Simon Field: Dark, crepuscular, brooding color and an ominous nose, a Turner seascape before a storm; power and glory. The wine itself is quite stark, powerful, and tannic, more so than initially anticipated. It lacks a little of the elegance of its siblings, but the magisterial structure implies potential rather than overindulgence, a potential that may well take a number of years to show. Let’s see... | 90

Andrew Jefford: Dark, saturated black-red, though once again not quite opaque at the core. Bottle 1: Scalped. Bottle 2: Round, warm, and enticing, though not hugely detailed; some fresh spices mingling with the warm, plump, black fruits. The palate, too, is slightly rough and ready, lacking the freshness, precision, and sheer drama of the very best, but there is plenty here to enjoy, and the flavory as well as textured tannins keep it upright. A good medium-term choice at the right price, and with ample concentration. | 90

Richard Mayson: Very deep and opaque, thin purple rim; demure but also rather stewed and soupy on the nose, withatouch of cardboard underlying; similarly rather cardboardy on the palate, with an edge. Second bottle requested. Better on the nose, if still a bit soupy and lacking definition, but still with an extraneous touch of woody/ cardboard mid-palate. Big and powerful, like so many of these 2000s, but with a slightly dirty finish and not showing much in the way of elegance or grace. | 84