Legends can definitely still be drunk, often even offer new, beautiful, unexpected experiences and, in the best case, pleasures that can hardly ever be experienced with wines otherwise. But this wine - not yet twenty years old - is neither a legend, nor a pleasure. It is not "over", but it has grown old, feeble, almost I would say banal. "Still drinkable," but what does that mean? Smaller wines have a shorter life cycle, even if they come from the Bordelais. And this is a "small" wine, a cru bourgeois from the Médoc, from a decent year but just not made to last twenty years or even to mature, to develop. But what is a "small wine"? Is it measured by its price, its ageing potential, its reputation? Measured by price: this wine costs about 17 CHF - actually cheap for a Bordeaux, so a small wine? How great is its ageing potential: let's assume that a Bordeaux (of the old style) generally has to, can, should age for about 10 years: then this wine has long since matured, probably already 10 years ago, i.e. a small wine? And the reputation: an old winery, built already in 1810, surrounded by 320 ha of land - of which about 30 ha are vines - and a very big winery that "makes elegant wines ... and needs mostly 9-10 years of aging because of its powerful ones". So not a "small" wine after all? What did I say: age is a condition, not a merit. In any case, this wine has served its age badly - despite perfect storage.