Cos d'Estournal vertical

Went to a wonderful Cos d’Estournal tasting at Ripple last night put together by my good friend Panos Kakaviatos. Panos did a wonderful job organizing the evening and even got Cos’ new director, Aymeric de Gironde, to come and show the wines. Wonderful evening. Started with a new Champagne they are now making called Michel Reybier. Really nice wine. Then, we had (in order tasted), the 2008, 2006, 2004, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2000, 1996, 1995, 1989, 1985, 1982, 2012, 2010 and 2009 Cos. I loved the flight of older wines esp. the 1982. The 1989 was also fabulous, but while it was richer than the 1982 I did not find it as complete. Also, the 1989 probably needs about 5 more years while the 1982 is drinking perfectly right now. I also loved the 2005 and the 1996 - beautiful balanced wines. The 2008, 2006 and 2004 seemed promising, with the 2004 being by far the most drinkable of the three. I found the 2012, 2010 and 2009 too young to really get great handles on. I think my order of preference was 2010, 2012 and then 2009, but I would not have tremendous confidence of replicating that blind.

Thanks for the commentary Howard. Sounds like a great tasting. The '89 was maligned by the critics when it first came out as I recall. I had bought a six pack (at $36 apiece!!) but decided to let them sit. Last one I had a couple of years ago was very nice. Glad to have a couple left.

I’m interested in your comments on the 2003?

How was the 02? I have a few tucked away and don’t want to let them wait too long given the weak vintage

G

I was not that wild about the 2003, but others at my table liked it more than I did. I thought it was far inferior to the 2005, which was in the same flight and even preferred the 2002. In fact, probably the best thing to do may have been to combine the 2002 and the 2003. The 2003 had nice rich fruit, but not that much structure or finish and, for me, was just not complex enough. The 2002 just had structure and was lacking a bit of fruit. The 2005 had a wonderful combination of the best of the both of these. Hopefully, this helps.

See my thoughts above on the 2002. Hard to know when to drink the 2002. A lot of structure to the wine, which would suggest holding it, but the wine somewhat lacks a middle, which would suggest drinking it before it loses its fruit. It could be a wine that has too much tannin for its fruit, but hard to tell. You might have a steak or roast or something that would absorb some of the tannin and open one now to see what you think.

thanks howard. I’ll try one soon and report back. Its not hard to find a steak around my place…

Was the 1985 Cos still alive and kicking, or was it in major decline? Lots of bottle variation at this point, of course.

Bruce

I think the '02 is just lovely now, but will obviously keep. Not under-fruited for my taste.

I thought it was somewhere in between. Still nice, but probably not as much fruit as it probably once had (as this is my first time tasting the 1985, it is hard to say where it had been).

Wow! Sounds like fun! Thanks for the impressions

Excellent recap. I recently had one of the vintages you didn’t cover, 2001, and it was pretty stunning if that helps provide another reference point.

Not surprised. 2001 is a very underrated vintage in Bordeaux (IMHO) - may turn out to be better than 2000. Thanks.

I love the 2002…

Thank Howard. Hopefully, Panos will give his opinion as well.

I stopped buying after 2008 as the 2009 was reported to be too controversial and pricey. Haven’t tasted my 2008 or 2006 as yet but 2005 was great at release.
I have drunk 2001 and 2004 side by side at an offline and most attendees on the day preferred the 2001.
Will be tasting the 1996 shortly as part of a 1996 - a 20 year Bordeaux retrospective that I will be putting up for my wine group. Last time I tasted the 1996 it looked more monolithic but hopefully it has matured now.

2002 may be good in the context of the vintage but I found it quite lean and I intend to finish my remaining few bottles soon before the fruit dries up.