Author Archives: AlexR

2015 EN PRIMEUR TASTING NOTES: MARGAUX

A few remarks:

It is impossible to taste everything, but I did evaluate a great many wines over an intense 4-day period. Seeing as I am reserved about numerical rating, especially for wines at the beginning of barrel ageing, there are no scores.
Also, I have not mentioned color because most young Bordeaux of this caliber has a lovely deep color – not to mention the fact that it is deucedly difficult to describe colors with words!

I have included the proportions of grape varieties in the final blend because this can vary considerably from year to year.

N = nose
P = palate

MARGAUX

Brane Cantenac
70% Cabernet Sauvignon, 26% Merlot, 3% Cabernet Franc, and 1% Carménère
N: soft, very pure sublimated cherry – and cherry vanilla ice cream! – aromas.
P: lovely balance between fruit, sexy texture, and acidity. Good sappy fruit. Clearly a boring wine no longer.

Cantenac Brown
61% Cabernet Sauvignon and 39% Merlot
N: bit old-fashioned, but floral and attractive
P: both soft and chewy with a satisfying zing on the aftertaste. Very good third growth. The future looks bright for this estate.

Dauzac
72% Cabernet Sauvignon and 28% Merlot
N: indeterminate and mostly absent
P: heavy, ponderous mouthfeel. Big, but lacks delineation and subtlety. Converging berry fruit, but a little clunky and dry.

Desmirail
60% Cabernet Sauvignon, 35% Merlot, and and 5% Petit Verdot
N: sweet typical Margaux aromas as well as some coffee nuances and a little tankiness that will undoubtedly disappear over time.
P: heavy mouth feel. Classic. Good tannic grip, but never overriding the Margaux magic. Great acidity. Good ageing potential. A wine to follow.

Ferrière
69% Cabernet Sauvignon, 25% Merlot, 1% Cabernet Franc, and 5% Petit Verdot
N: subtle dark berry fruit with some caramel nuances
P: plush, sensual, and melts in the mouth. Develops well into a characterful aftertaste. Considerable finesse.

Giscours
70% Cabernet Sauvignon, 25% Merlot, and 5% Petit Verdot
N: lacks personality at this stage
P: much better on the palate with a good, generous mouthfeel. Sturdy, but not very smooth and fizzles into a hard, dry (oak) finish. Needs to be tasted again after bottling.

Kirwan
50% Cabernet Sauvignon, 35% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Franc, and 5% Petit Verdot
N: attractive and cherry and chocolate nuances, as well as marked floral overtones. Seductive.
P: the liveliness and aromatics continue onto the palate, which has a silky texture. Very good this year.

Lascombes
50% Cabernet Sauvignon, 47% Merlot, and 3% Petit Verdot
N: some vinification odors, but deep berry fruit in the background
P: lovely velvety texture with a lipsmacking finish. Soft, well-made, typical of its appellation. Very good.

Malescot Saint-Exupéry
70% Cabernet Sauvignon and 30% Merlot
N: not very expressive, but some underlying spirity fruit and a perfumed quality
P: nice, rich mouth feel with a great balance thanks to fresh acidity. Good, lingering black fruit and tarry aftertaste with textured tannin. Very successful.

Margaux
87% Cabernet Sauvignon, 8% Merlot, 3% Cabernet Franc, and 2% Petit Verdot
N: fragrant, sophisticated, and extremely pure, with the subtle perfume of spring flowers. Long caressing aftertaste. Fresh with velvety tannin. Superb example of soft power.

Marquis de Terme
60% Cabernet Sauvignon, 35% Merlot, and 5% Petit Verdot
N: some cherry, good fruit, good potential
P: develops nicely on the palate, starting out round and ending with a soft, pure, mineral finish. Very well made. Marquis de Terme is on the up-and-up.

Monbrison
57% Cabernet Sauvignon, 25% Merlot, 14% Cabernet Franc, and 4% Petit Verdot
N: soft, beguiling, subtle, and elegant with talcum powder aromas
P: medium-light with a pure mineral aftertaste. A feminine wine that would shine with refined food.

Prieuré Lichine
66% Cabernet Sauvignon, 30% Merlot, and 4% Petit Verdot
N: fine and deep with floral and plummy aromas
G: heavy, almost syrupy (!) mouthfeel. Thick and with cosmetic nuances. Oak overwhelms at this point. Dry finish. Care should be taken with moderating oak influence if time alone does not, as I fear, do the trick.

Rauzan Gassies
84% Cabernet Sauvignon and 16% Merlot
N: fruit… as well as soy sauce aromas.
P: better on the palate. Some greenness there, but there’s a fine texture. Old school and an improvement over past vintages.

Du Tertre
70% Cabernet Sauvignon, 10% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Franc, and 10% Petit Verdot
N: straightforward, slightly spirit
P: sweet and showing bright fruit. Maybe a little weak on the middle palate, but still very nice with good grip. Surprisingly, a little hotness going only with the impression on the nose.

2015 EN PRIMEUR TASTING NOTES: HAUT-MÉDOC, MOULIS, AND LISTRAC

A few remarks:

I have included the proportions of grape varieties in the final blend because this can vary considerably from year to year.

