Simon Field | Rather raw on the nose; a touch of oxidation. There is a second bottle; it seems fresher, marginally. Quite a sinewy, raw example; potent, and with a linear character that can only mean that one needs to be patient. Brine, briary, incense, and a whisper of fennel. An intriguing and complex example that we shall have to revisit in a decade or so. | 93

Andrew Jefford | Dark black-red, with (second bottle) slightly muddy or soap-suddy aromas, though attractive blackcurrant fruit is palpable in the wine, too. As with many of the ’16s, I am beginning to think that we’ve just caught them at a difficult aromatic moment, where they are in mid- mutation between the fire and fury of youth toward something a little more settled and well organized. This actually has attractive floral notes hidden in there and creamy woodland plum, too. It’s relatively soft and supple in texture, but very ample and mouth-filling. And, on the palate, it’s a very pretty wine. Once again, the floral touch (violets) is unusual and welcome in 2016. Delicious mid-mutation wine, with plenty of future ahead. | 92

Richard Mayson | Strange rather rustic nose, especially on the first bottle. Second bottle better but sullen and withdrawn; rather soupy and lacking definition initially on the palate, big tannic core and powerful tannins, and some ripe but gritty berry fruit onto the finish. Lacking poise and definition at this stage, but this is a powerful, muscular wine that may well knit together with time. | 92