Andrew Cullimore

9.3

Bit more lightening on the rim , more garnet . Touch more herbal on the nose with cedar , and grafite, much more lean and mineral on the palate. This takes quite a while to find its feet and benefits from quite a lot of air . In some ways a little unfortunate to be served between the 2000 and 1990 , which are a fuller , and more showy in style . However after a while this does show quite good length and balance , refreshing acidity . This is quite lean and mineral , focused and still pretty young . From now over the next 10 years. A little austere in style , reminds me a little of the 2005 in that aspect , though without that vintage’s intensity or density . — 9 days ago

Ming L

9.3

Quite approachable at this young age. 30 minutes decant and it’s open for business. Aromas of dark cherry, blackberry, sweet spices, cocoa, and lightly roasted nuts. The depth of flavors and elegant medium to full body show the pedigree. If blinded, I would not be able to tell this is a Sangiovese dominant blend. Would prefer a bit more acidity. But who am I to complain. — 25 days ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.5

2002 vintage. Last tasted 10.06.22 (9.4). Similar "gliding along" impressions with feminine characteristics. This bottle (nice fill, cork and decent sed) was a goody. Decanted and tasted after 5 mins, 30 mins and 2 hours. Bit more structure evident after two hours open as to be a different, yet fantastic, wine. Funny how some of these underwhelming, less than aggro wines can take on another life of their own, on their terms, by gently removing all doubt. Still another 5-7 years-easy. 11.21.24. — a month ago

Steven Heydemann

9.3

First time using a Coravin. Not sure I love it. Be interested in others’ experiences. — 2 months ago

Jay Kline

9.1

Opened earlier in the day and double-decanted to be served several hours later. The 1966 pours a pale garnet color with a transparent core. This is red fruit heavy and sanguine with ferrous earth, leather, and old wood. The tannins are firm still. An almost evergreen St-Estèphe that’s iron clad and tough as nails. Better than good but at nearly 60 years old, will it ever relax? Hard to say. It would likely survive another 60 years but it’s hard to imagine it evolving a lot considering where we’re at today. So...drink now, I guess? — 17 days ago

"Odedi"

9.2

#AgedWineTuesday

Pale lemon in color.

Light nose of citrus fruits, minerals and light yeast.

Medium-bodied with high acidity.

Dry on the palate with limes, grapefruits, green apples, brioche, earth, light yeast, minerals, spices and herbs.

Long finish with limes and herbs.

This is a very tasty Champagne, albeit still young. Elegant and rich with nice complexity. Crisp and refreshing.

Didn't love it right out of the bottle, and needed 45 minutes of airtime to open up properly, so be patient.

I've had a few different vintages of this Champagne, and always enjoyed it.

Needs 5 years to mature properly, and will continue to age nicely in the next 15 years.

A blend of 51% Chardonnay and 49% Pinot Noir. Aged for 8 years on its lees.

12.5% alcohol by volume.

92 points.

$275. — 22 days ago

Jay Kline

9.3

Served alongside beef short rib, xo sauce, pickled mustard seed, cumin stir-fried asparagus. Yes, the 2003 Dominus is big. However, it is also balanced and showing classic Napa typicity with beautifully ripe and some slightly wizened black and red fruit, tobacco, cocoa, some purple flowers and baking spices. I found this to be quite balanced after all the air it saw. Wonderful structure for continued aging as well. Drink now through 2043. — 2 months ago

Jay Kline

9.8

Forty-plus years on, people still talk about the greatness of the 1982 vintage in Bordeaux. There are multiple factors that contribute to this and it’s fair to say that Robert Parker’s reaction played a major role in the early popularity; certainly in the States. While some may say that 1982 was merely a “good” vintage by today’s standards, I think history has proven it to be empirically special; there was just so much quality from top to bottom. And yet, even with the high praise of the vintage, the tone shifts to hushed whispers when the 1982 Mouton gets mentioned. Up until that point, the Chateau had sort of underachieved after receiving its unprecedented promotion in 1973. But in 1982, a year full of great wine, they created a legend and firmly cemented their First Growth status. Today, I’m pleased to report the plaudits for the ’82 are all warranted.

Opened and double-decanted earlier in the day. The ’82 Mouton pours a deep garnet color with a near opaque core with some sediment; almost youthful when compared to many of the other older wines poured on the night. On the nose, the wine is developing still; loaded with cassis, black berries, leaf tobacco, leather, and fine baking spices. On the palate, the wine is dry with fabulous structure. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish is long and full of power. A stunning wine and well in its prime…a window I expect will remain open for a longtime to come. Drink now with bacchanalian abandon and through 2082. — 7 days ago

Jay Kline

9.4

Enjoyed alongside some other Napa legends from the 80’s and 90’s. The 1985 is lovely and came more than willing, with a mix of tart, ripe and desiccated red fruits, Montmorency cherries, red currants, graphite, toasted coconut, leather and nuts. There was a slightly sherried character early on the nose but the structure seemed to defy age. No need to cellar further as this is delicious now and well stored examples should continue to be through 2030+. — 2 months ago

Alexander Bastian Nielsen

9.2

Beautiful “entry level”-wine from SLWC - however it’s very very young. Decanted for 4 hours and really opened up but shouldn’t be opened until 2026 earliest. Cassis, bramble, dark cherries, dusty tannins, mocha, mint and spices! Very bold and yummy — 2 months ago