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 — 7 days 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+. — a month ago

Conrad Green

9.3

lean and clean. A little lean. Very good given the vintage. But Le’s good than the others alongside — a month ago

with David

Greg Koslosky

9.5

This bottle was smoking incredible richness complexity and length. Impressive! — a month ago

Andrew McIntyre

9.4

Was maybe expecting a bit more from this. Think the bottle might have been just slightly off but still excellent. — 12 days 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. — a month ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.5

1994 vintage. Popped, decanted and filtered and tasted immediately. Opened six decades too early. The whole crushed violets and plummy thang definitely there alongside hints of sweet tobacco in her breath. With apologies, just another number in your little black book. These are the pros and cons. 1.24.26. — a month ago

GaryWEdwards

9.6

Great balance of fruit and acidity. Lemon zest undertones. Wonderful wine of a great vintage — 24 days ago

Mark S.

9.3

Deep cherry red. Oak+ vanilla clove nutmeg. Black currant++ blueberry black cherry and berry. Leather+ meat. Elegancy more than complexity. It changed a lot over time. 30 min the started feeling the value of this. Compared with the last one, it has big potential, though it has already been ready to drink, since it is 2017 vintage. Fruitiness M Sweetness M+ Acidity M Silky Tannin M+ Bitterness M Body M++ Finish M++ 13.5% Château Mouton Rothschild Pauillac Red Bordeaux Blend 17 @110000, AD, 250226 — 8 days ago

Mary H

9.3

Magnum pour decanted was my favorite. Really hits with a punch of acid off the bat - pomelo, green citrus, hint of mushroom. Very fine bubbles, cinnamon roll glaze creaminess. Non-decanted version was more bitter, more grapefruit zest and pith. 70% pinot noir, 30% chardonnay - though the color was quite light and leaned straw with just a hint of pink. — 2 months ago