Has some dark fruits, a whiff of iron, black earth and a hint of leather. It is rich and powerful in the mouth, supremely youthful for its age. There are elements of beauty and muscle. I like it very much but it needs more time.
1 Like
I’ve enjoyed the 05 of this as well. No hurry, but a very decent drinking 05 (one of the few that are ready).
It’s amazing how so many of us always find these red burgs in need of more time and critics would have had them finished a decade or two sooner.
2 Likes
Has anyone tasted the 2006 Bussiere lately?
Good point- much agreed. Also, it’s funny to never see a critic`s review of a wine that is flawed and you know they have had to had numerous ones. As an example, the Beaucastels of the early 90s inundated with Brett. I find it hard to believe anyone found one bottle without it.
Sorry for the thread drift, so thanks Jeremy for the notes expressed as only you can do.
Wondering when to open my loose bottle of 13. My 16s will rest for at least a decade.
'07 was ready last year; I found it a little more red-fruited than Jeremy described. Beautifully balanced, classical pure wine–almost no signature, but that’s his signature.
Thank you Jeremy for the report as I have a few of these and a couple 99’s. A 2000 that was consumed in the last year seemed to still be on its upward trajectory.
Think it’s because people’s palate preference may become skewed towards what they taste most frequently. As a generalisation.
Wine pofessionals are tasting new releases and barrel samples most of the time, so their palates drift towards preferring to drink wines younger.
Non-professionals/enthusiasts more likely to drink mature wines and less new releases, so the palate leans towards more age.
Maybe I will live long enough to drink my 2008 and 2009 of this…or maybe I need to line up heirs.
I’ve thought that but if one is an expert, he or she should be able to tell drinking windows better—and a lot of these experts drink a hell of a lot more aged wine than we do.