Andrew Cullimore

9.4

Medium lemon colour . This is showing a little more complex and detailed than the last time . Lemon rind , crushed rocks , ginger and white flowers , touch of brioche also . On the palate a bit more dense , but with good balanced acidity and lemon rind , brioche , ginger and toasty , mineral finish. Drinkable now , though best days will be in 5-10 years time , though I don’t think this will be as long lived as the 2012 . — 3 months ago

Jay Kline

9.2

Popped and poured; enjoyed over the course of a few hours. No formal notes due to the setting. The 2018 is a fairly classic expression of Beaucastel with a mixed bramble fruit set, underbrush, herbs and spices in lovely balance. Good structure. While still on the youthful side, the 2018 is already showing well and was an awesome accompaniment with a wagyu burger. Drink now through 2038. — 4 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.5

2005 vintage. Light-medium/medium bod. Rocking don't bother knocking. So good. At the top of its respective bell curve and looks to hang out for quite some time. Maybe an extended residency? Not going anywhere anytime soon. 12.11.24. — 5 months ago

Adam Gäfvert

9.5

I had the 2014 Latour a couple of years back. It was from a half bottle and I remember it was rather disappointing. But this wine has really come around. Or maybe it has been developing much better in a full size bottle. Today it’s graceful, with great posture and in perfect balance. A timeless beauty. I had a few 2014 (both left and right bank) lately and I find them very appealing right now. A unsung vintage that turned out pretty good imo. — 5 months ago

Jay Kline

9.3

Served alongside beef short rib, xo sauce, pickled mustard seed, cumin stir-fried asparagus. This bottle of 2006 was throwing a ton of sediment. Showing mostly red fruits with red currants, new leather, tobacco, earth, forest floor, baking spices…a touch green. Hello Cabernet Franc!! Good structure. The finish is long. Every time I have the opportunity to enjoy Sassicaia, I am reminded why it’s one of the great wines of Italy. I just wish it wasn’t so expensive. Drink now through 2036. — 6 months ago

Rob DeShane

9.0

Substance makes one of the best <$20 wines I’ve had in the last year. So I had expectations. Jeb Dunnuck rated this very high and I agree: a nose that reminds me of northern Rhône with a meaty flinty mineral quality complimented by violets and purple fruit. The wine has a lithe quality with dry tannins tending towards an earl grey tea in character and medium finish I wish was longer. Overall, a good wine. Is it 3x’s better than the cheaper bottle….I would say yeah…sure. 2018 vintage, Powerline vineyard. — 8 months ago

Chris M

9.2

I grab my wines by random out of the fridge. I grabbed it from the cheap zone and we really pleased with the quality as it is excellent.

Turns out it is not cheap, it's like $35-40. It's still good just not a great value — 4 years ago

Jeffrey Lew

9.6

Wow.. Shocking how good these wines can be when they are on. Wonderful nose of dark fruit, old glove leather and graphite. This was still kicking after 3hrs and shows how strong the vintage was to keep going so strong after 50+ years. — 7 years ago

Noel Geisen

9.1

In spite of my worries the 1991 was still in good shape. Old but very nice to drink. — 8 years ago

Stuart Scheff

9.2

Sooooooo good — 10 years ago

P A

9.2

Always a good bet — 11 years ago

Andrew Cullimore

9.5

Quite light lemon yellow , very persistent , fine bubbles . Quite taut and strict on the nose , chalk dust , white flowers , honey suckle and elderflower , lemon peel , touch oyster shell and a touch of fresh baked bread . On the palate really good volume and density , lively acidity . Lots of citrus with good mineral , oyster shell notes . Long and mineral , saline, tinged finish , hint of toasty brioche on the end . This is really quite young and shows tighter and more mineral than the first bottle we had . Would leave this a few years and will have a long life , better in 10 -15 years and last well a further 10 or so . Great potential — 3 months ago

Adam Kincaid

9.0

Drinking a 3L from 2013 in late ‘24. Love the big format bottles and aging potential. This could go a lot longer I think but is also fine to drink now.

Standard Caymus flavors and aromas that made the brand known. Dark inky crimson color. Blueberries and blackberry fruit mixed with vanilla alongside the tell-tale signs of wet band-aid. Great tannins, medium-to-big acidity, good long finish. Really nice. — 4 months ago

with Jillian

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

Sierra Schlesinger

9.0

Casey liked more than Sierra. Needed time to aerate — 7 months ago

Ron Siegel

9.6

Amazing! Rich with good intensity hitting all notes. One of my favorite Champagnes this year. — 9 months ago

Paul H

9.4

When they say bring your A game you can think of this bottle. This is an amazing glass of wine. It benefits from decanting for a good bit. Upon opening I thought of dusty plum and cedar on the nose. Tasting brought plum, currant, blackberries, vintage leather plus an array of other items indicative of this style of big wine. There is a good mix of tannins and acid that makes this a classic great glass of wine. I want to try it again in a few years to see how much better it may get. — 3 years ago

"Odedi"

8.9

Dark Inky in color with a short reddish rim.

