You’re not making me feel better 
!
I soldiered on and opened another 2009 tonight. Proper and right. Dark-berried but with plenty of acidity, tannins are there but not intrusive, some earthiness and herbal notes. Everything is in balance. Lovely drink; where were you last night?
7 Likes
Is it just me, or does it look like the estate went with larger bottles in 2010?
A wonderful tribute, You know I concur 100%.
Where I deviate is your last point. I’ve had some so-called off-bottles but never an awful bottle.
1 Like
You are a soldier. Big props. Glad it showed, I love the 2010but they need a lot of sleep.
So what Maggies are you popping?
I recently opened a ‘96 BAMA that was watery and insipid. Until Day #2. Then it blossomed into a fabulous bottle. Don’t pour any out until you’ve given them a better opportunity to shine.
- 1996 Château Bel Air-Marquis d'Aligre - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (1/26/2025)
Popped at cellar temp and followed through dinner and beyond. Wasn’t giving up much at all. Palate was thin and uninspiring. Left in the decanter overnight and poured it back in the bottle in the morning..
Night #2 and this has finally unwound. Color of fig jam and/or coffee, nose of stone fruit, leather, spice and cassis. Cassis transfers to the palate along with plum and tobacco leaf. I can’t get over the color, weight and structure change of this wine overnight. It’s like night and day. Tannins are chalky and fairly firm but the plum and acidity push through to balance things a bit. Note to self, 18hr decant or don’t bother.
Posted from CellarTracker
3 Likes
I think it’s just some distortion due to the wide angle lens. Perspective distortion - Wikipedia
1 Like
2002, 04, 05, 08, 10 and 11.
I tasted the faulty 05, 09 and 10 again last night and they were no better. Unfortunately, I didn’t get any 24h miracle.
1 Like
I’d start with the 2011, love its earthy minty freshness.
The 2008 and the 2005 need a ton of air. I know you want to drink them, I would actually tell you they need more time. Let me state it differently, they will benefit from more time. I did have the 2008 this year and the 2005 last year and enjoyed both very very much, but there’s so much more future promise to come from those incredible wines. I have not had the 2010. My 2010 and 2009 bottles will sleep for a while.
I like the 2004 very much. Not a blockbuster but a very elegant wine. I have not had the 2002.
Now, given that you hated everything else that I recommended above, lol, you should probably delete this posting as well. I have a yak palate and I’m proud of it!
1 Like
Thanks for the warning on the ‘05 as I have a couple laying down. Any experience with ‘86 or ‘70?
I had 2 bottles in Jan 2024:
Nasty corks on both bottles of this. The second bottle was even worse with the corked blackened as coal. But even though the were crumbly and a pain to get out, the seal still looked okay as the cork was stuck to the bottle neck.
Both of them showed very well with a decant and a short 15 minutes of air in the decanter. Deep garnet color. Fantastic nose of mature elegant St-Em. Red berries, plums, florals and assertive tertiary notes of worn leather, forest floor, tobacco. The palate is still lively due to the fine tanins that show up from mid-palate to finish. Medium acidity that carries the flavours to a meaty and mineral finish. Lip-smacking and serious at the same time. Both bottle showed the same.
2 Likes
The 86 is a solid B+ but doesn’t hit the heights of the 85. The 1970 is really fine, assuming great provenance. I’ve had some poor bottles as well.
I doubled-down on that 2005 and got a while case from one of MarkG’s contacts in England.
Agree, I’ve gone through a few 11s and they’ve all showed that cool root/herbal note. I had it as licorice but earthy minty conveys the similar thing. I’m sitting on a case+ of those still.
I had the 2008 in May and liked how it showed but noted it needed time or more air. I’m sitting on a few of those as well.
I had 2 bottles of 2002 last year: one showed okay but the other was spot on:
It showed so much better than the one we had 3 days ago. Plenty of red berries, spices, red flowers and leather. Elegant, delicate texture, fine acidity and a nice longish finish. Good one.
The 2004, I last had in 2023 and it was very good:
Clean and good! Nose of stewed red berries, bright florals and crushed stones. Fresh palate with bright red berries, bright fresh herbs, nice acidity and still lively fine tannins that hit the gums. Yummy.
I had the 2010 once but can’t find my notes but I didn’t touch my other bottles so I probably judged it needed time. 05, I’ve never had.
The back story here is that those bottles are not coming back to Canada with me. I’ve shipped some 04, 05, 08, 10 and 11 to Bretagne where I’ll enjoy them when we come back for summer vacation (passive cellar) but I’ve kept this small vertical to introduce some friends to these wines before I leave. Same thing I did with BAMA.
Ha! You’re right that I hate flawed bottles but I’ve drank enough good BAMA, SM or Magdelaine to know they’re in my wheelhouse.
1 Like
Thanks for that!
Straight from the Chateau so I’m assuming provenance is good. Thanks!
1 Like
Phew - at last a good bottle! Actually, I find that bad bottles are a bit like buses - you wait hours for one then three turn up at the same time. I had three flawed bottles in a row last night…different wines, different vintages, properly stored. Shit happens unfortunately.
2 Likes
I don’t understand the bus metaphor…
3 Likes
Need to have lived in London and used public transport!
Your local bus schedule says there is a bus coming every 15 mins. You wait at the bus stop for 30mins then three arrive at the same time. On “average” they come every 15mins. Everyone who has lived in London and used the buses has had this exact experience. Speaking from 1st hand experience!
Quite so, you beat me to it!! They probably don’t have buses in Florida, and Robert must be far quicker on his Simplon Pride with matching lycra kit, so there’s no way he would get a bus!