Jan A

9.8

Surprise, surprise... Picked from the list of the restaurant to replace a corcked Mouton 1995, this was the positive surprise of the day for me. From a modest vintage, and a modest price point of around 35€, this blew away many multi 100€ bottles from the table today!

Profile was very round and sweet. Most of the tasting group placed this in napa valley when presented blind. — 9 hours ago

Guy Acheson

9.2

Light. Mature fruit. Mild tannins. — 19 days ago

Jan A

9.7

At first I scored this 99 points, flirting with perfection just like the 1999 Dunn Howell Mountain we had in our glass moments before. However after 15-20 minutes in the glass it began to fade and aged characteristics like tea leaves and Maggi began to emerge and the color went much more brown. Still a very good wine. — 8 hours ago

Peter van den Besselaar

9.1

vintage 2021 | Classic with potential, cinnamon, fine earth — 8 days ago

Peter van den Besselaar

9.0

vintage 1986 | Brushwood in smell, soft taste, a point — a day ago

Dave

9.2

This is very nice wine.
Listening to The Strokes and wondering where rock n roll went. It's completely vanished. I mean new rock bands- they don't exist. The charts are dominated with this disgusting pop/rap/country mashup. Somebody please name a solid rock band (that the masses know about) that has formed in the last 5 years. — 23 days ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.3

2020 vintage. Has it all and right now. Picked up for $34.99 at Trader Joe’s. PNP or decant…your choice. 5.13.26. — 12 days ago

Ron Siegel

9.3

A pair of 16’s off of Buccan’s list in PB. Way too young but started to develop slowly with air. I enjoyed both but leaned more to the Beausejour Duffau. — 19 days ago

Somm David T

Independent Sommelier/Wine Educator

9.2

This 2006 was a tale of 1/2 of the bottle decanted in a wide decanter and the other 1/2 left in bottle. The bottom 1/2 bottle better than the 2 hour decant. The decanted part lost complete Bordeaux character, mid palate and depth. A shorter decant was in order, but that doesn’t mean this 06 is waning. It has another 7–10 yrs from bottle.

2006 was the vintage that followed the grand 2005 vintage, not an entirely fair growing seasons. Based on the 2005 vintage, the Bordelaise overpriced the 2006 vintage. The Bordelaise disappointed in the price they sold 2005’s looked to make up their perceived losses in 2006. Except, the quality wasn’t the same. Not even close.

The nose shows brambly, ripe; blackberries, black raspberries, both plums, dark cherries and lean raspberry edges. Dark, rich earth with dry leaves, dark chocolate bar, mid berry cola. steeped black tea, charcoal, graphite, soft, fresh tobacco, used leather,. softy layered baking spices, black licorice-tarriness, dry river stones, dry limestone powder/bits, dark, red florals with fresh, blooming violets & understated lavender.

The palate is ripe, juicy w/ medium, rounded tannins. Ripe; blackberries, black raspberries, both plums, dark cherries, strawberries and lean raspberry. Dark, rich earth with dry leaves, dark & slightly melted chocolate, mid berry cola. steeped black tea, charcoal, graphite, soft, fresh tobacco, used leather, softy layered baking spices-nutmeg, clove, cinnamon & vanillin, mid dark spices w/ some palate heat, black licorice-tarriness, dry herbs, dry river stones, dry limestone powder/bits, dry top soil, moist, grey, volcanic clay, dark, red florals with fresh, blooming violets & understated lavender, very nice acidity, nicely balanced, well structured/tensioned w/ an elegant finish that lasts a minute plus and lands on earth & spice with mid intensity palate heat.

92 decanted. 93 the bottom 1/2 of the bottle, not decanted. — 2 days ago

romo

9.5

It’s nice to be born just inside of a great vintage across Europe. Sound and fim, still. at Laurelhurst — a month ago