Fruity nose with black currants, blackberries, ripe figs, wood, spices, licorice, chocolates, mocha, caramel, light vanilla, tobacco, light alcohol and peppercorn.

Full bodied and smooth with medium acidity and long legs.

Dry and fruity on the palate with blackberries, plums, cherries, currants, oak, vanilla, licorice, spices, chocolates, coke, coffee and peppercorn.

Long finish with very soft tannins and tangy cranberries.

This California Red Blend is always enjoyable. Well balanced and enjoyable by itself or with food. Still showing nice acidity and complexity.

It's a non vintage, but I held it for a couple of years so it must be 4 or 5 years old by now.

Good right out of the bottle and better as it opens up.

14.5% alcohol by volume.



$17. — 7 years ago

Nadine Stathas

9.8

This is one of my new favorite Red blends! Spendy at about $31 a bottle, but worth it! — 9 years ago

Tara Hankinson

9.6

Cooked plums, leaves on the nose. Minerality, good amount of tannins and acidity (especially for the age!), dark fruit. #wineordie #BordeauxCup #GoinUpOnATuesday — 10 years ago

with Michael

Jay Kline

9.7

Of all the American red wines that participated in the Judgement of Paris, it could be argued that Monte Bello has shown the greatest propensity to age. In fact, I would go as far as it requires lengthy cellaring to extract its best. I’ve had the good fortune to drink a number of tremendous vintages of Monte Bello over the last several years and this one has got to be at or near the top of the lot.

Opened and poured into a decanter about an hour prior to service and enjoyed over the course of a few hours. The 1991 Monte Bello pours a deep ruby/purple color with an opaque core moving out towards a light ruby rim; medium+ viscosity with moderate staining of the tears and some signs of sediment. On the nose, the wine is developing (still!) with gorgeous notes of ripe and tart black currants, mixed bramble fruit, tobacco, some purple flowers, dill, mint, leather, earth, vanilla and associated baking spices. On the palate, the wine is dry with medium+ tannin and medium+ acid. The structure remains tremendous which again, seems to indicate youth. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish is super long and immensely satisfying. This is one of those wines that will outlive most humans. Drinking well now with a short decant but this has the gas to see 2061 with ease. — 3 months ago

Pooneet K

9.2

Always lovely and fun to try with a bit more age. Still lots of flowers and cherry but with a notably darker edge now. Dangerously drinkable while still being very interesting. Good pairing with a Christmas Eve ham from hometown bbq. — 4 months ago

Jenks

9.4

Drank through a vertical of this, 2012-2015, quite different oldest to youngest. The ‘12 smelled like a dusty old closet, some funk, surprisingly lean wine, good after some air. ‘14 was the best mix of fruit and garrigue. Fun experience. — 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

Victor Hsu

9.0

A good, solid California Cab but what’s all the fuss about? I’m seeing ratings of 98, 99, even 100 from JS. Really? No way. This is a clear case of praise crossing over into hype. Granted, still a bit young and not at its peak but after five years in the bottle and an hour of decanting it needs to be more than just fine if it wants to justify stratospheric scores. This wine compares unfavorably to Ridge Monte Bello, Stags Leap Cask 23 and other peers. It lacked sophistication and poise—where’s the promised minerality, graphite, cedar shavings, oak, leather, blackcurrant, cherry, and complex balance of fine grained tannins, fruit, acid and alcohol? Where? We chose this wine for a birthday dinner at Lawry’s Prime Rib in Beverly Hills. Not a disaster but a disappointment given our high expectations (and the high price).
— 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

Todd Stone

9.2

Very good Rosé champagne. Not as Brut as a typical white version- has a touch of sweetness but still dry. Very smooth, softer bubbles, strawberries & maybe even raspberries. — 5 years ago

with Gordon and Peggy

Pooneet K

9.1

Very nice. Possible that some of the fruit is starting to fade. But with some time in the glass this still reveals a lot and of course finishes with very good acid and smooth, well integrated tannins. Very nice with a big grilled pork chop. — 8 years ago

Hao Feng

9.2

Clear, deep ruby with tears. Clean nose, developing medium plus aroma of savory, spice, peppery, mint, black fruit, earthiness, mushroom and leather. Dry, medium plus acidity, mid plus tannin, high alc, high body, mid plus flavor strength and mid plus finish. Very good wine, good for aging — 9 years ago

Kai Chang

9.2

Clear deep purple colour with watery rim. Clean medium intensity aroma with minty black cherry and black currant with hint of oak smokiness and vanilla. Dry on the palate full bodied medium alcohol with medium acidity and high but smooth velvety tannin. Flavours of earthy black currant, black cherry, and vanilla. Flavours last through into its long pleasant finish. Very good quality, drink now but can age for another 3 to 5 years for a even more balanced complexity. — 11 years ago