1928 Montrose

Has anyone had this lately ? Track record of fakes ? Pictures of the bottle and cork would be a welcome addition as well. I have a ROFR on two bottles but I am concerned about the likelihood of picking up a Rudy. My guess is that most bottles that are first growths or super seconds from benchmark Bordeaux vintages and are floated as secondaries into the auction market are fake - hence, I’d love to see an “authentic” bottle to measure this against.


Edit: What is a reasonable ullage expectation ? Top shoulder to very top shoulder possible / probable ?

Edit 2: I have a picture of the pair … I can PM across if anyone would care to take a look …

Yes, many times, but we prefer the 1929 champagne.gif

Mark - have you reached out to Ch Montrose? If not, maybe Francoise A would be a good option :slight_smile:


Hi Mark,

My gut instinct is that you are safe with the '28 Montrose- why fake the Montrose when you could get so much more for a First Growth label? Besides, the 1921 is the most sought after Montrose from that decade, and the last two bottles that I had of that were perfectly fine. Not that I ever had the personal pleasure of meeting Rudy, but '28 Montrose does not seem like his kind of wine to fake. More of the fake Bordeaux in the market seemed to originate in Munich in any case years before Rudy, and the specialty there was First Growths and Right Bank rareties in larger formats. If you want to send photos over, I can take a look at them if you like (I did not keep the bottles of '21 Montrose). In terms of ullage, what is the story on their previous storage? If a cold and damp cellar, then top shoulder fills would be perfectly possible- but, I would not want to see clean, pristine labels on bottles that are purported to have been in a damp cellar for 60-70 years. If these are Nicolas bottles, then a higher level would be expected, as they used to routinely recork their old stocks of Bordeaux every 20 years.

All the Best,


Here is what I have drunk of Montrose :

1874, 1888, 1890, 1893, 1898 (2), 1900 (2), 1906, 1911, 1916, 1918, 1920, 1921 (2), 1926, 1928, 1929, 1934 (2), 1937, 1945, 1947 (2), 1948, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1955 (2), 1959 (2), 1961,
1964, 1966, 1970 (2), 1975 (2) - 1982 - 1985 - 1986 (2) - 1989 - 1990 (3) - 1996 - 1998 (2) - 2000 - 2002 - 2003 - 2005 Total général (55) in 42 millesimes

There is absolutely no rule concerning the levels. I have seen very old bottles with levels in the neck.

My opinion is that if you appreciate that there is a too great risk it is not good for your heart to buy them. hitsfan

Thank you for the comments, info, and advice - very much appreciated ! To be honest, I was not sure about the risk, hence my desire to do a bit of homework to at least qualify it (as I think quantifying it is probably out of the question at this point). Putting this collective wisdom to work, I think I will just pick them up - it doesn’t seem likely, based on the sea of other great Montrose and formats out there, that someone would put in the effort to fake it …

I’ll take the bait and report soon …

cool photos Francois! Thanks for posting them.

Thank you for your nice words.
If such a question is raised, it is easy to go on my blog (Google my name to find it) and to use the search tool. It is how I found these pictures.
But it is a pleasure to answer when I can.

Montrose 1928 should be a great moment if the wine was well stored (an examination of the color will help).

Sorry if this is rude to ask, but this wine is, and likely will always be, outside of my reach or comfort zone: what are these going to cost you? Please don’t answer if you feel it’s inappropriate for me to ask. :slight_smile:

CellarTracker should give you a good idea…or W-S

I think the deal is “good”, on a relative basis (that is, versus what I could purchase in the auction market plus taxes plus fees). Seventeen-hundred for the pair. [swoon.gif] [drinkers.gif]

