Alexandre Pagliano

9.0

Dark rubi robe, no color evolution, reticent nose of cedar, tobacco and dark fruits. Its a small vintage but the wine is balanced and elegant, drinks well, with these more prominent tannins in better vintages, and lacking a bit of complexity. Its still one of the better 2002 bordeaux we had. — 2 months ago

with Jose, veronique and 4 others

Ericsson

9.4

Vintage at it best At Petit Comptoir, Reims FR. — 2 months ago

Lee Pitofsky

9.4

The cool 88 vintage is in a great spot—gamey and savory, a perfect food wine, particularly with the aged duck! — 2 months ago

JeremyC

9.0

Melissa shared this at Swrl during post blind pizza etc. 1968 in 2/26. Fun — 3 months ago

GaryWEdwards

9.6

Great balance of fruit and acidity. Lemon zest undertones. Wonderful wine of a great vintage — 4 months ago

Jay Kline

9.5

Presented to me double-blind. The wine pours a deep garnet with an opaque core and some rim variation; medium viscosity with moderate staining of the tears and signs of sediment. On the nose the wine is vinous with notes of cassis, blackberry, black plum, tobacco, menthol, leather, and mix of cool and warm spices. On the palate the wine is dry with medium+ tannin and medium+ acid. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish is long. This is really delicious.

Initial conclusions: this could be a Cabernet Sauvignon based blend or other Bordeaux-styled blend or a Tempranillo based blend from the United States, France or Spain. This saw French oak so I eliminated Spain. I thought the fruit was outshining the structure…so I liked the USA over France. And, based off the appearance, I thought this probably had 30+ years of age. Final conclusion: this is a Cabernet Sauvignon based blend from the United States, from California, Napa, Rutherford; 1994. Ugh…the 1990 vintage in Bordeaux has bit me twice now recently. Really awesome stuff! Drink now through 2040+. — 4 months ago

Mary H

9.3

Magnum pour decanted was my favorite. Really hits with a punch of acid off the bat - pomelo, green citrus, hint of mushroom. Very fine bubbles, cinnamon roll glaze creaminess. Non-decanted version was more bitter, more grapefruit zest and pith. 70% pinot noir, 30% chardonnay - though the color was quite light and leaned straw with just a hint of pink. — 5 months ago

Doug Powers

9.4

[8 hour decant] This smells and (in particular) tastes like Dow’s, the drier style of classic Vintage Port, still shows lovely fruit and depth, just not as sweet as Fonseca or Graham’s, nor as structured as Taylor’s, longish finish, very, very sneaky fine!! — 5 months ago

with Jim

Leonard Lee

10

2026 Easter in Bergamo with Ester’s family and Aunt and Germano. Giulietta — 2 months ago

Andrew Cullimore

9.3

5th wine . medium deep ruby , touch more garnet . Slightly wider rim . Quite cool and mineral again , more grafite with some cool cassis , blackberry. On the palate this is slightly lighter in body , leaner perhaps but very elegant , fresh and quite saline, tobacco , grafite and herbal tinges on the finish . Reasonable saline length. Fine lightly grippy tannins , good acidity . This is showing quite well though would perhaps benefit from a few more years . Better in 3-5 years and drink well a further 7- 10 . The next day this actually shows a little better , elegant and refined, nothing showy , very Lafite , so I’m glad I guessed this correctly ! Overall this was a very interesting tasting , there is nothing showy or remarkable about the 2006 1st growths , they are quite classic and also showing quite a lot of structure still , with good freshness though they perhaps lack a little stuffing and intensity . They were quite even quality wise, with the high points being the Mouton (though the Lafite improved the following day to upgrade its score and draw level ) and the low point being a relatively disappointing Margaux . The vintage will continue to improve over the next 5 perhaps 10 years in general , though they may always just lack a little density and excitement . — 2 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.6

1988 vintage. Medium body. Lighter Sauternes color. Plenty of golden/ripe notes along with exquisite caramel influence but it was the acidity that stole the show. Didn’t even have to cross the fingers, hold my breath or “pretend” it was still alive. Fully mature and raring to go. Not improving but not declining either. So much life ahead. I think “Woof!” accurately sums it all up. 3.20.26. — 2 months ago

Conrad Green

9.3

lean and clean. A little lean. Very good given the vintage. But Le’s good than the others alongside — 4 months ago

with David

Somm David T

Independent Sommelier/Wine Educator

9.4

I remember when the 2005 Pichon Lalande was reviewed by RP, 89. I saw that & said, you would have to get in the way of the 2005 Bordeaux vintage to be that sad. I still bought 6 at a bargain basement price. A very good idea post 20 yrs+. Both Pichon’s don’t have a modern day history of getting in the way of a good vintage.

