Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
domaine_leflaive [2020/06/21 14:12]
jammywine [2000]
domaine_leflaive [2020/09/08 17:35]
jammywine [1998]
Line 157: Line 157:
   * **Puligny Pucelles**(Jan 2009) not oxidized - excellent wine [R DeAngelo]   * **Puligny Pucelles**(Jan 2009) not oxidized - excellent wine [R DeAngelo]
   * **Puligny Pucelles** (Jan 2010): still incredibly young; no hints of pmox; needs another 5 years (MSaviage)   * **Puligny Pucelles** (Jan 2010): still incredibly young; no hints of pmox; needs another 5 years (MSaviage)
-  * **Puligny Pucelles** (Jan 2020): Not oxidised, very young (Jammy Wine)+  * **Puligny Pucelles** (Jan 2020): Not oxidised, very young [Jammy Wine
 +  * **Puligny Pucelles** (Aug 2020): Another beautiful bottle. Not oxidised. [Jammy Wine]
 ===== 1997 ===== ===== 1997 =====
  
Line 178: Line 179:
   * **Batard Montrachet**(July,​ 2011) 2 bottles, neither oxidized. In fact, fantastic. (P Mesrobian)   * **Batard Montrachet**(July,​ 2011) 2 bottles, neither oxidized. In fact, fantastic. (P Mesrobian)
   * **Bienvenue Batard Montrachet**(March 2011) not oxidized (F Ginanni)   * **Bienvenue Batard Montrachet**(March 2011) not oxidized (F Ginanni)
-  * **Bienvenue Batard Montrachet** (Oct 2019): Not oxidised ​(Jammy Wine)+  * **Bienvenue Batard Montrachet** (Oct 2019): Not oxidised ​[Jammy Wine
 +  * **Bienvenue Batard Montrachet** (Sept 2020): Not oxidised, fresh [Jammy Wine]
   * **Bourgogne Blanc**(Feb 2005): oxidised [T Blach]   * **Bourgogne Blanc**(Feb 2005): oxidised [T Blach]
   * **Chevalier Montrachet**(01 Dec 2005): not at all oxidized, surprisingly good [Don Cornwell]   * **Chevalier Montrachet**(01 Dec 2005): not at all oxidized, surprisingly good [Don Cornwell]
  • domaine_leflaive.txt
  • Last modified: 2020/09/08 17:36
  • by jammywine