In article >, Da' Bear
> writes:

>1995 Sauterne, Chateau Malle, for dessert.
>Have any of you tried the 1995 Sauterne's yet? Any thoughts? I was (was)
>confident in the dessert wine choice, but I have had a friend tell me
>that the 95's were, a bit less than spectacular.

Ok, so they are less than spectacular. I much preferred (speaking Sauternes in
general not specifically de Malle) '97, and probably the '96 & '99 too. But
unlike say the '91s and '92s. they weren't diluted. Probably drinking as nicely
as they're going to right now. I'd say it's likely to be a good - though not
spectacular- dessert wine.

Not trying to be unhelpful. Just want to point out that the overall quality of
a vintage in a region doesn't :
1) neccessarily translate into a good or bad wine for a particular bottling
2) neccesarily mean it's the best for drinking right now. I'd rather OWN a
classified Bdx from from a highly rated vintage like '95 than '94, '97, or '99,
but at moment it would be my last choice for drinking now.
3) you gotta drink those babies sometime!

I was in a restaurant couple weeks ago as a nearby table ordered a bottle of
Brunello. "It's a '97, best vintage...blah blah blah" the guy ordering was
saying. Without getting into the quality of the vintage (I like it better than
RP but less than Suckling), I haven't heard anyone who didn't think most '97
BdM were both tannic and shutting down. Ordering in a restaurant, with no
opportunity to decant in advance? Not me!

I'd serve the '95 and enjoy!

Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply