Lucas oelkers

9.0

Light color color, floral, strawberry, low tannins, medium to low acidity, medium body, good — 10 days ago

Andrew Cullimore

9.0

Actually deeper colour than the 1962 and 1959 . Slightly more medicinal nose , touch of swimming pool , lightly herbal with some dried fruit . On the palate this has a drier profile , darker dried fruit , slightly astringent acidity and quite gritty , rustic tannins . Slightly dry on the mid palate , but good earthy tobacco notes . Quite dense and robust , showing good backbone and body . Reasonable length , with earthy , gritty finish . Quite dense and structured. Not elegant but quite impressive for a 76 year old wine . Now and over the next 5 or more years , though obviously won’t improve. — a month 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 — 3 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.4

2001 vintage. Sweet fill. Cork perfect (used a Durand) but more than a bit underwaxed so it was a positively Italian experience during the opening process. I trust those in the know completely understand what the hell imma talking about. Workout! Cork out in one piece and expected amount of sed. Medium body with overtures towards more. Blueberry, tobacco, plum and gravelly, wet earth impressions leading the charge throughout. Grippy tannins providing visible and raised guardrails during. A little editorial...the 2001's were generally emasculated/minimized after the supposed "vintage of the (which one?) century" in 2000. The 2000's have largely failed to deliver the anticipated goods whereas the "meh" 2001's (at vastly reduced prices from the 2000's) are rocking don't bother knocking now. Completely like the guy or girl that was always cute but totally caught fire after high school. A late(r) bloomer and completely underrated. This wine has an easy 20-spot of top-notch drinking ahead. 1.24.26. — 4 months ago

Andy Stabile

9.0

Big ol’ Pinot… if by name only

Heavy body….. deep ruby color.
Musty, earthy nose
Powerful Friit - maybe black cherry
A touch earth / bitter lingers. A touch of oak.
Zin / Cab vibes
Nice glass of wine…
(Remedy 21)
With Sue and Riley — 19 days ago

Meredith Moody

9.3

This wine is exactly what I think of when I think of a California cab, and this is a compliment. Dark fruit off the bat, I got blackberry and black cherry. I also think this is pretty oaky, which is hit or miss for me, but in this case it gave a night light spiciness. Had a fuller body and good structure. Tannins present but smooth. I feel like this would be a good crowd pleaser as it was good and easy drinking. I bet it would be great with some grilled meats. — a month ago

Andrew Cullimore

9.3

5th wine . medium deep ruby , touch more garnet . Slightly wider rim . Quite cool and mineral again , more grafite with some cool cassis , blackberry. On the palate this is slightly lighter in body , leaner perhaps but very elegant , fresh and quite saline, tobacco , grafite and herbal tinges on the finish . Reasonable saline length. Fine lightly grippy tannins , good acidity . This is showing quite well though would perhaps benefit from a few more years . Better in 3-5 years and drink well a further 7- 10 . The next day this actually shows a little better , elegant and refined, nothing showy , very Lafite , so I’m glad I guessed this correctly ! Overall this was a very interesting tasting , there is nothing showy or remarkable about the 2006 1st growths , they are quite classic and also showing quite a lot of structure still , with good freshness though they perhaps lack a little stuffing and intensity . They were quite even quality wise, with the high points being the Mouton (though the Lafite improved the following day to upgrade its score and draw level ) and the low point being a relatively disappointing Margaux . The vintage will continue to improve over the next 5 perhaps 10 years in general , though they may always just lack a little density and excitement . — a month ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.4

1982 vintage. Last tasted 6.1.24 (9.4) and nearly 9 years ago (9.0). Courtesy of Monsieur @Bill Bender. Sweet fill. Opened with a Durand. Cork 95% saturated. A little reticent in the early going and decanted a third of the bottle to see if that would pull the juice out of a sullen funk. It did, so the remainder got decanted whilst throwing much less sed than expected. Medium body still. Slightly brickish and plenty fleshy with well-integrated complexity. Very pleasant and lingering finish. A great bottle with more than could reasonably be expected at this juncture. Thank you, Bill! 4.24.26. — 25 days ago

with Bill

Joel Lara

9.2

So tasty, a good finish to the week. Cherry on the nose with white pepper and hints of fresh mint coming through. Mouthfeel is silky smooth with medium+ body. On the palate, beautiful cherry and anise. Tannins seem to be providing a longer finish than most langhe nebbiolos, with mineral and cherry flavors coming through. Acidity is medium. My favorite langhe nebbiolo. — 2 months ago

Scott@Mister A’s-San Diego

9.0

2019 vintage. Better than expected as the last few assorted vintage Artemis bottles I’ve had have been less than good. Medium-heavy body. Decent spice and tea flavors on the caboose. 2.12.26. — 3 months ago