Another modestly priced Bordeaux (paid $20 at release) from the '96 vintage that has evolved nicely. Plenty of balance and complexity in this offering. Good concentration and finish too. The fruit profile and subtle earthy nuances are typical of St. Estephe. Might still improve, but it is currently open and drinking quite well. Didn't change a great deal in the glass either. 90 pts.
Might just be a coincidence, but my '96s continue to outshine my '95s at every price point. Compared to the '96s I've sampled over the past 18 months, the '95s on whole seem rather dry, tannic and overly earthy. Why WS gives the '95 vintage 95 pts and the '96 vintage 87 pts, escapes me.
Posts: 223 | Location: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 30, 2002
I too picked up a few of these for a song and I popped my first one last July. It was very dark, rich and full bodied, chocolatly/earthy, decent nose...lots of good fruit...but still quite tannic. Did not decant (actually drank it while camping...in a plastic cup no less...)...but it didn't seem to soften too awfly much over time. It was enjoyable - certainly - but I felt it could still use some time to soften and integrate a bit more.
Posts: 589 | Location: N. Virginia (near DC) | Registered: May 20, 2002
Riddler- Let's hope that they are just more closed than the 1996's(I doubt it).
Parker gave the 1996 more masculine Left Bank 94 points(Pauillac, St Julien, Ste Estephe). 1995's 92. The 1995 & 96 Right Bank et al. 85-88(Pomerols 92 points).
Let's also hope the JS didn't shoot himself in the foot again.
Ron, thanks for the Parker info. It will be interesting to see how the '95s evolve relative to the '96s. If the '95s I'm sitting on (and have been sampling) indeed open up at some point, it will be my most meaningful experience yet with the mythical "dumb phase."
Posts: 223 | Location: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 30, 2002
