1989 and 1996 are the two standouts for me.
I had a very odd bottle a few years ago. It was a 2013 Cantemerle, which I bought for “scientific purposes” for a whopping $20 at K&L. I fully expected it to be awful and to use it for cooking or just pour it down the drain.
Shockingly, it was a really decent wine, which I thoroughly enjoyed over a couple of days. It far exceeded my very low expectations.
I loved the 83 and 89, and got through a case of the 96. Like others I am seeking the next great vintage.
1 Like
2010 won high praise on the BWE board.
1 Like
So did Tour St. Christophe which I heard was their Wine of the Year! 
2000 and maybe 2005? Although I did buy some 2019, I think
I think you have accurately described Cantemerle for just about every vintage. I bought it a few times as futures, back in 2000 and later, but it’s never a really exciting wine. Competent but not thrilling.
4 Likes
Cantemerle is not a big ol WOW wine. Cantemerle is a classic claret. If you don’t understand that or are looking for a wow wine, that is big, and wild…DO NOT buy Cantemerle. It is a classic claret!
1 Like
Cantemerle can be a wow wine though John, the 83,89 and 96 were magnificent, I just keep looking for the next vintage that’s as good.
1 Like
Probably where I am on the wine. My taste was a little under 3 years ago (from a full vs. 375):
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
“The 2010 got re-released here a little while ago for something like $100 US (which in Ontario is pretty good). I picked up a bottle and had it at a cottage a number of months ago. Still very sturdy, but classically drawn and was enjoyable for what it presented. No doubt a few more years will be all to the good.”
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Another 375 of this, 9 months on from the last. I think this has resolved a little, cleaner and more focused than the previous one. I have a little more hope that this could yet come together. **** or 92 which is up a notch.
4 Likes
12 months on, not much nose, just a sweet chestnut note.
Mulberry fruit with cedar notes. The acidity is a bit prominent. Still rich and supported by tannin.
Completely drinkable but feels like it has a good decade ahead. ****.
Edit, over a couple of hours this becomes bigger and fuller, definitely a long life ahead.
4 Likes
Is that a Senejac in the background? I remember that being a top performing Cru Bourgeois in 2010.
1 Like
You are correct sir, its the 2015, which is fine but not in the same league as the 2010. I have already tried the 2016 which is somewhere between the two and is about ready.
Pretty classic stuff for a big ripe vintage like 2010. More structured than 2009, and seemingly with miles to run. This wine still shows very youthfully.
7 Likes
Much easier to drink than the 2009 Robert. I am hopeful it will find equilibrium, but not certain.
I was very bullish on 2010 Cantermerle when I tried it soon after release, thinking it could ultimately match or surpass the 1989 as the best ever…but it seems to have shut down hard and I got no joy out of my last encounter a couple of years ago when it was charmless, graceless and backward.
I suspect it needs a minimum of five years.
Last night I opened a 2010 Poujeaux fearing it too might be awkward, out of sorts … and modern. And while it was modern, it was brilliant, with perfectly ripe berry fruit and laser like focus. I know the two are not directly comparable but I suspect the Cantemerle just needs patience.
2 Likes
I haven’t had the 2010 Poujeaux, but we drank the 2014 yesterday and it was elegant and delightful.
Also in 2005.