If you were to buy one of these two which would it be?

Parker gave the '05 Palmer or 94-96 rating, WS gave it a 95-100. Parker thinks it is a great Palmer and could last 45 or more years. I have no reason to doubt how long it will last, I have seen how the 1961 Palmer is doing good. So it has a history. The Palmer will go for $270 a bottle.

'05 Harlan has no reviews yet. But it looks like there is a very good chance I will be able to order the '05 vintage. In WA issue#168, Parker said the older Harlans are aging superbly and believes Harlan is a wine that will go 30+ years. One the people at the wine retailer I go to said he recently had both the 1990 Harlan and 1991 Harlan, he felt he opened both too early. So as of now, it is looking like Harlan produces at least a 20 year wine as the 1990 vintage is holding strong at 17 years old. I highly doubt it will fall apart in 3 years.

The problem with Harlan is, it looks like it will be $350 a bottle. Darn, that is a lot. There is something about paying $300 a bottle or more that I just don't know if I can do.

What would your choice be?
Original Post
quote:
Originally posted by PetiteSyrahFan:
If you were to buy one of these two which would it be?

Parker gave the '05 Palmer or 94-96 rating, WS gave it a 95-100. Parker thinks it is a great Palmer and could last 45 or more years. I have no reason to doubt how long it will last, I have seen how the 1961 Palmer is doing good. So it has a history. The Palmer will go for $270 a bottle.

'05 Harlan has no reviews yet. But it looks like there is a very good chance I will be able to order the '05 vintage. In WA issue#168, Parker said the older Harlans are aging superbly and believes Harlan is a wine that will go 30+ years. One the people at the wine retailer I go to said he recently had both the 1990 Harlan and 1991 Harlan, he felt he opened both too early. So as of now, it is looking like Harlan produces at least a 20 year wine as the 1990 vintage is holding strong at 17 years old. I highly doubt it will fall apart in 3 years.

The problem with Harlan is, it looks like it will be $350 a bottle. Darn, that is a lot. There is something about paying $300 a bottle or more that I just don't know if I can do.

What would your choice be?


Palmer
quote:
Originally posted by dannyk8232:
quote:
Originally posted by PetiteSyrahFan:
If you were to buy one of these two which would it be?

Parker gave the '05 Palmer or 94-96 rating, WS gave it a 95-100. Parker thinks it is a great Palmer and could last 45 or more years. I have no reason to doubt how long it will last, I have seen how the 1961 Palmer is doing good. So it has a history. The Palmer will go for $270 a bottle.

'05 Harlan has no reviews yet. But it looks like there is a very good chance I will be able to order the '05 vintage. In WA issue#168, Parker said the older Harlans are aging superbly and believes Harlan is a wine that will go 30+ years. One the people at the wine retailer I go to said he recently had both the 1990 Harlan and 1991 Harlan, he felt he opened both too early. So as of now, it is looking like Harlan produces at least a 20 year wine as the 1990 vintage is holding strong at 17 years old. I highly doubt it will fall apart in 3 years.

The problem with Harlan is, it looks like it will be $350 a bottle. Darn, that is a lot. There is something about paying $300 a bottle or more that I just don't know if I can do.

What would your choice be?


Palmer
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
All about which style you enjoy to me, and how long you might want to wait until you drink.

I would go with the Palmer without question, but that is me.


Agreed...
Also, whether storing to consume or invest...
A vote for Palmer on both accounts, I think.
(Chicago Wine Co.is offering 05 Palmer @ 230.00per btw...)
I do not agree with Parker or your retailer out the longevity of Harlan. I would drink it up within 15 years of vintage, 20 max. On the other hand, young Harlan is likely to be better than young Palmer. So you would have that option.

