15 Vintages of Chateau Musar

MUSARATHON - Strictly Rhythm, London (4/13/2012)

A group of 11 Hocharophiles rendezvoused at the office of a cool record label to share 15 Lebanese libations. Served with an excellent shepherd’s pie and carrots. I only took notes on the reds–I’ll see if I can get another taster at the dinner to cross-post notes on the whites and rosé, or copy from the UK Wine-Pages board.

Whites

Reds I

  • 1966 Chateau Musar - Lebanon, Bekaa Valley
    Transparent light orange. Mature nose of soy sauce and cinnamon. Somehow viscous, like an elixir, even as it’s totally weightless. Some volatility. Still has some tangy fruit, sort of a sour apricot. Remarkably persistent finish. I don’t love this wine–I didn’t even want to finish my glass, much to my tablemates’ delight–but I can recognize that it’s a rare bird. Others went gaga, and it was the consensus WOTN. 87 on pleasure, 93 on intellectual interest.
  • 1977 Chateau Musar - Lebanon, Bekaa Valley
    T! C! A! NR (flawed)
  • 1982 Chateau Musar - Lebanon, Bekaa Valley
    Translucent, cloudy brick. Pretty closed nose. Still has a good dose of sour cherry fruit, with some brandyish overtones I associate with Rioja. Slightly syrupy mouthfeel–takes awhile to work its way down your palate. A soapy character detracts. (89 pts.)
  • 1983 Chateau Musar - Lebanon, Bekaa Valley
    TCA: Returning to theaters in 2012 NR (flawed)
  • 1987 Chateau Musar - Lebanon, Bekaa Valley
    Translucent brick. Strong citrus/Grand Marnier character. Sour cherry brandy, with more fruit left than its predecessors in the flight, and good acidity. But marred by some off-putting sourness on the back palate. (89 pts.)

Reds II

  • 1991 Chateau Musar - Lebanon, Bekaa Valley
    Very cloudy, sediment-laden brick color. Cherry pie on the nose, brown sugar and soy on the midpalate before the acidity hits in the back. Fellow tasters said this was the archetypal Musar, but it didn’t particularly stand out for me. (90 pts.)
  • 1995 Chateau Musar - Lebanon, Bekaa Valley
    Yuck! Over-the-top gooey sweet nose. Porty, nausea-inducing cough-medicine aromas prevented me from even taking a sip.
  • 1999 Chateau Musar - Lebanon, Bekaa Valley
    My WOTN. Nose of red berries, primarily currants, and cinnamon. Full in the mouth, with great tangy acidity as a counterpoint to the sweet fruit. Rich but everything in balance. Power rather than finesse here, but it seems I prefer that in Musar. Remarkable QPR. (91 pts.)
  • 2001 Chateau Musar - Lebanon, Bekaa Valley
    Very similar profile to the '99 of sweet red berries and cinnamon. But more of the '95’s sickly syrupiness and less of the '99’s bright acidity leave a less balanced wine. (88 pts.)
  • 2004 Chateau Musar - Lebanon, Bekaa Valley
    Has Musar gone modernist? This wine continues the trend I saw from '99 to '01, offering yet more candied red fruit and yet less counterbalancing acidity. My palate was tiring at this point so I’m not going to score this, but the consensus view at the table was that this was closer to a less distinctive international style than any of its predecessors.

Rosé

This was an extremely educational evening. Musar is a distinctive and wonderful wine. It can exhibit every flaw in the book: we had two corked bottles, most showed some VA, and a handful had some brett lurking in the background. Sometimes that’s a good thing as part of a package; sometimes it most definitely is not. It resembles Burgundy (Vosne I suppose?) in its consistent cherry/currant red fruit, cinnamon/brown sugar/baking spice/soy sauce aromas, high acid, and low tannin. But it’s very full-bodied in its youth, and retains that volume for at least 30 years (the '66 had turned weightless, but the '77, '82, and '83 still had heft). In that sense, it’s more like Sangiovese that’s aged long enough for its tannin to resolve. Once it reaches middle age, it takes on a brandyish air I strongly associate with Rioja. Indeed, if I were to taste it blind, my best guess would probably be a fine mature Rioja Crianza or very lightly oaked Reserva.

I generally think of myself as preferring older wines, but surprisingly, I think Musar may be an exception. As an early adolescent (the 1999 at this tasting, or the 2002 I have now bought two cases of), it fires on all cylinders: its signature complexity is already visible, but it’s layered on top of extremely generous fruit impeccably balanced by invigorating acidity. As you’d expect, as it moves into maturity, the fruit fades and the body lightens while the secondary notes become more prominent. But I don’t find myself convinced that the tradeoff is worth it. The really old vintages may be fascinating lab experiments, but I’ll order a 1999 or 2002 with my meal, thank you very much.