It’s an issue we could discuss ad nauseam - What does the wine cost? What is the wine worth? What value does it represent? Very different concepts, often incorrectly substituted for one another and discussed as such. The market at this level is, in my mind, is not very rational because it is opaque and not very liquid with only a handful of participants willing to play - the bid ask doesn’t make any sense, and I think luxury goods of this level don’t follow the day-to-day supply-demand model that we’re used to and that we think makes sense. It is very very rare these days that you would see me spend more than two-hundred on a bottle (hell, even one-hundred is often very hard to part with) - in the case, it looks like the bottles are in good condition and I can syndicate out the cost to make a nice little dinner out of it with a few other guys who have apparently lost their minds as well. I feel it will be more of a fun, atypical experience (at least for me… seems like a regular Tuesday night for François) that I will be able to share with friends and, as such, I’m willing to pay a bit more …

Have fun Mark, but be sure to have some replacement bottles standby [cheers.gif]

When I’m considering rare bottles I trust the auction market most for pricing. Many times WS can give a less than accurate picture.

Dear François,
that 1900 M.bottle … it must have been labelled after 1936 - with Appellation controllée on it - right?

bottles from the 1920s with into-neck fill are certainly possible, but VERY rare!
Mid to low shoulder is much more common, and ms can still be good if not perfect.
With an exceptional fill level I´d be quite suspicious (after Rudy) … the label usually should look similar to the 1921 (if not a negociant bottling), certainly without Appellation … or it´s a later release.

It is easy to take an original label and stick it on an old bottle. You also have to check the capsule and bottle-glass - and preferably try to have a look at the cork. Otherwise you will only know after pulling the cork - or even never at all.

I´d also check how long these 2 bottles have been in the property of the seller!
If more than 10 years - hopefully not a Rudy-bottle!

This :-X&%§-guy [barf1.gif] has ruined most of the fun with old-wine-market! [head-bang.gif]

Interesting observation, Gerhard. That 1900 label looks more like the 1950 and 1961 labels than the 1921 label. But many producers store bottles for long periods without labels until they are sold, so it’s hard to draw any certain conclusions without more details.

Nobody except a complete fool would fake a bottle with a much later label design … definitely a later release!

pictures of Montrose 1900 with other wines of 1900 :

comments on wines :

the Montrose 1900 was brought by Laurent Vialette who sells old wines and is very competent.
The capsule shows that the wine is very old. The label has certainly be put largely later.

Reading these two articles I see that what I provide is always bottles which have lived their life without any modification. See the Pichon 1904, the two Lafite 1900, the Yquem 1906 and the probable Constantia. I try to acquire bottles for which the probability of modification is null.

Interesting to note that the 1904 Pichon had a level in the neck which was not the case for my other wines.

I ended up purchasing the bottle and consumed it the other night with a few friends. As per some of the suggestions, I sent the pictures to the Chateau prior to purchase to do a visual verification, and they reported back that the bottle, capsule, label, etc. looked legit. I was comfortable enough with the due diligence that was carried out to purchase it.

The cork was saturated and black at the top and came out about 2/3 of the way, with the rest crumbling. Decanted for sediment (and a few bits of cork) only. Colour was a very striking, transparent red (similar hue to '89 Beaucastel but much clearer). Some obvious bricking. Transparent like Pinot or Nebbiolo. The nose was elegant, deep and complex, changing throughout the evening; it was akin to a properly aged Burgundy. Lots of sweet red fruit expressing itself in a dry / preserved form, but not tired at all; there was also a citrus impression similar to orange rind. Plenty of baking spice notes as well (cinnamon, nutmeg, and the like). There was also a noticeable earthy component, though not stank - just pleasant mossy and pine needle notes. The palate was very much alive and vibrant; moreso than I was expecting, and at the same level of a '28 Latour I tried a while back. Fully round and resolved at this point; no edges; impression of juicy, tart red fruit; acidic backbone very much intact; still a bit of grip on the finish, which is pleasant and slightly herbal. This wine evolved nicely for about an hour and a half, after which point it started to trend downwards and devolved into something that smells like rotten strawberries and ash.

Overall, a sublime wine that is best enjoyed in contemplation with friends, though its certainly stands up well to food. There’s plenty going on, and it’s a real pleasure to track its evolution throughout the evening. I would highly recommend it if you can find a bottle with good provenance.

Mark, nice note, thanks for reporting in.

Great note, m. Sounds lovely. Glad it showed well for you.