N = nose
P = palate

HAUT-MÉDOC

Beaumont
50% Cabernet Sauvignon, 47% Merlot, and 3% Petit Verdot
N: slick and relatively simple with good fruit.
P: an impression of sweetness. A successful commercial style with a fine finish. A winner, and a wine for claret lovers who are after value for money.

Belgrave
74% Cabernet Sauvignon, 23% Merlot, and 3% Petit Verdot
N: inky, cosmetic, and floral. Delicate and slightly smoky.
P: good mouth feel and develops well on the palate. Chewy. A wine of substance. Only reproach is that it is a little short.

Cantemerle
59% Cabernet Sauvignon, 27% Merlot, 8% Cabernet Franc, and 6% Petit Verdot
N: open, generous, sweet, and enticing with a biscuity element.
P: heavy mouthfeel, which is surprising for Cantemerle. Round, rich, and with medium body. Merlot seems to come through more than its proportion in the final blend would suggest, especially on the long aftertaste. One of the best wines.

Citran
59% Cabernet Sauvignon, 27% Merlot, 8% Cabernet Franc, and 6% Petit Verdot
N: soft and a little plummy with unexpected citrus peel aromas!
P: A bit odd, with cough lozenge flavors. Shows marked acidity that bodes well for ageing. There’s a little greenness on the long gummy blackberry aftertaste with a textured, velvety, and slightly hard finish. Not a tremendously classy wine, but a good one. Worth looking into if the price is right.

Coufran
85% Merlot and 15% Cabernet Sauvignon
N: not very attractive at this stage, with some mint (reminder: the bouquet at this point is not paramount).
P: a middle-of-the-road wine starting out soft and then showing considerable acidity. Very supple and best enjoyed within the next five years.

La Lagune
60% Cabernet Sauvignon, 35% Merlot, and 5% Petit Verdot
N: not terribly expressive, but there is some good fruit accompanied by sweet oaky and blackcurrant notes.
P: wonderful plush mouthfeel, and there’s a good tannic backbone to support everything from beginning to end. Only drawback: the aftertaste is not very long.

La Tour Carnet
60% Cabernet Sauvignon, 35% Cabernet Sauvignon, and 5% Petit Verdot
N: almost New Word exuberance of black fruit jelly with a cosmetic aspect
P: sweet and big. In fact, a little too big and assertive, but with a nice aftertaste. A successful modern style, but care should be taken with the role of oak in the rest of the ageing process.

LISTRAC

Clarke
70% Merlot and 30% Cabernet Sauvignon
N: ripe with candied fruit nuances. Some grassy notes and a little sulfur.
P: juicy and round at first, then rather acidic with plenty of oak (70% new barrels) on the aftertaste. A commercial style and certainly acceptable, but not showing very well. Needs to be retasted later.

Fonréaud
45% Merlot, 50% Cabernet Sauvignon, and 5% Petit Verdot
N: sweet to the point of being confected with hints of violet and some reduction.
P: silky soft. Very Médoc with fine-grained tannin. Well-balanced within a fairly narrow register. Strong new oak on the finish.

Fourcas Hosten
54% Merlot, 45% Cabernet Sauvignon, and 1% Cabernet Franc
N: fresh berry fruit and molasses with a little reduction
P: round, upfront, very juicy. Dry tannic finish. On the whole, a crowd-pleasing wine the will be enjoyable young. Not typical of its appellation.

MOULIS

Chasse Spleen
% Cabernet Sauvignon, % Merlot, % Cabernet Franc, and % Petit Verdot
N: deep, but suave, promising nose
P: medium-heavy mouthfeel. Marked acidity. Very fruity and slightly dilute. Long aftertaste. Made to last. Stands out from others at this tasting.

Poujeaux
50% Cabernet Sauvignon, 42% Merlot, 2% Cabernet Franc, and 6% Petit Verdot
N: rich, chocolaty, floral, and smoky – fascinating.
P: rich as well on the palate, with a heavy mouth feel. Long. Delicious. Fine effort. Unquestionably of great growth stature. Derencourt and Thienpont are consultants.

Next installment: Saint Julien

Prior to posting my notes about 2015 great growths

I took 4 days off from work this month to taste 2015 Bordeaux great growths. This was a fantastic experience and despite living in Bordeaux for many years, I still find it thrilling.

The experience is as much about people as wine: meeting château owners, technical directors, etc., as well as members of the wine trade from all over the world.

The organization of en primeur tastings is quite incredible. Hats off to the Union des Grands Crus for receiving hordes of professionals and even providing everyone with gourmet lunches at famous estates. The system in Bordeaux is well and truly unique in the world of wine. It also creates a lot of jealousy, especially since the price increases at the most famous estates since 2005…

The whole en primeur system is presently being called into question. This is because older wines from fine vintages can often be found at the same or even lower prices than futures. This has left consumers bewildered or even bitter. They ask themselves “What’s the point”? This has led to much naysaying, as well as predictions that “the bubble will burst” and that the great growths will be brought to their knees. Color me sceptical on that count… I have seen this happen only once in my (considerably long) lifetime, in the 1970s. However, I do not think it will occur again now.