This is great news for my wallet, as Musar has an extremely steep price-age curve, especially in the UK. Up to about 15 years from harvest, the grand vin can be had for a song: $24 a bottle in bond, which comes to $32 after duty and VAT. It’s also widely available in half-bottles, which is the optimal volume for this single drinker. Then, as you move towards 20 years and out, the price skyrockets, moving well north of $100 in a hurry, and reaching double or triple that for sought-after old vintages. (Traditional Piedmont seems to show a similar pattern, though it’s more expensive across the board). If the pattern holds, then buying caseloads of '99 Musar and sitting on it might prove a fine investment.
Posted from CellarTracker

Wow, what a great tasting!! I agree on how good the 1999 is now. I have had 3-4 bottles, and all have been excellent. I’ve had better experiences with the 1991 than you did, even from 375s (I wish Musar were available here in the States more widely in that format).

How would you rate the 2002 (which you don’t report on) v. the 1999? You gave the 1999 a `91.’ The 2002?

I have a couple of bottles of the 2003 that I haven’t tried. I’m going to pick up some of the 2004 this week, and I see that the 2002 is available at one of the big retailers, so I’m going to get that one too, on your recco!

Great tasting. You must have had a bad '95. I’ve gone through a few bottles and they have all been fine. Also too bad about the '77. Can be very good.

last time i had the 1997 and 1998.
1998 must have many more time.
Day one after 2 hours;
Forest floor,red berries,“to bite one’s tongue”,leather,little dark blood orange,good acidity,soft structure.
Long spicy aftertaste.
Day two;
the Musar 1998 is nearly an other wine;
roasted flavours,cherries,spicy,earthy and little tabac,elegant.
Wow, extremly changing with so many hours.
1997;
Strawberries,redcurrants,surprising “Burgundyviolets”,a bit leather and graphit.Good fresh acidity.
Wood,tannins integrated,medium aftertaste.
For me is 1997 today the better wine,in time have probably 1998 better future prospect.
sorry for bad english describtion.
2* “Musar-red”

Have recently had 1978, 1979 and 1986 and all three are remarkable successes. Slight preference for 1978…

jdietz–The '02 wasn’t in the tasting; I just own it separately (on my second case of 375s). I love it. It’s very similar to the '99. Maybe slightly more toned down, but I think I’d have trouble telling them apart blind.

Paul Jaouen–the '95 didn’t have anything wrong with it that I know to identify as a fault. It was just so grossly overripe…

Strongly disagree on the '95, I’ve rated it 93 points on two occasions. Very similar to the '99 for me.

Well, I didn’t score it precisely because I doubted it was a representative bottle. But, whatever it was, it wasn’t good.

For what its worth the 95 we had a couple of months ago was showing dried fruit notes to it and did seem overdone as well. Had quite a few vintages back to 78 and that was one of my least favorite, but hoping its just an off bottle as I have another one laying around. 99 is one of my alltime favorites though, so glad to hear that 02 might be similar.

The 95 is a great wine in my opinion, but there is a lot of variation with Musar.

My two cents worth on the 01 and 04; the style of the wine probably hasn’t changed, but rather, that is what Musar tastes like when it is too young and/or hasn’t been open long enough. I can’t think of any wine that transforms more radically with age and with air as Musar; over half a day in a decanter, it can be as though you’ve tried 3 or 4 different wines. And the first phase is usually that candied and sweet one, before giving way to the spice and earth.

Dan, it was great to meet you and all the other Londoners! I had hoped there would have been more time to chat with people on the other table, but maybe that is a good excuse to do this all over again in the near future! I just posted my notes elsewhere, so might as well copy them here, too:


NV Champagne Raymond Boulard Champagne Cuvée Rosé Brut
Dark rosé. Pure but ripe aromas of strawberry; very strong Pinot aromas. Quite rich but pure fruit; good structure. My glass disappeared very quickly!


1990 Chateau Musar Blanc
The last time I tried this vintage was about five years ago. Back then I thought this one of the most complete whites I have had from Musar (a potential rival to the awesomeness of the 1975!); my thoughts haven’t changed. This was almost perfect: lovely, unique, oxidative aromas, peachy fruit. Rich and ripe but low in alcohol and despite its bite and refreshing character, also fairly low in acid. It still improved dramatically with air, so despite it being wonderful now I would try to hold onto any in the hopes they will turn to something like the 1975 or 1959.

1991 Chateau Musar Blanc
This was strikingly similar to the 1990 white in its aromas and general mouthfeel; the difference being that the 1990 was elegant while this 1991 is concentrated and powerful. It is as if the 1991 were the same wine as the 1990 but with a touch of botrytis. I preferred the 1990 for its elegance, but I did also love this 1991.

