Simon Field | Smoky, lifted, bacon fat, a little compromised; stringy and even raw; medium-weight, and maybe lacking a little in terms of definition; figs, plum, citric fruit, and verbena, the spirit nicely integrated, the spice of the mid-palate well judged. The template for the ’77s, all in all, however, seems less powerful and less overtly resourceful than initially anticipated, yet there is no lack of quality here, especially within the context of age, but maybe less obviously impressive quality than one may have initially been led to believe, given the early reputation of the vintage. | 89

Andrew Jefford | Relatively dark-hued, and with much more red salvaged from youth than for many of its peers. This is already the second bottle, and it is not pristine, which seems to me a shame as I sense this is intrinsically one of the better wines, with fresher fruit than some of its peers and a kind of meaty density, too. But there is a pall or veil of cardboardiness attributable to yet another dreadful cork (the bane of our tasting so far). On the palate, this is quite deep in flavor though rather dry, medicinal, and coffeeish. Once again, a concentrated wine (the ’77s rarely lack concentration) but with the typical dry and bitter finish of the vintage and its rather aggressive style—even setting aside the catastrophic cork problems we have come across. | 84

Richard Mayson | Good mid-deep color, thin, tawny rim; a hint of rotting potatoes and potting shed on the nose, with some fruit underlying, and perhaps even worse on the palate, with thin, mean fruit and a miserable finish. | 72