For a start, it is well-known that exports to China declined significantly in 2013/14. However, word does not seem to have spread that the 2015 figures were up by 31% in volume and 25% in value. China’s interest in Bordeaux is here to stay. The market has become more mature and the Chinese are buying more intelligently. But they are still buying. Massively. And they remain Bordeaux’s number one export market.

You have only to see the wry smiles on the faces of winegrowers when asked “What vintage does this remind you of?” or “Do you think that this is more of a Left Bank or a Right Bank vintage?”. So many people don’t seem to understand the sheer size and complexity of Bordeaux, and the fact that making generalizations is like walking on eggs. Still, in this age of “Wine for Dummies” pronouncements will be made. But not by me!

There is an urban myth that samples are doctored to make them more flattering to journalists, critics, and major buyers. In fact, this is not totally false. Several château owners freely admitted that the wines we were tasting were blended to give a better idea of what the wine will be like down the road. And that they were not the actual final blend at the present time. This is only worrying to the extent that one places blind faith in how representative such young wines are, or should be…
In the past, the en primeur tastings were spread over a 3-month period. Now they take place very early and in a short time span. And, as we all know, leading critics give numerical scores at this early date – ones that have a huge effect on the market. One can disagree with the very premises of scoring systems, but they are inevitable. People like to quantify things that cannot be quantified, and be made to feel secure. So be it.

I will be posting my (non-numerical) notes, for what they’re worth, in the near future.

All the best,
Alex

1998 Margaux and 1998 Lafite

Bordeaux may be a provincial city, but it is a tremendously cosmopolitan one, and wine lovers from all over the world always end up here one way or another. Dinner at my house on Saturday included people from several continents. The lingua franca was English.

We started off with a fine Champagne. Francis Boulard has many fans and his Les Rachais is arguably the top of the range. The 100% Chardonnay vines are grown organically and are an average age of 43 years old. Les Rachais is a “brut nature” with zero residual sugar. The wine is aged in barrel, undergoes malolactic fermentation, and is neither fined nor filtered. It is much appreciated and well noted in France. For what it’s worth, I see that it has received a score of 93+ from Parker.
We found the wine bone dry but gracious and ethereal. A great aperitif.

Foie gras and toast usually means Sauternes in Bordeaux, but I figured a full, rich white Burgundy from a very ripe year should also marry very well.
I might add that trade professionals in Bordeaux freely acknowledge that the great white wines of Burgundy are among the best in the world.

Bâtard-Montrachet is a grand cru with about 12 hectares of vines (Le Montrachet and Chevalier-Montrachet each have 8 hectares, Bienvenues-Bâtard-Montachet has 3.7 hectares, and Criots-Bâtard-Montrachet has 1.6 hectares).
Leflaive is by far the largest owner of vines in Bâtard-Montrachet (a quarter of the vineyard) and the domaine has a stellar reputation.
Jasper Morris in his book “Inside Burgundy” writes that Bâtard reflects “weight and power rather than vibrancy and elegance”.
After this lengthy explanation I’m sad to report that despite the reputation of the vineyard and the producer, this was not a memorable wine. It was not prematurely oxidized or corked, just blah, neutral and flabby. When you consider the price, this is very disappointing.
It must be due to the vintage.

Fortunately, Ian and Maureen had contributed a rare white 99 Château Pape Clément which saved the day. This was pretty much the polar opposite of the Bâtard: light gold in color, with a zippy nose and vibrant acidity to match the richness. People often think of Bernard Magrez’s wines as being a little overdone. This was not at all the case here. The wine shone and went well with the foie gras. It also has years of life ahead of it.
The main course was milk-fed lamb, accompanied by 3 red wines.

The first one was a fun, rather than a serious wine: a 100% varietal Carménère from the Côtes de Castillon that I mentioned in an earlier post about a visit to that appellation.
Carménère is genetically related to Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, Merlot, and Sauvignon Blanc. This variety was extremely widespread in Bordeaux in the 19th century, but when the vines were grafted they produced less and were also much more subject to coulure. So, Carménère all but disappeared in Bordeaux. However, it is making a modest comeback in the Libourne region.
Our 2012 Carménère came from Château Lapeyronie the Côtes de Castillon. The wine was a little sharp, but it’s always fun to taste oddball wines like this, as well as instructive to get a handle on varietal character. This Lapeyronie was great as an introductory wine, but no one is expected to take it seriously in the Bordeaux hierarchy.

Received wisdom is that 1998 Right Bank wines are wonderful and that Left Banks ones are much less so… Parker’s vintage chart gives the former a full ten points higher! Less damning, Jancis Robinson, notes “Very good on the Right Bank but a less starry performance in the Médoc, whose 1998s are a bit stolid, means that these wines, and their equally successful counterparts in Graves have tended to be overlooked”.
Féret says that “the 1998 red wines are balanced, powerful, and generous” but that “Merlot-based wines are better than Cabernet-based ones”.
Well, Lafite and Margaux are poster children for Cabernet: 70% for the former and 75% for the latter. What would their 1998s taste like 18 years down the line?

