In my own personal notation, I use BAMdA for the wine and 'Bama for the hurricane-ravaged state, university, and football team.
I’ve been disappointed so far that no one else has jumped on the BAMdA train, though I recognize typing an additional letter, and a lower-case one at that, is a major effort. But at least over here there’s only three or four places that sell the stuff regularly, and about 10 people who post about it, so it shouldn’t be hard to gather critical mass.
I was distraught that the hurricane was gonna take out the historic BAMA Vineyards. We dodged a bullet there, a close one. Could have been as devastating as the phylloxera louse.
Doug, I suspect there will be a variety of opinions here, but I bet nobody here is guessing Rolland. To me they are not Margaux per se, but they are certainly idiosyncratic. Feminine. If served blind, I would probably not even guess bdx.
For me, it’s very much Margaux. It’s just the sort of Margaux that you read about in old books—floral, perfumed, elegant, fine-boned but concentrated and flavorful—rather than what one typically tastes today. We drank a bottle of the 1981 on Tuesday that was just exquisitely aromatic, for me clearly better than the Château Margaux of the same year.
I don’t think I’ve had a bad ‘81–a couple of Cordier’s and a Mouton have all been better than expected. That said, I tend to not want to open ‘81’s. I think I have it in the back of my head that I’m saving them for verticals at some point…Gruaud, PLL, and Trotanoy in particular. Here’s a bright idea that just occurred to me…maybe a horizontal would be more interesting? Also—I need to try this BAMA/BAMdA wine!
Spot on! I was only in short trousers in the 70s, but when I started buying wine in the 80s, I sought out wines from the late 60s and early 70s to see what a mature wine would taste like. When I opened a 2001 last year, it was like time travel, back to those wines - it reminded me of what Malescot used to taste like, for example. Bel Air Marquis d’Aligre is quintessential Margaux, it could come from nowhere else, but the taste profile is that of the past rather than the present.
This also explains why not everyone will like it. It simply tastes different to the Margaux we have grown used to since 1982: less sugar, no oak, less alcohol. All vintages I have seen are 12.5°, even 2010 (although the latter did taste as if it was a little more, and I suspect M.Boyer just puts 12.5° automatically!). The bouquet and taste are subtle and complex - there are notes of wild raspberry and strawberry alongside the cassis and blackberry, and the lack of oak allows a much greater freshness, but depending on the bottle, you can also find less attractive notes of caramel. It’s the polar opposite of streamlined, satin-tasting, super-concentrated wines. The lack of oak and extraction also means more transparency - you taste the terroir, literally - some bottles have earthy notes, some have rockier ones, all have that elegant dustiness that you still find in other Margaux today, but more of it.
Anyway, what I mean is that there isn’t a “right” or a “wrong” about liking or disliking Bel Air Marquis d’Aligre. Each to their own, but although the Chambers Street prices are higher than over here, the price of admission is not too bad so it’s worth a try.
Just a little cold water here… I am a big, big fan of old school, traditional Bordeaux that new world wine lovers usually find austere, hard, dirty, thin, charmless, etc. However, I tried a 2000 BAMA and while I liked it and would be a buyer if substantially cheaper, I didn’t think it merits its current tariff. Maybe the 2000 is too young and if it blooms later I’ll kick myself for passing on more, but the 2000 was a relatively hard, austere, and thin for my mileage. I’d rather buy Sociando or pre-2015 Lanessan or old vintages of Lagune and Cantemerle for cheaper, or pay a little bit more and get back vintages of Canon, Magdelaine and other 80’s claret.
Given my experience, I suggest trying one before loading up even if you are inordinately fond of outhouses in the Loire…
Always sage advice to try before you buy, especially if loading up. That said, your experience with the 2000 is much different than mine, and I’ve had about four over the last year. It’s excellent. Chock your experience, possibly, up to the old adage, “there are no great wines, just great bottles.” Ironically, my last experiences with both 2000 Sociando and 2000 Magdelaine were particularly unimpressive, but I know both did good things in this vintage. I’ve had
Many before.
Great bottle variability here, but all 3 2000 i have drank this year have been spot on. Not so much 95 or 96 where I have experienced more bottle variation.
Agreed. Have had 2/2 good experiences with the 2000. With the 1995, one bottle was not flawed in any obvious way but completely uninteresting, other was beautiful (light, “Burgundian”, for a Bordeaux, but that’s what I was going for anyway).