TN: 2000 Château d'Armailhac (France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac)

[J_a_y_H_a_c_k]

The key fact that you guys are all forgetting is that those of you who bought this wine on release got it because Parker was throwing points around like M&Ms and he gave this wine lots of them in his barrel tastings. I admit to being caught in that web myself. I no longer have the data - someone else can look it up - but this was part of my 2000 Bordeaux en primeur purchase because Parker scored it way above its station in life. I still have 5 of them, so I guess it’s time to check in with one of mine and give you all the “right” answer.

[Jurgen_Steinke]

Indeed, if memory serves me correct he rated it 91-93 as a barrel sample and lower from bottle. Something like that. I bought the wine because the vintage was fine, the price almost cheap and the reputation of the Chateau not that bad. And so is the wine. It´s good. But nothing more.

Again – my bottles, my palate, my opinion.

[J_a_y_H_a_c_k]

@Jürgen Steinke

Indeed, if memory serves me correct he rated it 91-93 as a barrel sample and lower from bottle. Something like that. I bought the wine because the vintage was fine, the price almost cheap and the reputation of the Chateau not that bad. And so is the wine. It´s good. But nothing more.

Again – my bottles, my palate, my opinion.

I agree with your assessment, having finished off a half case already. I do not regret buying it because it was so inexpensive, but it does not reach the heights of Parker’s barrel tasting rating, IMNSHO.

[Marc_Frontario]

@Robert Alfert

Back to the side note about the CT scores being average on this wine, I noted that as well, but often find that my impressions differ vastly from that collective score average. Perfect example, I had this wine on the same night, back to back with, 2001 Harlan, 2000 Leoville Barton and 2003 Leoville Poyferre. All three of these wines have significantly higher CT score averages than the d’Armailhac. That night, the d’Armailhac was the clear winner. I liked it enough to go seek out more.

I agree with Robert…the '00 d’armailhac was (clearly) better than both the 98pt Leo villa Poy and '00 L.Barton

[ToddFrench]

@J a y H a c k

The key fact that you guys are all forgetting is that those of you who bought this wine on release got it because Parker was throwing points around like M&Ms and he gave this wine lots of them in his barrel tastings. I admit to being caught in that web myself. I no longer have the data - someone else can look it up - but this was part of my 2000 Bordeaux en primeur purchase because Parker scored it way above its station in life. I still have 5 of them, so I guess it’s time to check in with one of mine and give you all the “right” answer.

I didn’t know that Parker rated it highly. I don’t like it anymore.

[Marc_Frontario]

Lol Todd…think I am in the same boat


I dug up my note from a few months back on the '99 d’armailhac

99 d’armailhac

Tasted blind…i nailed pauillac but guessed mid nineties…thought it was '95 pontet. … crunchy red fruits…sweet leather…pencil shavings…truffle…coffee…minerals…earth…this is fuqn dreamy pauillac heaven

[Jim_Friedman]

I took 00 D’armailhac to a pop-up dinner last night . 5 of us thought it was excellent classic Bordeaux that was in a great place.

[ToddFrench]

I opened my last bottle tonight, with some sirloin stroganoff, and while I do ‘like’ it, I don’t ‘love’ it, and primarily because I get a HUGE dose of coffee on the palate. Coffee is scarcely dominant on a Bordeaux - normally saddle leather, pencil shavings, sweet cherry, etc - but it’s hugely dominant on this. It’s so dominant on the palate and the finish that it almost has a bitter approach overall, which is unfortunate. Not bad, just not great.

[Ted_Alexander]

I bought a case of this and have been following it since 2004. I’ve always enjoyed it, and have found that it went from needing a long decant (5 hours in '04) to being pretty much ready to drink straight out of the bottle in 2014. I’m happy with this wine for its Bordeaux typicity and low cost.

[Arv_R]

The 2000 d’Armailhac [Pauillac] is still a very good wine but I liked it better when it was younger. This cork is in terrible shape, yet the wine (purchased EP) was sound. It was better after being open/aerating for 24 hours, showing classic Medocain notes like currant, pencil, cedar. The bouquet is better than the palate though. Tannins resolved and smooth, acid is sneakily refusing to leave the room. Oak was soaked up long ago. I’d slot this into the A- zone, if it was drunk by itself with decanting. The plummy fruit depth wouldn’t impress in a modern panel style tasting.

I’m amazed that there are nearly 300 TN’s on Cellartracker for this; clearly it was a popular wine among enthusiasts, especially given its age.

[Pat_Martin]

I agree, the 99-01 era d’Armailhac were better in the past, 5 maybe even 10 years ago.

The 05 is still going strong though I think and could have more upside.