The wines were served blind. Margaux was fairly evolved with earthy, musky aromas and mostly resolved tannins. There was some dryness on the finish. Lafite was clearly the more enjoyable of the two. In color, bouquet, and flavour it was pure and zippy, with much life ahead of it. A joy.
The tasting notes are a little skimpy, but you know how it is when you are the host…

As for the last wine, I wrote in a blog post last year: “Ch. Laville in Preignac (AOC Sauternes) produces a late harvest Riesling-Gewurtztraminer blend! Of course, this is not entitled to the appellation, but not only is it very rare – dare I say, a unicorn wine? – but also quite delectable, with the zippiness and spiciness of its two main components. It will be an excellent one to serve blind one day when I am feeling particularly sadistic…”
Well, friends, that day had arrived, and the wine was indeed served blind at the end of the meal.
Of course, hell would freeze over before anyone nailed this! But everyone loved it. There were candied fruit flavors of apricot and other white fruits and somehow it seemed more like a late harvest than a botrytized wine. But above and beyond it’s oddball quality, the wine was also very tasty.

We ended the meal with a glass of Crème de Cassis from Mouton Rothschild. This seemed not very alcoholic (16-18°) and everyone enjoyed the sweet concentrated flavors.

2006 Providence (Pomerol) and 1982 Beauséjour Duffau-Lagarrosse

My friends Ian Amstadt and Maureen Keer came to visit from London (put their car on the Eurostar and drove down to Bordeaux).
Sharing the same love of fine wine, we wasted no time in getting down to brass tacks…

Having enjoyed Mumm Rosé just a few days ago, I thought it would be nice to open a Bollinger Rosé. The story here is that the négociant Millésima had a tasting with 27 Champagne producers not long ago with such houses as Krug, Dom Pérignon, etc. I went there with my wife who, realizing that it was impossible to taste everything, thought she would focus on rosé and nothing else. Tasting all evening, she found Bolly to be best.
As much as I liked the Mumm, the Bollinger was more suave and subtle. A really elegant drink and a great aperitif.

Ian had opened a bottle of wine the day before and not finished it. So used his Vacuvin, brought it with him, and we tasted it with a platter of delicatessen meats.
I enjoyed the 2007 Barolo “Cerequio” from Michele Chiarlo, but am unfamiliar with the category, so my comments are not very knowledgeable. This 9 year-old wine had a lovely, still quite purple color and an intriguing subtle, smoky nose of sour cherry. The wine was big (14.5% alcohol) and a little raisiny, but had an attractive tartness that makes these wines go so well with food.

Aside: Wine lovers are inevitably food lovers. And some of the world’s best foods are the simplest (foie gras, truffles, oysters, certain cheeses, etc.). The right kind of free range chicken slowly roasted is in this category. Not to put too fine a point on it, chicken frequently sucks in the US, UK, and other countries, where it is a mass produced product with little flavor. God bless France, where roast chicken can be delightful, and suitable to just about any wine on earth (forget about “white wine with white meat…”).

The first wine to go with the bird was 2006 Providence.
Providence (one word, no mention of the name château) is an estate in Pomerol that was previously called Château la Providence. It was acquired in 2005 by Jean-Pierre Moueix. There are just under 3 hectares of vines, located between the church and Château Hosanna, which also belongs to Moueix.
Grape varieties are 90% Merlot and 10% Cabernet Franc.
This is a rare bottle because not only is production small, but Providence ceased to exist after the 2012 vintage, when the wine began to be incorporated into Ch. La Fleur-Pétrus.
2006 Providence had a deep dark color just starting to brown a little on the rim. The nose was fresh, definitely oaky, and plummy, showing the sort of ripeness one associates with a hot climate country. The wine was fairly sexy on the palate with creamy, vanilla overtones and a rich melt-in-your-mouth texture. This is the obvious, crowd-pleasing sort of wine the Right Bank excells in. It is fine to drink now, and will be equally fine, in a different way, for years to come. Openness at an early age is one of Pomerol’s chief assets.

The next red wine was 1982 Château Beauséjour Duffau-Lagarrosse.
This is one of 18 premiers grands crus classés in Saint Emilion (14 in the B category and 4 in the A category). It is also the smallest. The 6.3 hectare estate is planted with 76% Merlot and 24% Cabernet Franc and has been owned by the same family for seven generations. It has long been confused with another premier cru, Ch. Beau-Séjour Bécot, who added a hyphen to try to simply things…
Although Beauséjour Duffau-Lagarrosse is in a prime location, the wines have had a checkered history. Things have recently been taken in hand by a management team consisting of Stéphane Derenencourt and Nicolas Thienpont, also responsible for winemaking at two other premiers crus: Larcis Ducasse and Pavie Macquin.
Anyway, as we all know, 1982 has a great reputation in Bordeaux, which this wine pretty much upheld. The color looked far younger than its years, with lovely nuances. The nose featured complex aromas of ash, talc, mushroom, and cherry preserves. There was also an old, ethereal side expressed in floral overtones. The wine started off round on the palate, going on to reveal velvety tannin, but also marked acidity on the finish. In my opinion, it started coming down from its plateau a few years ago, but is still vital and very enjoyable.

