In article . com>, wspohn4
@aol.com says...
>
>The 96 was a bit weak as Mark has pointed out.
>
>Much better was the 1998, and to my palate, the 1995, which is still
>holding up just fine. If you get the chance to try either, don't miss
>it.
>

Thank you for the recommendations. I will keep my eyes open.

Hunt