Ron Siegel

9.4

Another great vintage showing a polished, silky texture with black cherry, berry fruit, graphite, incense, licorice, olive, mineral & violets. Open, balanced that you can enjoy now — 3 months ago

Vino Joe

9.3

Tight as a drum at open. Loosened to trampoline tension after 2 hours. Finally was loose after 4. Spicy and hefty. More inward. A sophisticated mix and quite good but as with most Leoville Las Cases it needs to sit longer for the next iteration. — 4 months ago

Joe DAscoli

9.3

Super sweet and oaky on first open but matured up with a 3 hour decant

Still quite fruity but with steak, it gives a lot of red berry fruit and the oak is reasonable and the sweetness is gone with the airtime.

Overall good wine but I thought it lost out to the Paul Hobbs LPV ‘14. — 5 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.5

2002 vintage. Last tasted 10.06.22 (9.4). Similar "gliding along" impressions with feminine characteristics. This bottle (nice fill, cork and decent sed) was a goody. Decanted and tasted after 5 mins, 30 mins and 2 hours. Bit more structure evident after two hours open as to be a different, yet fantastic, wine. Funny how some of these underwhelming, less than aggro wines can take on another life of their own, on their terms, by gently removing all doubt. Still another 5-7 years-easy. 11.21.24. — 5 months ago

Sam Friedland

9.2

Very nice, needed time to open. Earth, leather. Somewhat subdued a little fruit — 6 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.5

2013 vintage. Both excellent fill and cork. Decanted with infinitesimal sed. Slightly silvery color. Tasted after 1.5 and 2.5 hours open. Medium body. Nose slightly reticent during both tastes. Black tea and eucalyptus prominent first go round with both those still present but minimized second pass. Sprinkle in some cracked black pepper and white sage for round two and we have a winner. Finish lasted over a minute and the concentration was as expected given the decent street cred. No rush to crush but open waay early/decant this if enjoying in the next handful of years. 10.24.24. — 6 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.2

2009 vintage. Decanted and open for approx an hour before tasting. A little tight but Burgundian body and flavors. Wasn't picking up any Syrah notes in the nose either. 7.22.23. — 2 years ago

Nagib Nasr

9.3

Incredible. Open it and decant it. — 3 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.5

1990 vintage. This was the start to the weekly tasting day with the reps. A fave guest brought this in. Was summoned to open it immediately despite having just strolled in. Grabbed the Durand and pounced. Didn't get the opportunity to see the fill but the foil, label and cork were all pristine (too little cork saturation for a 3+decade-old bottle). Screamed château reconditioned. Opened but not decanted. Good color. Great nose immediately. Tasted after 15 mins and 45 mins open. Tasted around noon but bottle needed to have been opened at prior midnight. Showed pretty well, however, with the delicate intricacies this wine is renowned for. Would have presented better with more air time but you can only control so much. 01.29.25. — 3 months ago

Lyle Fass

Founder Fass Selections

9.7

Brilliant, supple, olivey and open. — 5 months ago

"Odedi"

9.2

#AgedWineTuesday

Pale lemon in color.

Light nose of citrus fruits, minerals and light yeast.

Medium-bodied with high acidity.

Dry on the palate with limes, grapefruits, green apples, brioche, earth, light yeast, minerals, spices and herbs.

Long finish with limes and herbs.

This is a very tasty Champagne, albeit still young. Elegant and rich with nice complexity. Crisp and refreshing.

Didn't love it right out of the bottle, and needed 45 minutes of airtime to open up properly, so be patient.

I've had a few different vintages of this Champagne, and always enjoyed it.

Needs 5 years to mature properly, and will continue to age nicely in the next 15 years.

A blend of 51% Chardonnay and 49% Pinot Noir. Aged for 8 years on its lees.

12.5% alcohol by volume.

92 points.

$275. — 5 months ago

Jay Kline

9.3

Double decanted two nights before service. The 2013 Insignia pours a deep garnet color with an opaque core; medium+ viscosity with significant staining of the tears and some signs of sediment. On the nose, the wine is developing but still quite youthful with notes of tart and ripe dark fruit: dense brambles, purple flowers, tobacco, vanilla and baking spices. On the palate, the wine is dry with medium+ tannin and medium+ acid. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish is medium+. At 11 years of age, this remains tightly coiled and needs more time to open up and tell more of its story. All that being said, this is very good now…but to my palate, better after 2027 and through 2043. — 6 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.3

