2000 Château d’Armailhac- France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (7/26/2015)
SO nice to break away from the Burgundy vortex every now and then……this has always been a fan fav for me……Pauillac on the cheap back in the day…….can’t believe its been 6 yrs since my last bottle of this? Still very youthful….smooth and silky, yet still firm with a dusty tannic grip. Might not be fully open for biz just yet……still statuesque….but the flavors are totally tasty Bordeaux…leather, pencil lead, smoked nuts, dried currants, raspberry, licorice, purple flowers, dusty cedar spice……super smooth feel…then kicker of spice and dried fruit finish. SO fun to sip on……and more interesting than most Ca. cabs. Plenty more in the tank on this one…wish I had another case! (93 pts.)
Well – I am not as enthusiastic as you. I think it´s a good wine but it´s more like 88-90 points in my book. It has a hole in the middle and the finish is pretty short as well IMO. I had it side by side with Gruaud Larose and Talbot from the same vintage and while theses are near middle of 90 points to me the ´d Armailhac performed like a second wine of the first.
But I will not lower your enjoyment. I just say it is not special IMHO. On cellar tracker I see more 88 +/- point ratings btw.
'99 if showing correctly…trumps the great '00…'99 is one of the best pauillac wines I have tasted l…and yes I have experienced the pauillac 1st growths and super seconds.
As much as it pains me to agree with Jurgen, Or, perhaps I should say he agrees with me, he is right about this wine. For me, it’s a not a wine for long aging, especially in 2000 and before. The wines they are making today are much better. Learn about Chateau d'Armailhac Pauillac, Complete Guide
For me the bottle ('99)that Robert Alfert and I tasted was quite good but not a strong representation of a true’99…yet it was still wonderful…for parody if I was to score the bottle I had a couple months previous I would go 95pts… yep, It was that kick ass
Jeff, you have problems to be in line with me? Come on – I am pretty sure you have bigger problems in your life
I bought a case after release and had several bottles of the wine over the years. I do not agree with those who think this wine is outstanding. A wine board would be pretty boring when everybody has the same opinion. Palates and opinions differ. That´s no problem.
And Todd is certainly right. We discuss opinions and not scientific proofs. Nobody should like the wine less because I found it average. 93 points is a very high rating btw.
93 points is a very high rating… for some, but not for others .
It’s a bit like differences in taste - values vary.
I almost always find my scores lower than others at blind tastings but at least I am consitent.
On a 20 point scale, for instance a score of 14 is very high for me, whereas most of my friends and professional acquintainces give the same wine anywhere from 16 to 18.
Back to the side note about the CT scores being average on this wine, I noted that as well, but often find that my impressions differ vastly from that collective score average. Perfect example, I had this wine on the same night, back to back with, 2001 Harlan, 2000 Leoville Barton and 2003 Leoville Poyferre. All three of these wines have significantly higher CT score averages than the d’Armailhac. That night, the d’Armailhac was the clear winner. I liked it enough to go seek out more.
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
Or, perhaps I should say he agrees with me, he is right about this wine. For me, it’s a not a wine for long aging, especially in 2000 and before. The wines they are making today are much better. 