We ended the meal with a 2007 Burmester Late Bottled Vintage Port. This had an unbelievably intense color, an equally youthful and intense nose, and the taste of a fine young vintage rather than a 9 year-old LBV. This was a fairly spirity and vigorous Port. Does one age LB? I’d be tempted to do so if I had another bottle of this…

2000 Malartic Lagravière, 96 Haut-Bailly, 81 Martha’s Vineyard & 58 Ausone

A friend came down to visit from Paris, so this was a great opportunity to invite some other friends over to enjoy a wine dinner.

The aperitif was Mumm rosé. I was surprised by this wine for three reasons. First of all, by the dryness. Many mainstream bruts have perceptible residual sugar. But not here. Second, as opposed to many rosé Champagnes, you could actually taste the tannin on the finish, and this was very attractive. This was a rosé with attitude. Third, the quality was much better than one might expect from a huge producer. So, this was an altogether pleasurable experience.

The first red wine of the evening was 2000 Malartic-Lagravière. To the amazement of my Bordeaux-loving friends, I have found many of the 2000s open for business. However, I must admit that this Malartic was still a little too young. It was also delicious and the wine of the evening.
It had a lovely dark core and the rim is just starting to show some brown.
The nose was wonderful, with hints of lead, leather, truffle, humus, and matchstick. There were also subtle coffee and blueberry aromas. The bouquet was really very elegant, complex, and seductive.
The wine was only slightly less good on the palate, with a texture that was unctuous, but not thick. In fact, it reminded me so much of a good Pomerol that I checked Malartic’s Merlot content in the Féret: 45%. The château’s round, sensual side was there in spades along with a welcome touch of tartness. The tannin on the aftertaste was reminiscent of tea, and showed that 2000 Malartic-Lagravière will have more to offer in the coming years. I might add that Malartic represents tremendous value for money. A class act that won’t break the bank… The Bonnie family have another Pessac-Léognan, Ch Gazin-Rocquencourt, that is also well worth investigating.

Next up was 1996 Haut-Bailly. Curiously, this seemed younger than the previous wine. The color was beautiful and vibrant, and there were still bright purple highlights. On color alone, I would never have taken this wine to be 20 years old.
The nose was very deep, with brambly, lilac and, once again (like Malartic) truffle nuances. There was a dark, brooding side to the bouquet, as well as ethereal, powdery notes.
96 Haut-Bailly was less giving on the palate than the Malartic. It had high-quality textured tannin, but also a tight side that time will certainly soften to some extent, but never completely. There were attractive cherry and briary aromatics, but the wine is just too restrained.

The next two wines were served blind.

The 1981 Martha’s Vineyard had just come from Paris that day, so it was a little cloudy. The color was light with purple highlights. The nose showed plummy, blackcurrant, and biscuity aromas. The wine had lovely balance on the palate and sweet candied fruit flavors. There was nevertheless a certain hotness on the aftertaste. People were a little destabilized as to the wine’s origin and several guessed Châteauneuf-du-Pape. That does not surprise me because I have often thought that many California Cabernets resemble good Rhone Valley wines more than they do Bordeaux.
This thirty-five year old wine proves, to any who doubted, that California can indeed produce fine wines with good ageing potential. This 1981 certainly seemed much younger than its years. Martha’s Vineyard is an iconic Napa Valley Cabernet produced since 1966. It corresponds to the American version of a grand cru and this wine confirms that reputation. Bordered by eucalyptus trees, the vineyard is sometimes said to reflect their odor, although none of us were able to perceive this.
If we can get beyond the dilemma of comparing apples and oranges, Martha’s Vineyard this evening was in the same league as the two Pessac-Léognan great growths.

The last wine was 1958 Château Ausone (no photo, the bottle had no label, but the capsule and cork were authentic). What can I say – other than to thank my friend for bringing such a rare wine (as well as the Heitz). This 58-year-old Ausone was like a dream, a shadow of its former self, as reflected in the dark, but obviously extremely old color. There were vaporous aromas of charred wood, burnt rubber, and rose petals on the nose. The wine showed searing acidity on the palate, as well as subtle tertiary (you might even say quaternary!) notes. 1958 has an execrable reputation, and this wine would have been better some time ago, but it was still wonderful to drink a bit of history, and a fine end to the evening.

2000 Château Haut-Bages Libéral

There’s a saying going back many years that “Lynch Bages is the poor man’s Mouton”, although the former’s rise in quality – and price – make this a little less true nowadays…
Some witty person later added: “… and Haut Bages Libéral is the poor man’s Lynch Bages”!

Half of Haut Bages Libéral borders on Château Latour and the other half is just behind Château Pichon Baron. From the 1960s until the early 80s, this thirty-hectare 5^th growth Pauillac was owned by the Cruse family, and then acquired by the Villars family. Claire Villars Lurton is now at the helm.

We all know about the year 2000 and the speculative fever it induced. I have always liked the wines, but do not agree with people who think the great growths need “decades to age”. On the contrary, my experience has showed that sixteen years down the line many of them are well within their drinking window. So, wondering what wine to serve with a leg of New Zealand lamb I decided to open a bottle of Haut Bages Libéral, which has the reputation of being a reliable if unexciting wine.

