Bryan Kesting

9.4

A few friends got together to drink a couple Cayuse “Armada” wines. One was a 2005 library wine purchased over the summer and the 2012 I had. The biggest difference between the two was the long finish on the 2005. I do feel if you give the 2012 a few more years it will be the overall better wine. I felt like it had more going on. The 2012 was fresh and lively just without the long finish. — 8 years ago

Ryan Fell

8.9

Sweeter than last bottle, no petrol, surprised by the difference — 8 years ago

Daragh Hoey

9.4

Very, very good - pure and delicate. Not quite as settled as the 2012. That extra year makes a significant difference here. — 9 years ago

Andy Meechan

9.0

Consistently good. £10 a bottle and easily worth it. — 9 years ago

Emily Chen

9.5

Very smooth wine, apparently this bottle is about $500...! Not gonna lie, can't really tell the difference between this and cheaper wines 😅 — 10 years ago

Al Clark

8.9

Might have left this '99 vintage a few years too long. Needs a day to breathe, made a big difference. — 10 years ago

Kieran Roberts

9.1

Such a difference from the premier cru. Significant identity from the soul and great complexity — 10 years ago

David Kline

9.3

What a difference a year has made! Hazelnut, espresso, whiskeyed caramel expressions of the fragrant type. Heavy liqueur cherry chocolate. Real, muddy, earthy, cigar depth. Chocolate and coffee liqueurs with a vanilla cedar, toast and cobra venom. Burnt sugar and burnt earth leave you in the dust. — 10 years ago

with Courtney

Anthony Piazza

9.3

What a difference a non vintage can make, not sure what year the fruit was from, but it had that 'aged' flavor. — 11 years ago

Christian Damiano

9.6

What a difference a year makes — 11 years ago

Matt Young

9.0

The reserve is supposed to be better but I can't remember a huge difference. Also a great wine. — 12 years ago

Ben Atash

9.5

9 y/o non-sulfite bottle stored impeccably. What a difference since my last tasting a few years ago. This is cruising at its peak. Soft tannins. Earthy complexity. Trademark garnet color persists, but red fruit subdued and mature. Proof that Marcel was the king of Beaujolais. — 8 years ago

with Elise

R D

9.1

Nice and dry — 8 years ago

James Forsyth

9.1

Our recent meal at The Modern continued with the aid of this very food friendly Syrah from Domaine Jamet. Jamet is one of Cara's favorite producers, in part because of her penchant for barnyard notes (regressive childhood memories playing in the British countryside, maybe). Through the generosity of friends we have been lucky enough to try numerous vintages of the Cote Rôtie. The entry level Syrah was something new. It is distinctly Jamet in that the signature barnyard notes are present and distinctive. The difference lies in the structure. This wine is lightweight in structure and the tanins are barely there. It is extremely approachable in the near term, and was just gorgeous with my beef course at The Modern. I may snag a few bottles. Perhaps one to tuck into while the Cote Rôtie gains age. — 8 years ago

with Cara

Clive McNish

8.9

This is a good wine from the region, it needs decanting, the difference from opening to one hour later is marked. Cherries, spices and some earthy, leathery finish. — 9 years ago

KP

9.0

Dark color. Powerful fruity aroma. I let breathe for a day and it made a bit difference. Soil. Wet sand. — 9 years ago

Ken Schmidt

9.0

2013. Wine 1 of 3 from my first wine club shipment. Marin nicknames this Cabernet "French Kiss". Yikes, this is one of three bottles that are 2013 Cabernet Sauvignons but with different nicknames and labels! (1) "French Kiss", red and black label; (2) "Intimate", gold and black label; (3) "Naughty", red and gray label. Maybe his website explains the difference. — 10 years ago

Mark Somerville

9.8

Near perfect! I drank this same wine in 2006. Wow ...what a difference 10 years makes! Very delicate. It drinks like a Pinot. Soft velvet finish. — 10 years ago

