost like a Pinot in heaviness but big bad and bold like a Pure Cab
— 11 years ago
Contrary to other wines, D'yquem is in a class of it's own in terms of Sauternes. There is rarely, if ever, a bad year, although some years, like the 2001, stand out more than others. The disparity in quality from a GREAT d'yquem to a mediocre one & so on isn't as drastic as one might imagine. While the older vintages seem to age VERY well, it isn't as discernible from a recent vintage as other wines. Sauternes, in general are consistent, & none more than d'yquem. — 12 years ago
Glen eagle Kiawah
Not a bad second bottle night. Good fruit. 2009 — 11 years ago