WTN: 1996 Dominus

[Jenise]

Good but not great, underperforming expectations (or unreasonable hopes) for a better wine. Attractive and unusual mature nose that had California sweetness without typical California flavors. There was also a wonderful scent of sawdust from exotic woods that reminded me of my grandfather's carpentry shop. Easily placed in the mid-90's, but other than that either slightly closed or just over the hill enough to evade identification by our guest who has owned many vintages of Dominus and considers it his favorite California red, though he had not had the '96.

[David M. Bueker]

Thanks. I still miss the 1991.

I have never had the Dominus but I have stated many times that I really dont like 1996 in Napa. I have had way more disapointments than I have happy successes.

I have stated many times that I really dont like 1996 in Napa.

I'm sure there are positive surprises as well, e.g. 1996 Dunn Howell Mountain. In my view it's one of the best Dunn Howell Mountain ever made.

Good but not great.... Attractive and unusual mature nose that had California sweetness without typical California flavors. There was also a wonderful scent of sawdust from exotic woods that reminded me of my grandfather's carpentry shop.

The only thing I really admire with Dominus is the quality of its oak-induced tannins. However I have never managed to like this wine's fruit.

[Jenise]

I have never had the Dominus but I have stated many times that I really dont like 1996 in Napa. I have had way more disapointments than I have happy successes.

This was anything but a disappointment eight years ago, but it just didn't have the legs to go this far.

I have never had the Dominus but I have stated many times that I really dont like 1996 in Napa. I have had way more disapointments than I have happy successes.

This was anything but a disappointment eight years ago, but it just didn't have the legs to go this far.

Maybe I am wrong but I would not expect Dominus to be over the hill at 16 years but then again I found other 1996 to die an early death which is the primary reason I am so against the vintage. I stopped taking notes long ago so can't give you a complete list of all the disapointing wines or how old they were when opened but the one that really sticks out for me was the Peter Michael Les Pavots. I had multiple bottles that all tasted over the hill. I don't remember how old they were when I started opening them but I had them all consumed by year 12. Also recall having issues with Silver Oak Napa, Burgess, and I think Viader. I had Viader from 94, 96, and 97 and only one vintage was good so I am guessing it was not the 1996.

[Jenise]

I have never had the Dominus but I have stated many times that I really dont like 1996 in Napa. I have had way more disapointments than I have happy successes.

This was anything but a disappointment eight years ago, but it just didn't have the legs to go this far.

Maybe I am wrong but I would not expect Dominus to be over the hill at 16 years but then again I found other 1996 to die an early death which is the primary reason I am so against the vintage. I stopped taking notes long ago so can't give you a complete list of all the disapointing wines or how old they were when opened but the one that really sticks out for me was the Peter Michael Les Pavots. I had multiple bottles that all tasted over the hill. I don't remember how old they were when I started opening them but I had them all consumed by year 12. Also recall having issues with Silver Oak Napa, Burgess, and I think Viader. I had Viader from 94, 96, and 97 and only one vintage was good so I am guessing it was not the 1996.

I owned very few 96's myself; this and a few Laurel Glens were the only ones I held onto, and in the latter case we drank the 96's, which weren't holding up as well, before we finshed the 95's. In fact, we still haven't finished the 95's. Drank one last week, one to go. Not that Sonoma always tracks Napa, but usually.