Taking the learned counsel of several WBers, this weekend I uncorked my first BAMA. Perfect cork and fill. Decanted three hours and served with grilled rib eyes.
The wine is murky and cloudy, and initially not so appealing on the nose. Sort of tart, like a strawberry-rhubarb pie. There is nothing clearly “wrong” with the wine. It is balanced, with decent length, and completely drinkable. On the other hand, if served blind I would never have guessed this to be cabernet – let alone Margaux. More grainy texture than silky. A very subtle wine, and I mean that not necessarily in a flattering way. There was a bit of burning leaves in it as well. There was also some sweet/savory tension that made me wonder whether some Musar had fallen into the mix – which, again, though I am a big fan of Musar, I don’t mention as a compliment. I could not discern any further evolution over the course of a two hour dinner.
But what struck me most was that my Mom was over, and she likes most everything I open, but not this one. She’s not one to bite her tongue, and she just puckered up her face when I asked how she liked it.
Maybe my expectations simply did not align with BAMA reality? 1998 vintage not great/not representative? Too short a decant? Others have talked about BAMA bottle variation. For better or worse, I have a few remaining – 95, 96, 00. I will try to maintain an open mind and report on them when I get to them.
We all sing the praises of the 1998 right banks and Pessacs but in the Medoc 1998 was actually a very difficult vintage. That actuality was brought home to me at a recent tasting here in London. The Cabernet got waterlogged from late September on. The top estates still managed to make good wine but some of the others really struggled. The 1998 Medoc vintage was not dissimilar to 1964, which was generally terrible with notable exceptions including Latour and Montrose, who picked early; the crucial difference being the leap in technology over the 34 years and the role played by reverse osmosis and other techniques. It is unlikely that BAMA would have had a reverse osmosis machine 20 years ago.
I liked the '98 - this is my tasting note from a few months back: Give it a little air. Pretty but not quite as beautiful as the '95 a few days ago - not as silky in texture. Good earthy, tobacco-y and red berry smells. Tastes the same as it smells. Rougher tannins and more spice on the finish than the '95.
Kelly, I didn’t write anything initially because I value your judgement, since our tastes often overlap, but also because I wanted to try one first. I only bought one bottle of 98 last year out of curiosity. When I read your note I suspected it may have been a dud bottle, which is a risk with BAMA, and the bottle we had last night confirmed that it probably was. Ours was brilliant - fresh, floral notes at first with redcurrant and cranberry, before an attack of the same, leading into a beguiling blend of wild strawberry and blackberry and a typically restrained but persistent finish. After a while, blackcurrant flavours appeared mid-palate and hints of tobacco, but none of the caramel I feared. Unlike Doug, I didn’t get any rough tannins, on the contrary, it was smooth and silky. I think intrinsically, the 95 and 96 may be superior, but this is just as good in its own way and great for drinking now. The most striking aspect is the freshness of the fruit, untainted by any oak. I hope you enjoy the others more!
Thank you, Julian, and well played on your bottle last night. I have one more 98, and hope to prove your “dud bottle” suspicion correct when I open it.
As I think about it, caramel was one of the off-putting notes in the bottle in my OP.
A brief postscript on the 1998 BAMA: We opened another last night, with veal, and it was quite different, leading me to conclude that first bottle (OP) was indeed flawed.
I think, at long last, I “get it”. The word I would use is “idiosyncratic”. It had the nose of Margaux, but other than that, to this taster, it was barely perceptible as bordeaux – or, for that matter, even as cab/merlot. Indeed it tasted downright “old fashioned” to me, as others have noted. Though the mouthfeel is soft, there is simply nothing slick or hedonistic about this wine. A bit brambly like a southern Rhone, but without the high alcohol. A good deal of earth as well. A contemplative wine, I really enjoyed it.
This was my last 98, but now I am thankful I stocked up on 95, 96 and 00.
October 2017 : Bel Air Marquis d’Aligre 1998 : 17/20 An excellent showing, as Kevin Shin would say …
June 2014 : Bel Air Marquis d’Aligre 1998 : 17/20
February 2013 - BAMA second verticale - report by Pierre Citerne : Margaux : Château Bel Air-Marquis d’Aligre Grand Cru Exceptionnel 1998 DS17,5/18 - PC17 - PR18 - LG17 - MS17 - MF18 - FM17.
Robe délicate, particulièrement translucide. Bouquet formé et séduisant, caractéristique, grand raffinement floral, tabac blond, miel… Bouche tendre, sapide, nuancée, végétalité fine intégrée à la douceur et à la fraîcheur du fruit. Élégance de bout en bout, vin charmant et plein de verve.
April 2010 - BAMA first verticale : Margaux : Château Bel Air-Marquis d’Aligre Grand Cru Exceptionnel 1998 - 12,5° L’après-midi : DS16,5/17 - PR16,5 - CD16. Report by Philippe Ricard
Robe rubis, toujours un peu terne, avec une trace d’évolution brique sur les bords du disque.
On souligne toujours la complexité aromatique de ces vins peu ordinaires (encore une comparaison avec le pinot) même si, sur cet échantillon, le cabernet a davantage pris les devants, façon végétal « noble » (mélange de poivron rôti, d’herbe coupée, de roncier). Accompagnent aussi les pétales séchés, les fruits acidulés (groseille, cassis), dans un ensemble très frais.
Matière moins hédoniste, bâtie sans trop de chair ni de largeur, mais avec un caractère trempé, une rigueur un peu stricte, exigeante, une acidité terriblement salivante et cette petite vibration minérale, crayeuse, qui évoque l’esprit des chinons du domaine Lenoir… La finesse superlative et cette intense fraîcheur finissent par convaincre, même s’il est peut-être plus facile de préférer la pulpe et la générosité du style 2000…
Le soir : DS16/16,5 - PC16/16,5 - LG16 - MS16 - PM16. Report by Laurent Gibet
Aspect plus éthéré, sanguin, pour des senteurs principales de poivron et de fruits à l’alcool.
