Andrew McIntyre

9.5

Classic bordeaux flavours. Highly elegant and layered. Perfect drinking window for me — 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

Danny O'Brien

9.2

Raspberry, roses & tar on the nose, grippy tannins and a slight meatiness on the palate. Fruit is present but ever so slightly lacking for me, I wish it translated from the nose to the palate just a touch more. Overall very nice and enjoyable! — 3 months ago

Jay Kline

9.1

Popped and poured; enjoyed over the course of an hour. The 2023 (S) pours a deep ruby/purple with a near opaque core; medium viscosity with light staining of the tears. On the nose, the wine is developing with notes of ripe strawberry, Bing cherry, red and purple flowers, red rope licorice, rocky earth and cool 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 vintage of Lapierre shows the warmth of the vintage and oozes generosity. In some ways, this reminds me of the 2015 vintage. Drink now through 2033+. — 7 days ago

Jay Kline

9.3

Presented to me, double-blind. The wine pours a deep garnet color with an opaque core; medium viscosity with moderate staining of the tears, and some signs of light sediment. On the nose, the wine is vinous with a mix of ripe and desiccated, mostly dark fruits: cassis, black cherry, plum, mixed brambles, old leather, pipe tobacco, pencil shavings, and fine baking spices. On the palate, the wine is dry with medium+ tannin (that is mostly integrated) and medium+ acid. Confirming the notes from the nose. The finish is long.

Initial conclusions: this could be a Cabernet-based Bordeaux blend, Tempranillo (or based blend) or Grenache-based blend from France, Spain or the United States. I feel like this leans more towards its fruit than its structure, even though it is a fairly well balanced wine in both regards. As a result, I am calling this a Cabernet-based Bordeaux blend from the United States, California, Napa Valley, Howell Mountain from a producer like Dunn, 2006. Shiiiiiit. To be honest, I’m not terribly surprised since this is Cos and from a warm vintage no less. Drinking well now and should through 2050+. — 2 months ago

Vino Joe

9.3

It was more subdued than I expected. I tend to like the Merlot heavy Bordeaux but this one was still a bit muted. Perhaps it needs more time even though it’s well in its recommended range. Dark and heavy. Solid but left me underwhelmed. Decanted. Better after an hour. — 2 months ago

Alan Hyde

9.3

Legendary reputation so I had to try it. A symphony of stewed red and dark fruit. That said, the nose and other aspects didn’t grab me. Very good but would not repeat. — 20 days ago

Somm David T

Independent Sommelier/Wine Educator

9.4

I’ve had a number of PC 96’s over time, none quite this good. The fill line & cork perfect. Very little sediment. Some bottle neck tannin burn. For me, Pontet Canet didn’t really hit its consistent, quality stride until 2005. Doesn’t mean they didn’t make a few beauties before then. Pontet Canet is proof that the 1855 Bordeaux Classification needs to be redone. Unlikely it will in my lifetime.

This 96 maybe just short of its precipice. Stylistically a little better than 94.

The nose reminds me of everything I love about older Bordeaux. Dark core of currants/cassis. Ripe, floral; blackberries, dark, baked cherries, sweet, black plum, poached/strawberries, raspberries, hints of baked rhubarb & blueberries, mixed berry cola. Sweet forest floor w/ leaves, sweet mushrooms, sweet led pencil shavings, steeped tea w/ hints of fruit, charcoal, dry tobacco/leather, some dry herbs, withering dark, red flowers, red roses with violets.

The palate is also everything I love about older Bordeaux. Dark core of currants/cassis. Ripe, floral; blackberries, dark, baked cherries, sweet, black plum, poached/strawberries, raspberries, hints of baked rhubarb & blueberries, mixed berry cola/red vines. Everything I understood the first time standing in the estate vineyard of Pichon Baron. Tasting limestone, dry river stone, dark, rich soils with dry leaves, dry stems. In fact, I’ve tasted vineyards soils everywhere I have been in every world wine region. Basically, everywhere in the wine world that has reliance. Many multiple times. Sweet graphite, steeped tea w/ hints of dark fruit, understated, layered baking spices-clove, nutmeg, cinnamon and vanillin, dark cocoa, dark exotic spices, some anise to black licorice, charcoal, dry tobacco with ash/leather, some dry herbs-safe/bay leaf, limestone, dry river stone, dry crushed rocks, dark, rich, earth with dry leaves, dry topsoils, dry stems, withering/dry dark, red flowers, red roses with violets, excellent, rainfall acidity with an extremely well balanced/structured/tensioned, great length and an elegant finish that lasts minutes and falls nicely on dry earth and dark spices.

A very, very slow roll with my Ribcap. Definitely better with the steak than on its own.

This bottle tells me this 96 has plenty of good drinking ahead, another 8-10 yrs+.

ABV is 13%. Disappointing it ever changed. — 2 months ago

Paul K

9.4

Bottle #2 from case and it has gained some structure and opened a bit in the last 1.5 years. Nose is great, reminds me a lot of last nights Pontet Canet on nose. Hint of tobacco, pencil leaf, red fruits currant, kirsch, and red berries. Great mouthfeel, great balance, and good structure. Looking forward to another in 2 years if I can wait! — 2 months ago

M. Christopher Roebuck

9.2

Finally talked this dude into drinking.

I don't know, maybe I'm getting old but aged Riojas are starting to taste/feel weighty to me. It's very good. Muddled fruits, resolved tannins, nice and round, leather notes. But somewhat boring. Probably my mood.

92+ points — 3 months ago