It cannot, in my mind, justify either of those prices for those wines. I'm not saying I cannot justify spending $300+ on a bottle of wine. Quintarelli Alzero, '90's Maya, DRCs, good ready-to-drink vintages of Haut Brion are all worth $300+ (sometimes ++++) to me. But neither of those bottles are.
I dont know why you are even asking. Clearly you want the Palmer to satisfy your desire to hold every bottle of wine for 50+ years, so you will have some great wine to drink when you are 90. I like good Bordeaux and Napa cabs as much as the next guy, but I dont see holding a wine as long as possible, or until it is 3 months from falling apart. Take the $300 and buy 3-4 bottles of a lesser cru and drink them over 15 years so you can get over your strange desire to cellar wines for as long as humanly possible.
quote:
Originally posted by jnastynebr:
I dont know why you are even asking. Clearly you want the Palmer to satisfy your desire to hold every bottle of wine for 50+ years, so you will have some great wine to drink when you are 90. I like good Bordeaux and Napa cabs as much as the next guy, but I dont see holding a wine as long as possible, or until it is 3 months from falling apart. Take the $300 and buy 3-4 bottles of a lesser cru and drink them over 15 years so you can get over your strange desire to cellar wines for as long as humanly possible.
Wow, now that you've enlightened us that owning and holding long aging wines is just silly, I can burn my cellar. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
quote:
Originally posted by jnastynebr:
I dont know why you are even asking. Clearly you want the Palmer to satisfy your desire to hold every bottle of wine for 50+ years, so you will have some great wine to drink when you are 90. I like good Bordeaux and Napa cabs as much as the next guy, but I dont see holding a wine as long as possible, or until it is 3 months from falling apart. Take the $300 and buy 3-4 bottles of a lesser cru and drink them over 15 years so you can get over your strange desire to cellar wines for as long as humanly possible.
Wow, now that you've enlightened us that owning and holding long aging wines is just silly, I can burn my cellar. Roll Eyes


Or we could just DRAB every bottle in your cellar, then burn it
My comments were directed at Petit Syrah fan's CONSTANT posts about long term aging every wine. It was not directed at everyone that has a 20+ year old bottle in their cellar. I have long term holds too, but I dont fill up the boards with every Q about mature wine that pops into my head.
quote:
Originally posted by winetarelli:
I do not agree with Parker or your retailer out the longevity of Harlan. I would drink it up within 15 years of vintage, 20 max. On the other hand, young Harlan is likely to be better than young Palmer. So you would have that option.

It cannot, in my mind, justify either of those prices for those wines. I'm not saying I cannot justify spending $300+ on a bottle of wine. Quintarelli Alzero, '90's Maya, DRCs, good ready-to-drink vintages of Haut Brion are all worth $300+ (sometimes ++++) to me. But neither of those bottles are.


I disagree about drinking Harlan within 15 years, I had a '92 Estate last May and it was years away from heading down hill.
They'll both undoubtedly be great wines.

It comes down to if you want to establish yourself on the Harlan list as an Estate buyer. Unfortunately, you don't know if you'll ever get the offer again. The 05 Palmer you can probably buy next year, or the next, or the next at gradually escalating prices.

Hostage allocation systems suck and only you can decide if you want to join that game.

How do you see your cellar in 10 years assuming your wine budget remains fairly constant? Having a Harlan vertical or having nicely aging Bordeaux? Not really a right answer, just your preference.
If longevity is all your looking for than either would suffice in my mind. Are you really going to hang onto that Palmer for 45+ years.

As an investment, you'd probably do better with the Harlan.

Just to hold it for a while to show it off from time to time and then drink it, personally, I'd go with the Palmer.
quote:
Originally posted by spo:
$300 for a bottle of wine, are you nuts? For that much I would want a genie to come out of the bottle and grant me three wishes.
No. Maybe that's why you are always complaining that your wine tastes like soaked tree bark mixed with ground asprin. Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by jnastynebr:
I dont know why you are even asking.


I do bother asking because there are people in here that have far greater experience with wines and better knowledge than I do. I value all opinions. I am a younger wine drinker, so I will ask questions, give what wine critics have to say and let posters in here know where I am coming from so they can better answer my questions.

