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?