“91Robert M. Parker Jr.
…aged in 100% new oak, with fabulous ripeness and richness, as well as an amazingly long, opulent, fleshy finish. The wine is immensely seductive and full bodied.”
I haven’t had the 86 but the 85 and 88 were very good several years ago. I had the 90 once and found it pretty ugly (roasted and somewhat volatile) though I’m not certain it was a well stored bottle.
That is the 1990 in a nutshell, impressive in its own fashion and drinkable if you like the style, I opened one about a year ago and it looked a bit overripe and simple next to the other 90s on the table
Ah… you bring back memories of the '82 Ferrand, which was silly cheap and sooooo good. Not sure when I last had one or saw one. But at $25, I’d chance it.
The 1986 Tertre-Roteboeuf is a very good wine, made more traditionally than 1988/89/90, but also slightly lacking a bit in sweetness and length, qualities that the later vintages indeed show, but in a more modern oak-influenced way, nevertheless high class. The 1990 is very fine, and I´ve still got a dozen halfes. 1986 on the other hand wasn´t as great in St.Emilion as on the left bank.
The same can be said about 1996 … less good on right bank than on left … generally.
While I haven´t had the Ferrrand 1996 I´ve had some older ones (1985/89/94 …) and while it´s usually a good wine (might be worth 25-30 bucks) it never excited me … solid, enjoyable on a lower level, but there are many similar …
Perhaps the question was a joke. The condition on this bottle is beyond troubling and I wouldn’t touch it, even were it a wine I’d quite like to cellar.
I wouldn’t bid on this, because I don’t like Tertre Roteboeuf. Strange label condition. I tend to bid fairly high on damp stained labels and good fills. That’s a funky label, but for me would be a slight caution, not a no bid (if you wanted the wine)
This is quite an early Mitjaville wine, and only the second vintage of TR to see any new oak. Could definitely be worth a look. The 1985 has certainly aged quite elegantly.