2001 vintage. Nice fill and great cork. Opened and decanted. Expected sed but fairly minimal compared to a Cabernet-based wine. Beguiling nose. Light-medium body that had dropped any extra fat long ago. Spiced plum definitely afoot. Tasted after 15 mins open, 1 hour open, 1.5 hrs open and 8 hrs open. Remarkably consistent. Likely another half-decade at this plateau before dropping down. 10.16.24. — 7 months ago

Alan Hyde

9.2

Needed at least an hour to open up. Wasn’t good until then. Great combination of savory flavors. — 3 years ago

Ron Siegel

9.3

Pair of 21’s tonight where the Tignanello is youthful & not as open as the Ornellaia. Will be a great vintage that needs a few more years — 3 months ago

Damian

9.9

Decanted in the glass for 30 minutes, with bottle open during that time and later. The best wine experience so far. I tried it before on a tasting and was not impressed. Brioche, toast, citrus, apple and racing acidity were still present in my mouth after 2 minutes of taking a sip. I prefer to drink it the way I described at the beginning vs straight from the bottle that was standing in ice. — 4 months ago

Jay Kline

9.8

Forty-plus years on, people still talk about the greatness of the 1982 vintage in Bordeaux. There are multiple factors that contribute to this and it’s fair to say that Robert Parker’s reaction played a major role in the early popularity; certainly in the States. While some may say that 1982 was merely a “good” vintage by today’s standards, I think history has proven it to be empirically special; there was just so much quality from top to bottom. And yet, even with the high praise of the vintage, the tone shifts to hushed whispers when the 1982 Mouton gets mentioned. Up until that point, the Chateau had sort of underachieved after receiving its unprecedented promotion in 1973. But in 1982, a year full of great wine, they created a legend and firmly cemented their First Growth status. Today, I’m pleased to report the plaudits for the ’82 are all warranted.

Opened and double-decanted earlier in the day. The ’82 Mouton pours a deep garnet color with a near opaque core with some sediment; almost youthful when compared to many of the other older wines poured on the night. On the nose, the wine is developing still; loaded with cassis, black berries, leaf tobacco, leather, and fine baking spices. On the palate, the wine is dry with fabulous structure. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish is long and full of power. A stunning wine and well in its prime…a window I expect will remain open for a longtime to come. Drink now with bacchanalian abandon and through 2082. — 5 months ago

Andrew Cullimore

9.1

Medium ruby , garnet rim, touch of terracotta rim . Slightly dusty , animal touch , with leather , spicy and herbal , soy , iodine . On the palate quite strict , grafite , slightly more red fruit , cranberry , then blackcurrant and grafite . Slightly dusty dry tannins , balanced acidity . Slightly spicy , mineral , grafite tinged finish . This needs a bit of time to open but shows quite well , slightly herbal , and perhaps lacks a little charm , but is quite classic in style if not a great 1985. From now and over the next 10 years . On the night this was probably only ahead of the 1977 , and my least favourite of the 1980s vintages . — 6 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.4

2000 vintage. Last tasted 9.25.23 (9.2) after 1.5 hours decanted. Popped and decanted this for lunch. Great fill and solid cork. Throwing a bit of sed but less than anticipated. Meh nose. Medium body initially. Started off on the rich side of the ledger but not plush. Had some smoothness afoot. Tasted after 45 mins open, 1.75 hours open and 8 hours open. First two were unspectacular. After lounging in the decanter 8 hours, wine had firmed up, thinned out, picked up plenty of secondary flavors and had that previously missing grip. If you're gonna open this during the holidays or anytime soon, do it very very early...otherwise, it'll be a total waste. Wine has miles to go. No rush to crush but just air it out in advance properly. 10.16.24. — 7 months ago

Will Stanley

9.4

The 2016 Chateau Musar, the winery’s latest vintage on release, is much less forthcoming on the nose than the 2013 and ‘15 that I’ve tried recently, despite - or perhaps because of - the fact that the Hochars consider 2016 to be a successful and very ageworthy vintage.

The nose is quite dense and tightly wound, much like a left bank Bordeaux presents in its youth, not yet revealing its cards besides aromas of cedar, steeped plum, smoked beef and cinnamon. The palate, however, is open for business - powerful and saturated, striking that wonderful Musar balance between dark fruit and tangy acidity, expanding towards a puckering finish with good length.

The lasting impression here is of a very modern rendition of Musar, with great clarity and purity to the fruit, fine tannins, refreshing acidity on the palate and great drinkability now (though equal potential to age). My preference of late remains the 2013, but that’s now quite hard to buy - so I’d happily have a case of this instead.

94+ — 3 years ago