I've read some mixed reviews on this wine, and....

Dark ruby red in color, almost blood red. The nose is the best feature at present. Kirsch, a gravely/mineral element, red flowers, and vanillin. On the palate, more subdued. Med. bodied with notes of lychee nut, semi-sweet cranberry, light mint leaf, cedar and a slight saline character that washed over the midsection of the wine. Light/moderate cedary/wooded finish. Tannins are not nearly as pronounced as what I read in Parker's review, but they are definitely there. I'm not sure this has the fruit quality or depth to ever be a great bottle. Not bad, but not great. 90 pts.

Seems hat this should have shown more. Was it decanted first and how was it after time with air ?

Red wine is not drinking too good right now. I went through several bottles in the past few days, and though they were not of the same caliber as Lafleur, they were supposed to be good. Nope, none delivered. All wines seemed very tight and clumsy on the palate, yet had promising bouquets that led nowhere.

p.s. I think I'll have a white with fish tomorrow.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: grunhauser,

It'll be better after the label glue dries, but you were the first to post notes on it. Congratulations.

Riiiigggghhhhttt......

I was also the first to post on the '76 Mayacamas as of Sept. 8th 2005 in San Francisco. I'm so cool. But, unfortunately, not as cool as the guys out who are the first to post on the lastest in Ontario and Fingerlake wines. They are hardcore (risking it all for the good of this community). I so admire them!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dr.darkrichandbold,

Flubis....

Decanted for 1-2 hours, and half the bottle consumed after that with another wine loving friend of mine. Then I tried the rest of it the next day after having put it in the fridge with the cork back in it. It had not changed.