L’alcool semble plus présent, ainsi que les tannins. Bonne densité mais composant plus épars, avec une certaine présence acide. En bref : moins finement unifié. Il faudra suivre son évolution.
I still have 2 botlles of 1998 in my cellar …
The best old vintages I crossed :
1947 (19/20)
1961 (19/20)
1959 (17/20)
1962 (18/20)
1970 (18/20)
Another data point here: I too succumbed to the Berserkers BAMA koolaid and bought a few bottles of the 2000. I gave it a few weeks in the cellar to settle down and then tried one.
My reactions were similar to Kelly’s first bottle of the 98, if a little better. I am a devout acolyte of old school Bordeaux, but my bottle of the BAMA 2000 was lacking much in the way of excitement. It showed a lot but not excessive of green (which I like), and a dry earthy impression. There were a few fleeting, beguiling glimpses of strawberry, but they weren’t sustained. Overall, a little too austere to get jazzed about.
If served blind, I might have called it a leaner vintage of Sociando, which is fine praise in its own right, but Sociando can be readily found $30-$50 while BAMA routinely runs $65-$75 in the USA.
I gave this bottle lots of air and followed it over 24 hours, so aeration wasn’t it. Maybe it could use more cellar time, but it didn’t come off as closed up. Sounds like I got an off bottle, despite a perfect fill and cork.
It is pretty amazing that vintages like 1995, 1996 and 2000 still can be found for sub 50 $ in EU
And older vintages like 1970 for sub 150$
Thanks for the note and the comments
I have to admit that I was unaware of the wine until I read Alferts brilliant note on the 1995. Ifocus mainly on Burgundy, Northern Rhone and Piedmont for red wine
But it is amazing that you can buy these mature Bordeaux at extremely reasonable prices (1947 is mature, right?)
As written above, BAMA is idiosyncratic … no wood … old style … not integrated in the Bordeaux commercial theater …
No comparison with its prestigious neighbours.
I don’t know how the 1947 was when it was young.
But after five recent tastings, I know that this 1947 is today a genuine marvel.
After two and a half weeks of an enforced dry spell, I was finally able to crack open some wine this weekend - so naturally I thought I would check how the BAdeMA 96 and 98 were getting on - I had never tried them together before and was quite surprised. The 98 came first, the 96 the following night and both together last night. The 98 wowed me, but I wasn’t sure that it wasn’t just the fun of drinking a good red again. The 96 was good too, but a little subdued, so last night’s dance off didn’t come as a total surprise: there was simply no comparison. The tastes and aromas were much the same as usual, although both seemed a little darker in fruit than before, but the 98 left the 96 standing, with far more zest and spritely wild raspberry - I had to check the bottle to make sure I was actually drinking a 98, because it tasted ten years younger than it is. Actually the 98 is by a long way the best Left Bank 98 I’ve had, bar none.
Always good to taste a couple of BAdeMAs and obviously I ordered some more.
The years go by, the prices rise slightly, but they’re all still available - the worrying aspect is that M.Boyer is not getting any younger. There will inevitably come a day when BAdeMA will simply disappear, or be bought and re-branded by some insurance company.
1998 Château Bel Air-Marquis d’Aligre- France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (3/22/2022)
– decanted approx. 15 min. prior to initial taste –
– tasted non-blind over 2 to 3 hours –
NOSE: red-fruited and high-toned; a touch vegetal; hints of mineral and cafe mocha.
BODY: medium-light bodied; mahogany color of medium depth.
TASTE: aged red fruits; lots of mineral; some smoky rubber (tertiary); tree bark; more tertiary than primary at this point; medium+ acidity; tannins resolved; relaxed, and seemingly settled-in to its prime window. Drink Now and over the near term. Gut impression score: low 90s.
1998 Château Bel Air-Marquis d’Aligre - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (5/11/2023)
– decanted immediately before initial taste –
– tasted non-blind over 3 to 4 hours –
NOSE: smells barely corked at first, but this could be Old Bdx. Crankiness … three hours in, it has an autumnal/old wood/rubbed leather presentation; much more tertiary than primary now.
BODY: medium-light bodied; mahogany color of medium-deep to deep depth.
TASTE: quite light; aged Bdx character on the light finish; no obvious TCA on the palate, both initially or at the 3 hrs open mark; noticeable pyrazine; tertiary; light leather; clearly aged, but not in a pretty way — it’s fairly muddled and muddy; smoldery; rolling tobacco; past peak for my preferences; ultimately, we didn’t even drink this entire bottle — it was more intellectually interesting than it was enjoyable.
1998 Bel-Air Marquis d’Aligre
Nice nose from the get go: nicely evolved tertiary Bordeaux markers of leather, tobacco and some forest floor/damp earth. But even on the nose, we get some bright red berries, a hint of pyrazines and some understated florals. I decanted for sediment and left about one hour in the decanter before serving. Great showing tonight! On the palate, this is fresh but deep and complex: red berries (cranberries and redcurrant), meaty beef stock, leather, root vegetables and a hint of green pepper. The acidity is still lively and much needed. The tannins are fully integrated but still bring structure to the mix. Very enjoyable and a great buddy to tonight’s pierrade of mixed meats (beef, veal, pork, duck and turkey) Drink now or soon.
![[drinkers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/82916bed5ad74ac8470bc04089d9758b0c80c9fa.gif "drinkers"){kind=small}
.