Palmer 2000

- The 2000 Palmer is a very different “beast” than the 2001, and I use that word intentionally. This is much more feral on the nose, and quite ferrous, presenting leather and dried herbs, smudged red berry fruit, and a hint of fig that emerges with time. The brettanomyces sticks out a bit here. The palate is medium-bodied with dry tannins and good density, very earthy in style and certainly more evolved than the succeeding vintage, yet you cannot help falling for its charms. It evolves wonderfully in the glass, actually closing in a little toward the finish, and suggesting that contrary to what the nose suggests, it will repay further cellaring. Excellent. - The 2000 Palmer is a very different “beast” than the 2001, and I use that word intentionally. This is much more feral on the nose, and quite ferrous, presenting leather and dried herbs, smudged red berry fruit, and a hint of fig that emerges with time. The brettanomyces sticks out a bit here. The palate is medium-bodied with dry tannins and good density, very earthy in style and certainly more evolved than the succeeding vintage, yet you cannot help falling for its charms. It evolves wonderfully in the glass, actually closing in a little toward the finish, and suggesting that contrary to what the nose suggests, it will repay further cellaring. Excellent. - The 2000 Palmer is a very different “beast” than the 2001, and I use that word intentionally. This is much more feral on the nose, and quite ferrous, presenting leather and dried herbs, smudged red berry fruit, and a hint of fig that emerges with time. The brettanomyces sticks out a bit here. The palate is medium-bodied with dry tannins and good density, very earthy in style and certainly more evolved than the succeeding vintage, yet you cannot help falling for its charms. It evolves wonderfully in the glass, actually closing in a little toward the finish, and suggesting that contrary to what the nose suggests, it will repay further cellaring. Excellent.