Saturday I picked up some loin lamb chops, marinated with rosemary,
thyme, and basil, then grilled along with some yellow squash and corn
(Florida, while before we have local). When Betsy got in she added a
salad, and we ate on patio with a bottle of the 1995 Les Fiefs de
Lagrange (St Julien). I don't ordinarily suggest aging second wines
(other than maybe Forts) for 14 years, but I just never got around to
opening this. A little browning on the edges. There's a bit of tobacco
on the nose. Soft, mostly resolved tannins, smoke and cassis. The
fruit is still fairly lively. Fairly impressive showing for age in a
second. Not especially long nor is it complex, but pleasant mature
claret. Holds up well over several hours. A bit more youth/tannin
might have been more appropriate for the rare lamb.
Still, I enjoy. B/B+

Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.

In article
>,
DaleW > wrote:

> Saturday I picked up some loin lamb chops, marinated with rosemary,
> thyme, and basil, then grilled along with some yellow squash and corn
> (Florida, while before we have local). When Betsy got in she added a
> salad, and we ate on patio with a bottle of the 1995 Les Fiefs de
> Lagrange (St Julien). I don't ordinarily suggest aging second wines
> (other than maybe Forts) for 14 years, but I just never got around to
> opening this. A little browning on the edges. There's a bit of tobacco
> on the nose. Soft, mostly resolved tannins, smoke and cassis. The
> fruit is still fairly lively. Fairly impressive showing for age in a
> second. Not especially long nor is it complex, but pleasant mature
> claret. Holds up well over several hours. A bit more youth/tannin
> might have been more appropriate for the rare lamb.
> Still, I enjoy. B/B+
>
> Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
> wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
> drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
> promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.

This should have been a fairly inexpensive wine at initial buy so a B/B+
would be good. I have not had such good luck with most seconds except
Palmer Alter Ego 1995 held very well at A-/B+

On Sun, 03 May 2009 18:45:10 -0400, Lawrence Leichtman
> wrote:


>
>This should have been a fairly inexpensive wine at initial buy so a B/B+
>would be good. I have not had such good luck with most seconds except
>Palmer Alter Ego 1995 held very well at A-/B+


Was it called Alter Ego in '95?

In article >,
Young Martle > wrote:

> On Sun, 03 May 2009 18:45:10 -0400, Lawrence Leichtman
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >This should have been a fairly inexpensive wine at initial buy so a B/B+
> >would be good. I have not had such good luck with most seconds except
> >Palmer Alter Ego 1995 held very well at A-/B+
>
>
> Was it called Alter Ego in '95?

Yes, that was what was listed on the bottle. I have that and a '99.

In article >,
Young Martle > wrote:

> On Sun, 03 May 2009 18:45:10 -0400, Lawrence Leichtman
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >This should have been a fairly inexpensive wine at initial buy so a B/B+
> >would be good. I have not had such good luck with most seconds except
> >Palmer Alter Ego 1995 held very well at A-/B+
>
>
> Was it called Alter Ego in '95?

Yes, that was what was listed on the bottle. I have that and a '99.

In article >,
Young Martle > wrote:

> On Sun, 03 May 2009 18:45:10 -0400, Lawrence Leichtman
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >This should have been a fairly inexpensive wine at initial buy so a B/B+
> >would be good. I have not had such good luck with most seconds except
> >Palmer Alter Ego 1995 held very well at A-/B+
>
>
> Was it called Alter Ego in '95?

Yes, that was what was listed on the bottle. I have that and a '99.

Young Martle > wrote:

>> This should have been a fairly inexpensive wine at initial buy
>> so a B/B+ would be good. I have not had such good luck with most
>> seconds except Palmer Alter Ego 1995 held very well at A-/B+

> Was it called Alter Ego in '95?

Probably not, since Alter Ego replaced "Réserve du Général" in 1998 -
at least that's what wikipedia says:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_wine>

M.

In article >,
Michael Pronay > wrote:

> Young Martle > wrote:
>
> >> This should have been a fairly inexpensive wine at initial buy
> >> so a B/B+ would be good. I have not had such good luck with most
> >> seconds except Palmer Alter Ego 1995 held very well at A-/B+
>
> > Was it called Alter Ego in '95?
>
> Probably not, since Alter Ego replaced "Réserve du Général" in 1998 -
> at least that's what wikipedia says:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_wine>
>
> M.

I pulled the bottle out and it is indeed Réserve du Ge

In article >,
Michael Pronay > wrote:

> Young Martle > wrote:
>
> >> This should have been a fairly inexpensive wine at initial buy
> >> so a B/B+ would be good. I have not had such good luck with most
> >> seconds except Palmer Alter Ego 1995 held very well at A-/B+
>
> > Was it called Alter Ego in '95?
>
> Probably not, since Alter Ego replaced "Réserve du Général" in 1998 -
> at least that's what wikipedia says:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_wine>
>
> M.

It is indeed Reserve du General and it was racked with the alter Ego due
to being the same vineyards.