2001 Chateau Montelena, Montelena Estate – Absolutely singing. Explosive nose approaching its aromatic prime. Black currant, sage, hints of cedar, and a touch of licorice and earth. The fruit is no longer overbearing, and the secondary notes are perfectly in balance with the richness of the fruit on the nose. You can smell it pouring out of the glass from feet away. The palate is exceptionally balanced, with still-rich black currant and cassis, lead pencil, sage, and a touch of damp earth. It’s classic Montelena entering its prime. At 14% abv it is rich, but not heavy, and is in a style I wish more would emulate. Big tannins balance the palate and lead to a very long finish. I’ll be buying more 95.
In fact, I did buy more. A second bottle showed ever so slightly more advanced, and with more pronounced cedar and earth. Not quite as rich fruit, but still excellent. The second was in the 92-93 range, and still very, very good.
Isn’t this wine from the era when Chateau Montelena acknowledged systemic TCA taint coming from the winery environment? Whatever happened with that? Cos d’Estournel cited the need to deal with this as part of what Cos could bring to Montelena in terms of added value, to justify their plan to purchase the estate.
I shared the first of three at a small offline of like minded people, so it was not wasted. Hopefully, we will have a nice occasion to open the last two over the next couple of years while they are still in their prime. Thanks for the tasting note!
fwiw, last night this wine placed first against 11 other 2001 cabernet based wines - all of which were served blind. the competition included:
Leoville Barton
Leoville Poyferre
Dominus
Giscours
Cos d’Estournel
Tua Rita Giutso di Notri Toscana
Joseph Phelps Insignia
Pavie
Gemstone
Quilceda Creek
Lynch Bages
Barry, what does that mean? Is not Laube exposing the problem at Montelena a legitamate accomplishment? I think it is his finest hour. I don’t agree with very many of his wine opinions, but that does not detract from his work on this issue.
Great note.
One day I will set up a dinner amongst 6 people with all the same wine, each with a different storage history (recent sourced, on release, past retail, etc). There’s something to the ‘only great bottles’ thing.
This may be referring to Laube giving the wine 69 points, with no mention of TCA in his note.
As for Laube’s crusade against TCA, I’m right with you, Lewis. I think his hardline against systemic TCA issues is wonderful for the business, and his finest work. And for those that think he’s crazy, or his palate for TCA is bologne, know that he put it to the test and sent his samples to the lab after an enormous battle with Pillar Rock who denied the existence of taint at their winery. Pillar Rock lost at the lab.
That said, his notes on this Montelena are devoid of references to TCA. He bashes the wine for being herbal and green. It simply isn’t. Or at least the two bottles I had were not. Both were wonderful, and had very nice, rich, but not heavy or sappy fruit.
I also applaud Laube for his crusade against systemic TCA - and due to this, major changes have taken place at wineries worldwide to ensure that similar issues do not arise in the future. Cleaning regiments have changed altogether, and I think the industry is better off for it.
That said, I have yet to see anyone taste this wine and have any notes of TCA other than Laube. I know that he can detect TCA at very very low levels, but I have to believe others can as well . . . just an interesting aside.
As far as his not mentioning TCA in his notes, that is just plain wrong. He should have revised them at some point to note that - and perhaps he can be convinced to taste these again blind in the near future to see if he can still detect it . . .
Hmmm. I was not aware that Laube published TN’s on Montelena without reference to TCA. That is not right, I would tend to agree. It was he who surfaced the issue, and he lab tested numerous samples, and proved his point. And Montelena acknowledged the problem. But I guess that was later?
From Laube’s 2004 Article on TCA and Montelena, referring to the three things he thinks will happen in response to his article and “outing” of Montelena’s TCA issue:
First, many people will buy and taste the 2001 Montelena Cabernets and pronounce them perfectly drinkable. That’s because many people can only perceive TCA at high levels, or because the situation in which they tasted the wine masked rather than exposed the flaw. They may also have a vested financial interest.
Second, the debate over Montelena’s wines will continue for years. Some people will conclude the wines have systemic TCA, while others may dismiss the off flavors as due to bottle variation. It’s not as if bottle variation is new to the wine world. It’s been around as long as wine itself. The cause isn’t always clear. But it’s responsible, in my view, for people having entirely different experiences with what should be the same wine.
Finally, as Montelena cleans up its cellar, as it has pledged to do, it will be in position to make the greatest wines in its history. This TCA episode has been painful, no doubt, for the winery, and also for many who have spent considerable amounts of money on wines that have problems, irrespective of how seriously you view them. But the result may ultimately be better for both Montelena and for those of us who have long loved its wines.
Interesting to learn of/recall this stuff after drinking the wines. I will readily admit that I’m not the best on this board at picking our corked wines, but at the same time, I’m not a slouch either, and will often take note of flaws even at low levels. I can say with confidence that the first bottle I had was not contaminated with TCA. I suppose it’s a possibility that the second wine had some very low level of TCA, like 2 PPM or something, since it didn’t quite have the same level of fruit aromatics, and kicked off more cedar and sage. But who the hell knows.
Hard-edged dill and cedary oak precede this green, lean, herbal wine with gritty, chalky tannins. 7,800 cases made. –JL
Juxtaposed against Parker’s 96pt initial review
One might call the opaque purple-colored 2001 Cabernet Sauvignon Estate “locked and loaded.” Fashioned from a blend of 96% Cabernet Sauvignon and 4% Cabernet Franc (which saw about 25% new oak), it exhibits a tremendously pure, but tightly-knit bouquet of creme de cassis, leather, forest floor, minerals, and licorice. Dense, with layer upon layer of concentrated black fruits intermixed with spice and wood, it displays full body, great purity, low acidity, and a solid lashing of heavy duty tannin in the blockbuster finish. It’s great stuff, clearly the finest Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon since 1997, but patience will be essential. Anticipated maturity: 2009-2030.