Andrew McIntyre

9.4

Was maybe expecting a bit more from this. Think the bottle might have been just slightly off but still excellent. — a month ago

Jay Kline

9.5

Presented to me double-blind. The wine pours a deep garnet with an opaque core and some rim variation; medium viscosity with moderate staining of the tears and signs of sediment. On the nose the wine is vinous with notes of cassis, blackberry, black plum, tobacco, menthol, leather, and mix of cool and warm spices. On the palate the wine is dry with medium+ tannin and medium+ acid. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish is long. This is really delicious.

Initial conclusions: this could be a Cabernet Sauvignon based blend or other Bordeaux-styled blend or a Tempranillo based blend from the United States, France or Spain. This saw French oak so I eliminated Spain. I thought the fruit was outshining the structure…so I liked the USA over France. And, based off the appearance, I thought this probably had 30+ years of age. Final conclusion: this is a Cabernet Sauvignon based blend from the United States, from California, Napa, Rutherford; 1994. Ugh…the 1990 vintage in Bordeaux has bit me twice now recently. Really awesome stuff! Drink now through 2040+. — 2 months ago

Sagee Aran

8.9

A medium body, bright red in color. Pleasant nose, mild. On the palate spices and bright red fruits.
Was a little off balance, maybe the specific bottle. — 3 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.1

1989 vintage. Last tasted 3 years ago (9.6). Nice fill. Durand used to open. Cork 95% saturated with extensive bottle rim cleaning involved before pouring. Not decanted. Tight, minty nose throughout along with a decided, lingering zinc note under the tongue at the finish line. Tasted 2 hours after opening. Power but without delineation. Just a consistent, forgettable push. Nothing wrong with the wine...it just needed more air/time and a decant but it wasn't my call. Feel like the zinc flavor would have dissipated/blown off with more time. Good but more memorable for what it wasn't vs what it was. Pity and an entire wasting of what could have been. 11.21.25. — 4 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.3

1990 vintage. Last tasted 10.26.24 (9.3). Bottom neck fill. Opened with a Durand and decanted. Cork about 70% saturated. Throwing a mix of lentil-sized chunky and powdery sediment. Surprisingly dark color. Nose initially had the funk while decanting. Tasting 30 minutes after the open, the funk had blown off. Light body. Coffee grounds and tobacco throughout. Some damp and decaying forest floor matter/earth (but not mud) notes along with a cedilla of lean, dark cherry. Based on this specimen, feel this can hold tight in this phase for another 3-4 years. 2.27.26 — a month ago

Ron R

9.6

Not the best of vintage in Bdx, but the winemaker clearly pulled off some acrobatics here.
Nose displays the usual Cos spice-box signature, along with notes of forest floor, sage and mushrooms. Palate is rich and dense showing no signs of age. Nice mature casis profile links up with brambles and sandalwood. Tannins continue to prop up this outstanding example. — 3 months ago

with Andrew and Rick

Andrew McIntyre

9.5

Not the best vintage but this was very impressive. Decadent but refined and elegant. Rounded off the red wines beautifully — 4 months ago

Mary H

9.3

The definition of aging gracefully; astoundingly lifted and perfectly clean flavor. The weight is extraordinarily light for rioja, solid but not rough, with delicate dried fruit, raisin, spice, leather. No harshness or bitterness, not overtly acidic but enough that just disappears into the background. Medium-long finish. Decanted rapidly for ~30 minutes allowed some of the cellar funk to blow off. — 2 months ago

Jay Kline

9.2

Presented to me double-blind. The wine pours a dull purple/garnet color with a translucent core and significant rim variation, moving towards a rust color. The wine has medium viscosity with light staining of the tears and signs of sediment. On the nose, the wine is vinous with notes of cassis, dried blackberries, dried red and purple flowers, old leather bound books, tobacco, a touch of menthol, some earth, old wood and a sprinkle of warm spices. On the palate, the wine is dry with medium tannin and medium+ acid. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish is medium+. Super high quality but a touch thin.

Initial conclusions: Due to the observable characteristics of color, rim variation, sediment, smell and flavor, I think this wine has significant age; 30+ years. However, this is still very alive and showing more than enough markers to give an indication of place. Subsequently, this could be a Cabernet-based blend or a Tempranillo-based blend from the United States, France, or Spain. For me, I’m getting new French oak vibes instead of American so I’m eliminating Spain. I also think this leans more towards its fruit than its structure and since this comes across a little on the thin side, I’m going to say this comes from a tougher vintage. My final conclusion is this is a Cabernet Sauvignon-based blend from the USA, Napa, 1981. Wow! This showed really well.

It never ceases to amaze me how analogous the 1981 vintage was in both Napa and Bordeaux. I find it equally amazing how well that vintage has held up; particularly when considering its poor reputation, mostly based on the prevailing thought at the time. From my perspective, well stored examples are not going to fall off of a cliff but I would drink now through 2031. — 2 months ago

Jeremy Shanker

Sommelier at RN74

9.3

2016 is firing off rn — 5 months ago