I look at it this way, with the great wealth of knowledge of many posters in this forum, I can greatly reduce mistakes. This is why I ask. This is one of the many purposes of this forum.

quote:
Clearly you want the Palmer to satisfy your desire to hold every bottle of wine for 50+ years,


You assume I want the Palmer. Well, you know what they say about people who assume. Obviously I asked the question for a reason. If I knew I wanted the Palmer, why ask?


quote:
so you will have some great wine to drink when you are 90.


Actually I will be in my 70s.


quote:
I like good Bordeaux and Napa cabs as much as the next guy, but I dont see holding a wine as long as possible, or until it is 3 months from falling apart.


I look at buying them in 6 to 12 bottle amounts, so that way I can open them up over time and see how they develop. If they last 50
years, great. If not, oh well.



quote:
Take the $300 and buy 3-4 bottles of a lesser cru and drink them over 15 years so you can get over your strange desire to cellar wines for as long as humanly possible.


Try telling that to someone who has some 1945 Cheval Blanc or 1945 Mouton Rothschild. Or someone who was lucky enough to inherit these wines.



Gigand Ass, great responses. Just remind to hone my skills before I lock horns with you again. Big Grin You are one of the best.
quote:
Originally posted by spo:
$300 for a bottle of wine, are you nuts? For that much I would want a genie to come out of the bottle and grant me three wishes.


Spo,

What we all spend our $$$ on is so very subjective really.

I buy Millesimo 1020 count Egyptian cotton sheets for our guest room and people think I'm nuts, but my neighbor spends major $$$ on some special birdhouse and I think he is nuts. Wink

Get yourself down to Dallas to visit your Dad, and we will drink a few nice bottles... Now that said, I still think your palate leans toward white wine. Razz

w+a
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
quote:
Originally posted by spo:
$300 for a bottle of wine, are you nuts? For that much I would want a genie to come out of the bottle and grant me three wishes.
No. Maybe that's why you are always complaining that your wine tastes like soaked tree bark mixed with ground asprin. Big Grin


Actually, the 2001 Excedrin is quite nice but nothing like the '99 Bayer
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
quote:
Originally posted by spo:
$300 for a bottle of wine, are you nuts? For that much I would want a genie to come out of the bottle and grant me three wishes.
No. Maybe that's why you are always complaining that your wine tastes like soaked tree bark mixed with ground asprin. Big Grin


Big Grin

I am sure a little time in the cellar will fix those complaints.
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
Spo,

What we all spend our $$$ on is so very subjective really.

I buy Millesimo 1020 count Egyptian cotton sheets for our guest room and people think I'm nuts, but my neighbor spends major $$$ on some special birdhouse and I think he is nuts. Wink

Get yourself down to Dallas to visit your Dad, and we will drink a few nice bottles... Now that said, I still think your palate leans toward white wine. Razz

w+a


You make a weekend in Dallas sound nice. You may spoil my palate though. Then you might not be able to get me to leave.

I think immature wine is what busts my chops. I bought a bottle of '02 Baumard Savennieres on ArieS reccomendation and I had the same complaint about that as several reds. (It is ok ArieS, I forgive you)Razz I think it is hard acidity.
quote:
The problem with Harlan is, it looks like it will be $350 a bottle.


We should be so lucky that the 2005 Harlan is "only" $350. The 2004 Harlan was $350 (which was a substantial increase from the price of the 2003, which was $265). I imagine the 2005 will be $400+.
I don't agree with that. I've found Palmer disappointing in a many highly regarded vintages. I've never had one that aproached the heights of the greatest Margaux (1959, 1961). That said, I've found Chateau Margaux disappointing in a number of vintages (1962, 1963, 1965-1977, 1978 and 1979 were good, but not special, 1980 was likely the wine of a mediocre vintage, 1981-1985). I find the wines of Margaux the least consistent in Bordeaux.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×