I think you will kick yourself. Given the very different élevage, you have to expect a different evolutionary trajectory.
The price point does not bother me at all. We are paying that for wines with 18-25 years of age. Cheaper than many comparable new releases. Pat, I think these wines are your style, give one more a try.
Don’t fall for it Pat, leave it for the rest of us.
As I said, it’s not for everyone, but one thing I didn’t make clear, for which I apologize, is the level of bottle variation. Not being streamlined, not having state-of-the-art Star Trek-like equipment means that it’s a very old-fashioned, artisan set-up, producing wines which can differ from one bottle to another.
Something else I didn’t make clear is that Bel Air Marquis d’Aligre and I have “history”. I first tried it about 15 years ago, with a mixed case of 85, 86 and 90, I think. I’m not sure, but about 7 or 8 of the bottles were duff - slightly brown at the edges, strong caramel flavours. The other bottles were wonderful, but I got tired of the risk and dropped it. I didn’t go back for more until last year.
I think that during the hiatus, my taste changed, away from the ubiquitous style that used to be “modern”, so I was more open to the wine than before, but also that the level of bottle variation has dropped. Of the two dozen or so bottles that I’ve had in the last year and a half, only one has been off. I still open them with a certain amount of trepidation, but less and less. Either I’ve been very lucky, or there was an improvement from the early 90s onwards.
In any case, compared to the risk of pre-mox with white Burgundy, this is nothing!
For the record, I do not recall that I have experienced that significant of bottle variation where any of the bottles that I popped were flawed and undrinkable, in fact, even a 1995 that seemed a bit off, was still nice.
I just had a 2000 Sociando last night, my first ever, and it was awesome.
The 1996 is more expressive than the 1995
Even some delicious vanilla in the nose???
Love it!!! ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
https://www.instagram.com/p/B2ZciGRnBB_/?igshid=tpoeqmserawp
On day 2 taste was pure and expressive. Also impressive in fact
However there was not any sign of deposits in this at all (like the 1995)
I wish we had a “like” button!
It is the one beside the ignore button 
I haven’t had enough of these to get a handle on what kind of bottle variation there is, which doesn’t bother me in itself but can be a dealbreaker depending on the cause of the variation - so what’s the cause here? Low tech or low sulfur? Makes a big difference. It’s the difference between some lots being better than others, but once you’ve tasted you know what you’ve got, vs. every bottle vulnerable to random swings/early death.
Stunning from magnum. (I hope to carve out time to post complete notes on last night’s ‘59 dinner. The other magnum was Magdelaine.)
Would say the same, but I almost only ever drink these in France.
Definitely one of the best out of an excellent lineup of 59s!
Quite envious of this! Have had the '55, and own the '61, but never encountered the '59.
Love the way the label has changed over the years…not!
Please do, I’ve been jealous of what I’ve seen so far of that lineup, though bummed to hear Kane’s report of the corked LRA.
Adding a ‘59 BAMdA to the list, however, takes it to another level.