1999 Chateau Musar Blanc
Some three years have gone by since my last taste of this: back then it was a good wine but overshadowed by the more tense vintages 1998 and 1996. And once again, this suffered in comparison with the 1990, 1991 and 2001 but is still a nice wine. It is quite rich and fleshy, but has closed down aromatically compared to my previous tastes so ended up seeming quite neutral. Not one of the classic white Musars, but I still enjoyed it and I’m sure will love it once it opens up with a few more years age.

2001 Chateau Musar Blanc
Another warm year white but much more open aromatically than the 1999 (or perhaps I should say that it hasn’t closed down yet). Oxidative apricot fruit aromas as is the norm for Musar; rich and fleshy and lowish in alcohol but still with good bite. Lovely.


1966 Chateau Musar
A really lovely mature wine that is still going strong. It smells of classic aged Musar: red, lifted fruit, some funk but not in such amounts that would bother me, lovely freshness and liveliness on the palate though at this age the fleshy, sunny sweetness isn’t so noticeable, so I do understand why many like their Musar on the young side. I like it young and old. This bottle of the 1966 was outstanding and one of the best Musars I have ever had.

1977 Chateau Musar
Corked. I have had one bottle of this in 2007 that was sublime. That bottle was not only among the best Musars I have had but among the best wines generally that I have had. But talking with other participants at this off-line it seems that there really is a problem with this vintage and cork taint. Such a shame as that one bottle was so outstanding that it is still vivid in my memory after five years.

1982 Chateau Musar
From magnum. A nice example of what happens to “weak vintage” Musars with age. This was never a vintage much liked by anyone, but it seems to be filling out and in recent years it has shown a very classic Musar profile: lovely, lifted, bright red fruit aromas; rich but racy, sweet but savoury. When not compared to other “great vintage” Musars this is a heartbreakingly beautiful mature wine. But in such a tasting with so many truly great vintages it is left a bit in the shadows. The lesson of this TN: don’t compare! Just enjoy!

1983 Chateau Musar
Corked. But gladly this was a one-off corked unlike the 1977.

1987 Chateau Musar
A good but not great Musar, drinking beautifully now IMO: it still has the sweet, sunny, vibrant, bright fruit of young Musar but has a nice leathery aged character to it, too. Not a flashy Musar, but is instead slightly toned down (which may be a good thing to some drinkers! :smiley: ): un-wild, un-funky yet still cannot be mistaken for any other wine.

1991 Chateau Musar
Perfection? Not quite yet. But I think in another 10 years or so it will be. This embodies everything that Musar is at its best: pure, deep, expressive fruit, some untamed wildness, richness but amazing vitality and liveliness, too. Its only fault is that the fruit still seems so primary whereas I like some aged aspects to my fruit. This seems to me one of the most promising young (and yes, it still is young) Musars.

1995 Chateau Musar
In 2008 I thought this was weird and lactic. That is still true. It smells of unsweetened yoghurt and super-ripe fruit. The palate is much better since it has much structure - both acid and tannin - to counter the great ripeness. Many Musarophiliacs love the '95 but I have always had trouble with it because of its lactic aromas. Since it has gone in a better direction since 2008 perhaps I too will love this wine in a decade or two: I have noticed that Musars I dislike in youth I might very well love with age.

1999 Chateau Musar
A classic, but still far too young. Lovely, typical Musar aromas of bright, slightly funky red fruit. Rich and sweet but with lovely acidity and animality.

2001 Chateau Musar
Still obviously a hot year style of Musar but the syrup sensations of my last taste have completely gone away. Now it is just ripe and rich and sweet; but since it has the raciness and vivacity of the house style, I can’t complain. A good Musar; but not IMO a great one.

2004 Chateau Musar
Unlike many others at the off-line, I felt this '04 was pretty classic, young Musar. It was sweet and sunny yet red toned in fruit with refreshing lift from VA. It was moreish despite its sweetness. I didn’t sense any “modernization” about it: it seemed just like other recent vintages in their infancy. Interesting enough that I will make room in my cellar if it becomes available here.


2004 Chateau Musar Rosé
Very pale salmon. More a white than rosé (it is Merwah and Obaideh except for c.5% Cinsault). There is a distinct aroma of fresh fish (i.e. very clean and pure, not stinky) mixed with mostly red-wine-like aromas of strawberry and earth. Rich and concentrated - even tannic. A rosé that needs age. Good stuff, but one shouldn’t think of it as a crisp, thirst quenching rosé but as a red wine of a curiously pale colour or a grand white of a curiously deep colour (one shouldn’t care about colour with Musar).

Welcome to Berserkers, Otto!