Well, I must say I was underwhelmed. The color looked older than its years. The nose was really very muted, but if you looked hard you could discern cherry, briar, humus, graphite, and cigar box aromas. The wine had a thin oily mouth feel and a wimpish aftertaste. I’m all for subtlety, but not to the point where this is the shadow of what a great growth Pauillac in a good year should be. This 2000 Haut Bages Libéral would unquestionably have been better years ago to all but the most hard-bitten adepts of old tertiary Bordeaux. And I’m willing to bet even they would be disappointed with this wine.

I’ve tasted more recent vintages of Haut Bages Libéral and think the estate is on the upswing. However, as a consumer, I will make sure to drink mine on the young side from now on.

Three 99s: Pichon Baron, Pichon Comtesse, and Mouton Rothschild

1999 has a rather low profile. It is certainly not considered a great vintage, but neither do people think of it as a poor one. The “received wisdom” seems to be that it is early maturing and on the light side.

I recently invited some American friends studying wine industry management at Bordeaux Sciences Agro to lunch for a double blind tasting.

My notes are cursory seeing as I was hosting a meal, but I still though they were worth sharing.

We started off with two Champagnes. The Bérêche Brut Réserve was wood-aged, which is not very common these days. The nose was pleasant enough, but the taste was rather one-dimensional and the oak added more hardness on the aftertaste than anything else. The 99 Laurent Perrier, on the other hand, was a beautiful wine, pretty much in its drinking window although it will age for many more years. The nose was biscuity, creamy, complex, and a real treat. The wine was also yummy on the palate with a long fine aftertaste. This was one of the most enjoyable Champagnes I’ve had in a long time.

We enjoyed a bottle of 2001 Ch. La Tour Blanche with foie gras and toast. I have a soft spot for this vintage of La Tour Blanche because I spent a day picking grapes there in 2001 with my wife and son. The wine had a lovely deep golden colour with bronze highlights. The nose was utterly classic with vanilla overtones to complement the rich botrytized fruit aromas. The wine was neither too heavy nor too sweet on the palate and it had a smooth, long aftertaste with some zippy acidity and a lovely touch of bitterness that kept it from being cloying. The consensus was that this 2001 was nearing the middle of its drinking window, but that it has a very long way to go.

Next up were the three 99s, all great growths from Pauillac.

The wine we liked most was Mouton Rotshchild, even though there was some greenness on the nose and we would have liked more flesh on the bones. I had enjoyed this same wine during Vinexpo 2015. That bottle was further along, even tired. This one was more vital, but still not a benchmark Mouton. It is fine to drink now and won’t gain much form further ageing.

99 Pichon Comtesse was, as expected, the smoothest and roundest of the three, but the nose had a carmel quality that I didn’t like very much. My honest impression is that the wine was starting to fall apart and that it was somewhat disjointed. This statement must be put in perspective, however, because the wine wasn’t actually poor – just a shadow of what a great vintage would be like.

99 Pichon Baron might have trumped Mouton except for some TCA on the nose. This wasn’t marked enough to leave off tasting the wine, but it certainly detracted from the overall impression. That’s a pity because the wine was much, much better on the palate than the Mouton, with a good tannic texture and structure missing from the other two wines. I’m inclined to think that a bottle without cork taint would have been the best of the lot.

A tasting of 17 wines from Saint Estèphe

Bruno Prats of Château Cos d’Estournel once told me that the Médoc should not be divided into communal appellations, but rather a string of gravelly rises running parallel to the Gironde, i.e. vertically rather than horizontally. The word he used, chapelet, also means rosary beads!
In fact, I have heard this explanation several times since from dyed-in-the-wool Médocains. It goes on the premise that a thick gravelly rise in Margaux and another in Pauillac have far more in common than such a terroir and a more pedestrian one in the same appellation…
Be that as it may, wine from each Médoc commune pretty much has its own reputation. Margaux is said to be “feminine”, Saint-Julien “fleshy”, etc. Adjectives often used to describe Saint Estèphe are “strong” and “virile”.
It has been a long time since I did an in-depth tasting of wines just from Saint-Estèphe, so I was delighted with the opportunity to go to one organized by Terre de Vins magazine. This was held on the 4th of February 2016.

Before I recount this experience, here is a look at total area under vine in each of the Médoc communal appellations:
Pauillac – 1,239 hectares
Saint-Estèphe – 1,212 hectares
Margaux – 1,500 hectares
Saint-Julien – 910 hectares
Moulis – 600 hectares
Listrac – 540 hectares
Saint-Estèphe has 43 independent winegrowers, 5 great growths (24% of total area under vine) and a cooperative, Le Marquis de Saint-Estèphe, with 17 members.
Here is a brief look at the 17 wines I tasted. I debated whether or not to post scores, but decided not to, largely because I am a tough grader and this may have given a misleading impression…
Every château served two vintages: the 2013 and one other of their choice. I decided to bypass the 2013s, not out of snobbery, but because with 40 estates present, I couldn’t taste everything.
Please also note that the color of young Bordeaux does not vary tremendously, so I have rarely mentioned it in my tasting notes.