I also bought this one. 18 yrs in bottle and still acending. This will hold 5 more yrs and will last another 10 yrs properly stored.

I have visited Bordeaux 11 times. This chateau visually is still my favorite. It was showing a picture of this chateau to Sofia that launched our first visit. Sofia loved it and we have stared at it multiple times on every visit.

It was in our visit in 2007, I stood in the estate vineyard, looked & tasted their soils. After doing so, I said, “I get it.” I understood everything about what I was tasting in Left Bank Bordeaux’s early in my wine journey.

Sofia and I had dinner w/ Christian Moueix not long after the 2005 vintage was hyped/released. She asked him, when did you know you had something special?” He said, “as soon as I tasted the fruit at harvest.”

Tonight, it shows that it is a close relative, a sibling to Pichon Longueville. Cork, perfect.

The nose shows; classic left bank traits. Ripe, dark, brooding fruits, bright, mid berries, red cola, leather, tobacco, sandalwood, leather, led pencil, dark rich earth, limestone, dry river stone, hint of mushrooms, dark, red, fresh & withering florals.

The fruits on the palate show everything outstanding from the 2005 growing season. Ripe, juicy, brilliant; dark currants, blackberries, black raspberries, black plum skin, black cherries, baked/poached strawberries & some hovering raspberries. Dark chocolate bar to pudding, red cola, anise, dark spices w/ palate heat, dark, rich earth w/ dry leaves, pronounced graphite, dry tobacco, leather, limestone, dry twig, dry river stone, moist clays, moist herbs, cedar to sandalwood, withering & dry, dark flowers, red roses, some lavender & violets, beautiful rainfall acidity, excellent; balance, tension, structure, length w/ an elegant finish that lasts minutes and lands on spice & earth.

13.4 ABV. Nice.

#TheTwoHourRibcap

This held up vacuumed sealed the same night, refrigerated & enjoyed exactly a week later. — 4 months ago

Peter van den Besselaar

9.3

vintage 2006 | Needs a few hours to open, very classic with laurel, tobacco, eucalyptus in smell, even chocolate. Balanced taste. Paired with a wagyu burger and zuchinni. Many years to go. — 2 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.1

1994 vintage. 3.15.26. — 2 months ago

Lee Pitofsky

9.5

Love this vintage of Yquem. Drinking so well — 2 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.3

2003 vintage. Pretty, not precious. 3.15.26. — 2 months ago

Greg Koslosky

9.5

This bottle was smoking incredible richness complexity and length. Impressive! — 4 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.5

1994 vintage. Popped, decanted and filtered and tasted immediately. Opened six decades too early. The whole crushed violets and plummy thang definitely there alongside hints of sweet tobacco in her breath. With apologies, just another number in your little black book. These are the pros and cons. 1.24.26. — 4 months ago

Jay Kline

9.2

Presented to me double-blind. The wine pours a dull purple/garnet color with a translucent core and significant rim variation, moving towards a rust color. The wine has medium viscosity with light staining of the tears and signs of sediment. On the nose, the wine is vinous with notes of cassis, dried blackberries, dried red and purple flowers, old leather bound books, tobacco, a touch of menthol, some earth, old wood and a sprinkle of warm spices. On the palate, the wine is dry with medium tannin and medium+ acid. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish is medium+. Super high quality but a touch thin.

Initial conclusions: Due to the observable characteristics of color, rim variation, sediment, smell and flavor, I think this wine has significant age; 30+ years. However, this is still very alive and showing more than enough markers to give an indication of place. Subsequently, this could be a Cabernet-based blend or a Tempranillo-based blend from the United States, France, or Spain. For me, I’m getting new French oak vibes instead of American so I’m eliminating Spain. I also think this leans more towards its fruit than its structure and since this comes across a little on the thin side, I’m going to say this comes from a tougher vintage. My final conclusion is this is a Cabernet Sauvignon-based blend from the USA, Napa, 1981. Wow! This showed really well.

It never ceases to amaze me how analogous the 1981 vintage was in both Napa and Bordeaux. I find it equally amazing how well that vintage has held up; particularly when considering its poor reputation, mostly based on the prevailing thought at the time. From my perspective, well stored examples are not going to fall off of a cliff but I would drink now through 2031. — 4 months ago