I’ve enjoyed the 1994 vintage more than reviews I have seen. Leoville Barton. Pontet Canet. Montrose. Mouton. And a few others.
The Montrose tonight shines. Menthol, cool fruits, tight red-berry fruits, tobacco leaf and a little barn wood on the nose. Lean, tartish fruit on the palate, mid-weight with a very cool climate profile. Concentrated red fruits, not expansive but intense. One could say linear. Some graphite and dry earth notes follow. Moderately coarse, rustic tannins, edges a bit ragged. I sorta like this quality on this wine, it all works, in keeping with a very well made Northern Medoc in a challenging vintage. This wine is in its optimum window, and while it may still seem a little tight, I think eventually the tannins outlast the fruit. Drink away, but for the record, I’m gonna hold one for the longer haul out of curiosity.
I bought a few bottles on futures and the last bottle opened in 11 was pretty decent. I tasted the 94’s on release and could sense an underlying something right that needed to coexist with the tannic structure. Nearly 25 years later they are starting to come together.
Monstrose is not charming. It is angular, beautiful, classical, and brooding. Enough charming wines in other places. Remember drinking the 94 and enjoying it very much over an afternoon with a good friend.
At this point, I’m glad that the 94’s are long finished from my holdings. That was a vintage where I felt the fruit lost the battle to the raspy tannins as time marched on.
I had the 1994 GPL last night among a lot of other wines. It’s interesting you note menthol as that was easily the most notable thing about it. Almost like some old Aussie cabs I’ve had where the aromatics go nearly medicinal to menthol and eucalyptus. The palate was much as you describe with the Montrose. Having had the 1994 GPL many times over the years, I can say it has seen better days. It’s not going to fall off a cliff anytime soon, though. I suspect the same is true of the Montrose.
Leoville-Barton finally came together in the last 3-5 years. The window could be quite short for some of these wines, depending on how long the fruit lasts.
My last experience with the LLC was about four years ago, and the wine was still quite enjoyable and muscular. The double magnum serves to dissuade me henceforth from buying large formats, and has admirably served its purpose…even before being drunk.
I had this wine a couple of weeks ago. It was terrific. I hoped that vintage rep would push the price down some, but a replacement bottle was outside of my strike range. If I could find it at the right price, I def would buy more.
Seems like a reasonable statement, and also offers some useful perspective. I’m not a buyer unless at steep discount to better vintages.
And that’s really the issue. I like this wine, but it doesn’t compare to better Barton vintages. Same price as the 1996? And more expensive than more charming albeit modest vintages like 1998/1999? No thank you.
Regards,
Peter
Well done, Robert! Based on a few other 94 bdx’s and many Montrose I have consumed over the years, your description is pretty much exactly what my expectations would be – albeit in less eloquent form – if I opened a 94 Montrose today.
While I am willing to be disabused, I don’t think there is such a thing as a bad Montrose.
This has inspired me to open the 93 Gruaud Larose this weekend.
![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}