: M. & Mme Cuvelier Ch. le Crock

: Bernard Audoy Ch. Cos Labory

The first wine I sampled upon arriving was at 2011 Ch. Le Crock (32 hectaresà. This was poured by Didier Cuvelier, who is also owner of Léoville Poyferré.
The wine had a well-focused, soft and fairly understated bouquet of brambly berry fruit. The wine seemed quite fluid on the palate with unaggressive tannin. Not a powerful wine and the aftertaste is shortish, but pleasing and with decent grip on the aftertaste. Will be enjoyable soon.
Next up was Château Cos Labory (18 hectares), where I tasted the 2010. I stopped to chat with M. Bernard Audoy, who also happens to be the president of the Saint Estèphe winegrowers association. Because of the number of people crowding around the tasting table, I did not have much time to talk to him, but was able to slip in one question: “What are the trends in your appellation, what has changed most over the past several years?” He thought a moment and replied, “The percentage of Merlot is now much greater than it used to be”. The 2010 Cos Labory I sampled had a very closed, almost mute nose, but there were some cranberry notes lurking there and little evidence of oak. The wine started out quite round and forthcoming and then shifted gears to show the estate’s hallmark tight and somewhat astringent tannin. Not the kind that will soften with age, in my opinion. It is remarkable how different this wine is from its neighbor, Cos d’Estournel.

: Jean-Marc Martin Ch. Martin

: Yves Delsol Ch. Tronquoy-Lalande

I had never come across Château Martin, so I was interested to meet the owner, M. Jean-Marc Martin, and taste his 2010. He has 28 hectares in Saint Estèphe and 24 at in the next town over, Vertheuil (Cuvée La Marsaudrie). The nose showed a surprising amount of toasty oak and a touch of caramel. The wine was round, chewy, and very fresh on the palate. This freshness continues onto the aftertaste. Although very enjoyable now, the wine will also age. This was a nice discovery for me, the sort that makes tastings such as this worthwhile.

Tronquoy-Lalande is a 30 hectare estate that is the younger brother of Château Montrose (by the way, this was the only great growth I was not able to taste – they had run out of wine!). Their 2007 was on show. The nose was deep, but not wide – a fine bouquet in a minor key. Forest floor nuances accompanied the fruit and there was a very feminine side. I might have detected a hint of volatile acidity though. The wine was big on the palate, but somewhat hollow and short. It picked up, however, on the aftertaste. This is the kind of wine that would be a treat with food, but suffers when appraised on its own.

: Martial Mignet Ch. l’Argilus du Roi

: Benoït Thomas Ch. Meyney

I had never tried Château L’Argilus du Roy (5 hectares) before so was intrigued by their 2012, which I quite enjoyed. It had a lovely berry nose: upfront, smooth, and sweet. The wine had good volume, even if there was a certain hollowness on the middle palate. There was a fine tannic follow-through and an attractive tangy finish. This was certainly one of the discoveries of the tasting for me. I’d like to see what this estate do in a better vintage and follow its progress, because the present owner, M. Martial Mignet, has not been in the driver’s seat for very long. He told me that Guy Savoy orders his wine, which is a pretty good recommendation.
Château Meyney (50 hectares) has long been a favorite of mine. Curiously, I’ve never visited and that is something I must remedy J. The 2012 did nothing to change my opinion about this dependably delicious wine. The nose was very classic Médoc: clean and bright with plenty of blackcurrant and a slightly spirit side. The wine was round and meaty on the palate with a lovely deep black cherry flavour and a great aftertaste showing good grip. A textbook Saint Estèphe and a very good wine that does not need to blush when compared with certain grands crus. The fact that the estate is owned by one of France’s biggest banks, the Crédit Agricole, doesn’t detract at all, as far as I’m concerned. They do good work.

: Frank Maroszak Ch. Lavillotte

: Marie Dumazeaud Ch. Lilian Ladouys

I have dim memories of having tried Château Lavillotte (12 hectares) before, but definitely wanted to become reacquainted. Unfortunately, this was not one of the better wines that evening. The 2010 featured a nose that was overoaked and reminded me of smell of a cellar with all new barrels. The wine was light and, once again overpowered by the oak on the palate. It seemed inconsistent with its appellation and the great vintage it came from. I must give it another chance sometime.
Lilian Ladouys (45 hectares) is part of the Jacky Lorenzetti empire. This Franco-Swiss also owns fifth growth Château Pédesclaux in Pauillac and half of Ch. d’Issan in Margaux.

The 2012 Lilian Ladouys had a penetrating bouquet with a nice balance between fruit and oak. The wine was juicy and lively on the palate with a tangy finish. This is a modern Bordeaux in a crowd-pleasing and relatively early-maturing style. The aftertaste was more authoritative than expected, if a little bitter. As for ageing potential, I’d give this the benefit of the doubt.

: Jean-François Delon Ch. Ségur de Cabanac

2012 Château Ségur de Cabanac (7 hectares) was light in color with a pure, simple, understated bouquet. It was big and round, but somewhat dilute on the palate. The wine fell down in the middle and the tannin on the finish was rather unyielding. A sound wine, but not one of the best.

It is fairly rare for Médoc châteaux to produce a cuvee prestige, but La Haye (16 hectares) has one called Majesté, which I tasted from the 2012 vintage. This was a classic example of what happens when one tries too hard – the nose was patently overoaked. Of course, I don’t rule out the possibility that the fruit will emerge and possibly take the upper hand over time, but color me dubious. 2012 Majesté was big and reminiscent of a New World wine with strong tannin and a dry finish (oak). I prefer the regular bottling of Château La Haye.

