Alvaro Bustillos

9.7

Comida amigos CUU DOS AGUAS — 2 days ago

Tristan

9.9

So good; euro 550 — 16 days ago

Jay Kline

8.9

Decanted prior to service; enjoyed over the course of several hours. This bottle of the 1964 pours a garnet color with significant rim variation; medium viscosity with light staining and significant signs of sediment. On the nose, the wine is vinous with mostly tertiary notes at this point: cherry fruit leather, actual leather, decomposing log. On the palate, the wine is dry with tannin fully integrated and medium acid. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish is medium. Alive…but this bottle is old and tired. Drink now. — 2 days ago

jesus g

Hospitality Schramsberg Vineyards

9.4

It’s a first growth dinner. We had more mouton show up, wish someone brought margaux — 11 days ago

Jay Kline

9.3

Presented to me double-blind at Tasting Group. The wine pours a deep garnet color with a near opaque core and rust colored rim; medium+ viscosity with moderate staining of the tears and some signs of light sediment. On the nose, the wine is vinous with notes of ripe and drying fruits: lightly stewed blackberries, black cherry, plums, tobacco, dried green herbs, old fine wood, vanilla 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.

Initial conclusions: this could be Tempranillo, Malbec, Merlot (or based blend), or Zinfandel-based blend from Spain, Argentina, France or the United States. However, the staining was a bit much unless there was a lot of PS in the blend so I eliminated Zinfandel. I also didn’t think this was purple enough for Malbec. This left me with Tempranillo or Merlot and I felt that this leaned more towards its structure than fruit so I was leaning Spain or France with 15-20 years of age and from a solar vintage. Ultimately, I chose Tempranillo, from Spain, Rioja, Gran Reserva from 2006…from a quality producer like C.V.N.E. Yeah, I can see Pomerol. Shoot. This is stuff and ready to drink now and will drink well through 2032+. — a month ago

Rob DeShane

9.3

2005: this wine is still a baby with bright red fruit predominating the nose! Really silky and fine. — 8 days ago

Jan A

9.6

First bottle badly corcked, luckily I had a couple of backup bottles 🤣 🤜 🚀 — a day ago

Jay Kline

9.2

From back when Mouton was still a Second Growth. Decanted prior to service; enjoyed over the course of several hours. This bottle of the 1966 pours a garnet color with significant rim variation; medium viscosity with light staining and signs of sediment. On the nose, the wine is vinous with notes of ripe and desiccated red and black fruits: cassis, blackberries, green pepper, tobacco, leather, old wood, organic earth 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 medium. This was a good showing for the ‘66 and certainly has life left in it however, there’s no need to hold out. Drink now. — 2 days ago

Tom Garland

9.3

+2 hour decant(decent chunky/fine sediment). A remarkable dark magenta with some bricking. Nose: Captivating savory notes of dark fruit, herbaceous, funky earth, worn leather, pencil shavings, cedar, smoked meat, maybe a touch of bandaid(brett). Taste: A savory wine with class and elegance... dark currants, tobacco, graphite, saline, cedar, and a spiced earthy minerally medium plus finish. YUM! — a day ago

with Brenda

Will Stanley

9.3

A fine example of Pauillac from an overlooked vintage, the 2012 d’Armailhac (from half bottle) offers a potent punch of graphite, fresh black fruits, leather and cedar. The palate has ample concentration and good harmony, with flecks of sweet fruit leading to a long and gratifying finish. This is pure, precise Pauillac and in a beautiful spot at 13 years of age.

June 2025
94 — a day ago