Liz Jackson

9.0

I'm normally a red wine drinker but loved this wine — 11 years ago

J Levenson

9.1

2010 vintage. Wonderful complexity but you must decant for 30 minutes. It will be make a huge difference — 11 years ago

Steve The Wine Guy

Cellarbrations at Cottesloe Western Australia, Certified Specialist of Wine (CSW)

9.0

Petaluma white Label Chardonnay-
While I am enjoying this it bugs me to think how much better it could be. A bit of new oak for a start and although the full malo doesn't seem to be adding much the acid is persistent yet soft. The oak would have made a huge difference across the board. The fruit quality is there!
It's not my style of chardy but it deserves 8.5. -Tasted again 31/01/15
Tasting a lot more oak influence and complexity this time including some buttery notes. Oak is perfect :)
— 11 years ago

Kathryn Barnes

9.3

Sainsburys taste the difference 2016 vintage. Very nice. Slightly fruity but not acidic. Easy to drink a few glasses. — 8 years ago

Michael B

8.9

Very similar to the Château Oliver. Major difference is that this wine opens up with more bold dark fruit which is quite velvety. Transitions to a delicious blend of peppers, varied spices and eucalyptus in the middle and end. Great depth and lasting taste that blended well with our Fois gras and cheeses. — 8 years ago

Somm David T

Independent Sommelier/Wine Educator

9.3

A Bordeaux blend. Spends 22 months in 70% new 400 liter oak barrels. Nose of fragrant floral fruits of; blackberries, dark cherries, black raspberries, black plum. Licorice, anise, dark chocolate and fresh, dark florals. The fruits are ripe and fresh and match the nose. Black licorice, tarry notes, loamy soils, moist dark soil, lead pencil, cedar, tobacco, underbrush, great acidity and a beautiful long finish. The structure is better as is the tension and length. This bottle needs 8-10 years in bottle for a higher score but for many hard not to dry young. Photos of the view from the Long Shadows patio, another one of the glass blown floor lamps and a concrete fermentation egg...interestingly in an inverted shape I hadn't seen before, no real difference in effect. — 9 years ago

Rob Moose

9.4

Simply fantastic! First bottle was premoxed and what a difference it made to send it back. After about an hour it started to remind me of Raveneau. Would say it's in a perfect place. Not a rush to drink, but provided tremendous pleasure and I don't think anyone would regret that look at the wine. — 9 years ago

Stas Medvedev

9.1

Very deep garnet. Pronounced aromas of confiture fruits and spices. Medium-full body. Elegant, delicate wine. Grape varieties: CabS 43%, Merlot 33%, CabF 19%, Petit Verdo 5%. Old vines (50 years). 18 ha in biodynamics. Concrete, wood and steel tanks. Aging 15-17 mo in oak barrels (45% new). Racking every 5 mo w/ candle and egg white fining. Château du Tertre is 5th growth Grand Cru. It is worth checking its 2nd label Les Hauts du Tertre where the only difference is younger vines (20-25 years). Rating 4,1/5 — 10 years ago

Christopher Fowler

9.1

Yes to this one. Curious forest floor notes on the nose, with lots of spice on the palate and a long finish. I opened it after our bottle of after-work Pinot Noir plonk ran dry and the difference was huge. It went well enough with burgers, but I'd like try it again with with roasted poultry and cranberry sauce. — 10 years ago

with Michael

Liza Anne Trinidad

9.3

Allow it to open up even a few minutes makes a huge difference. Excellent especially for the price — 11 years ago

with Ben

And Rew

9.2

Lovely oaky smooth warm hint of spice — 11 years ago

Jessica Tousignant

Sales Vinum Importing & Distributing

9.1

A blend of Grenache, Syrah, Carignan and Mourvèdre, aged in tank, barrel and large foudre.

Caillou’s Côtes du Rhône vineyards are essentially the same, in terroir and exposition, as its Châteauneuf vineyards.

Dense, rich red fruit with a well-balanced structure that leaves a pretty lovely, long finish. Old vine Carignan seems to be making all the difference in the world. — 12 years ago