: Basile Tesseron Ch. Lafon Rochet

The next table was Château Lafon Rochet (45 hectares), manned by Basile Tesseron. 2009 Lafon Rochet turned out to be one of the high points of the tasting. The nose displayed fine, well-integrated oak and a soft, enticing, complex nose of sweet fruit (raspberry). Just wonderful. The wine turned out to be unexpectedly soft on the palate and segued into a tremendously long aftertaste with an ethereal berry finish and superb tannin. Give it another 10 years. Unquestionably one of the top wines in its appellation – and the classified growths of the Médoc.

Another cru classé was next on the list: third growth Calon Ségur (50 hectares). A lot of changes are happening here. The estate was sold by the Capbern-Gasqueton family to Suravenir Assurances in 2012 and a new cellar is being built. However, the most important change is the wine itself, where a new, more supple and early-maturing style is being sought. The vintage I tasted, the 2008, is from before this change. The nose was toasty and brooding with a chocolatey side. Very promising. The wine was quite big, chewy, and assertive on the palate: my notes, written in the heat of the moment, say “an elegant steamroller”, whatever such expressions mean! The aftertaste was tight and seemingly uncompromising. Further ageing will nevertheless smooth this out considerably. On the whole, though, there was not quite enough richness to back up the tannic structure and the wine could be better balanced – a good, but not a great vintage for Calon Ségur.

: Marine Taransaud Ch. Cos d’Estournel

: Bernadette Brousseau Ch. Haut Coteau

Calon Ségur was followed by second growth Cos d’Estournel (91 hectares), a big hitter by anyone’s standards, and one of the great Médocs. The nose of the 2012 was quite classic and pure with exquisite hints of blackcurrant as well as cedar and graphite reminding us that Pauillac is just a stone’s throw away. The bouquet was both intense and subtle. The wine was very classy on the palate, with great acidity and balance. There was a pleasant dryness on the finish. The oak needs time to meld and this is on the light side for Cos, but it is nevertheless quite a successful wine from a middling vintage.

I was totally unfamiliar with Château Haut-Coteau (14 hectares), so I was eager to try the 2010 vintage. Redolent of wild berries, the nose was simple and pleasant but lacked a little oomph and definition. It was fairly enticing even so. The wine showed better on the palate, with juicy morello cherry flavours, although it dipped in the middle. The flavour picked up again on the aftertaste with plenty of (slightly rough) tannin. This wine will be ready to drink soon, but will never be altogether balanced.

: Adrien Lagneaux Ch. Petit Bocq

: Aurélie Marcou Ch. de Saint-Estèphe

2011 Château Petit Bocq (19 hectares) had an upfront, aromatic nose of ripe blackcurrant, vanilla, and mint that was reminiscent of New World Cabernets. However,there was too much oak, or this was overly toasted, or both… The wine seemed a little overdone on the palate, but it did have a tangy finish. Pity that the balance was off due to the type of barrel ageing, because this is an interesting wine. It just needs less oak.
The Château de Saint-Estèphe (12 hectares) is owned by the Arnaud family, who also own Château Pomys, also in Saint Estèphe. I tasted the 2011 which had a confected nose with spring flower, wild berry, and caramel nuances. It was also toasty and unfortunately already a little tired. The wine was simple, fruity, and ready to go on the palate, with a thirst quenching quality and an unexpected dry mineral aftertaste. Best enjoyed sooner rather than later.

: Pierre Braquessac Ch. Beau-Site Haut-Vignoble

The final wine (after 15 or 20, I’m just no good) was 2009 Beausite Haut Vignoble. The bouquet was on the indeterminate side, with forest floor overtones and a touch of greenness. Fortunately, the wine was much better on the palate with deep, rich, candied cherry flavours – one of those instances where there is a decided sensation of sweetness despite the absence of sugar. The aftertaste was on the dry side, but this was nevertheless a good wine that would be even better with food.

Can any sort of conclusion be drawn from the tasting? Broadly speaking, I would say that the wines were on the hearty, solid side. The crus classés confirmed their position as clearly superior. I haven’t mentioned price at all, but several of the crus bourgeois were very good indeed and the price puts them among the best values to be found in the world of wine today.

The 1855 classification: still not set in stone!

The Juridiction de Saint Emilion was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1999, and this was followed by the Climats de Bourgogne as well as the Coteaux, Maisons et Caves de Champagne in 2015.

In 2013, Philippe Castéja, president of the association bringing together most of the great growths, announced during the inauguration of the new cellar at Mouton Rothschild that he, too, would seek inclusion of the 1855 classification as one of the world’s great “intangible cultural heritages”. He commissioned a feasibility study and received support from French foreign minister Laurent Fabius.

However, it has just been announced that this project has been abandoned. As unbelievable as this may seem, certain château owners still nourish the hope of upgrading their status and did not want to see the classification set in stone…

The classification has only been changed once in its history, when Mouton Rothschild was promoted from second to first growth. Other French wine classifications, such as Burgundy’s grands crus and Saint-Emilion allow for promotions and, in the latter case, demotions.