Are you either of those? Doubt it. See above who had responded to OP up to that point. It was them who I was addressing. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
The first glass looks like a lot of oak, or maybe even pain grille. If so, what is wrong?
I’ve seen Vintage Port so poorly stored that it appeared and tasted more like old Tawnys but without the enjoyment.
No way should a '96 Cinq Cepages look like the top one. Bottom one is far more reasonable.
I’ve bought old Barolo at auction and retail with this tawny color. Not a good sign.
I have purchased old Barolo at auction and it was this color and it was excellent.
Exactly, plain and simple. The lighter one, if that was the bottle that showed signs of seepage, that is on the buyer. Otherwise, that indicates something was amiss. An auction house should not be listing “that one good bottle sitting in a garage). They should know storage conditions of their co-signers.
PSA, I go into auctions at least a little open-minded to bidding on bottles with questionable fills or seepage but in 20 years I have never actually placed a bid on one.
I feel compelled to share with the group a review from John Gilman, written in 2007, of the 1996 Chateau St Jean Cinq Cepages which may clear up the mystery. This is copyrighted material but I am sure Mr. Gilman will forgive me:
"Sep/Oct 2007, Issue #11, Road Kill II: More Highly Rated Wines of Very Questionable Merit
68 points (Château St. Jean Cinq Cepages) At eleven years of age the ’96 St. Jean Cinq Cepages is already beginning to maderize, without ever bothering to mature and blossom from all the signs that I can read. The dank and oxidative nose is a nasty blend of barnyard, chocolate, dank herbs, coffee ground and dead ants. On the palate the wine is full, inky and extremely ugly, with a dried out finish that still retains some oak tannin, though no fruit, and is extraordinarily bitter, but at least, mercifully short. Contemptible wine."
Got to love that dead ant note!
Me too. I almost wrote that earlier. But i still think it’s not a good sign.
Nebbiolo seems to frequently show bricking at a young(ish) age, so I wouldn’t go applying those experiences here.
That’s a very interesting note from Gilman. How the heck does he know what dead ants smell like?!?
As I understand it, Nebbiolo is something of an outlier in terms of pigment dropping out of the wine. That’s one reason we see so much sludge in old bottles. A robust color is a good sign, but I’ve had many bottles with faded color that end up showing well, particularly after some gentle aeration. Some can even become a bit darker.
you’ve never crushed one with your finger? Should I admit to that on a real names site?
Please take this in the spirit it’s offered, but I lost a bit of respect for you learning you would buy that wine, of all wines, at auction. It was probably purchased at an estate sale, stored in someone’s cupboard atop a stack of Wine Spectator magazines.
(You’re meant to laugh at this and not get irritated.)
Sure, but then smelled it? Nope.
I would not purchase a ‘96 cinq cepages with signs of seepage and a high shoulder fill. Not under any circumstances. If you buy wine that has stated signs of seepage and poor fills, you’re kinda asking for it in my opinion. Sorry you had a bad experience here.
not sure what you were expecting with those bottle conditions. A wine from 1996 in high shoulder is a very poor fill. THen you add on signs of seepage. Auction house posted the description.
Ha! Yeah, I have, but never noticed any smell therefrom. Now I’m starting to get oddly curious …
So as promised I opened the 96 Cinq Cepages that I bought on release and stored in my cellar. This was a fabulous bottle of wine, still showing great fruit structure (obviously not deep but mellow with age), and with great balance and finish. An easy buy if I can find more @ $65-90. Here is a photo showing the color.
Yeah, that looks more appropriate. Glad it showed well for you!