Oh yea is this baby drinking well and smack in my wheelhouse! The Figeac of old, not the new stuff.
Absolutely gorgeous nose of rich dank earth, Maduro tobacco leaf, brambly dark fruits and some saddle leather. A hint of mint. Mouthfeel is broad, in impeccable balance, showing deep dark fruits with firm acid, wet earth tones, meat and some savory, briny notes. While the wine is perfectly ripe for my palate, shows a very subtle note of green, an herbaceous background that Figeac often shows, definitely more so in vintages like 99, 01 and 04. The whole package is framed by aged barn planks, adding a soft, subtle oak spice to the wine. Tannins close to fully integrated. This wine was just one small baby step above the 2000 Trotanoy that I had on Thursday. (96 pts.)
PS. With a showing like this, makes one wonder why such a grand estate would have brought in Rolland around 2012. The wines started getting 99s and 100s by Leve for 2015 and 2016, while he rated this glorious 1998, a 91. I bought both of those vintages but have not tried them yet.
Agreed, 98 right bank is fire. Have had Figeac, Trotanoy, VCC, l’Evangile, Magdelaine and a few others over the past year. All major standouts. The 98 Trotanoy is a jaw-dropper.
Yes, I had a ‘98 Trotanoy running neck to neck with ‘96 Masseto in one lunch last year. I also think ‘98 Trotanoy is better than ‘98 Tertre Roteboeuf and ‘98 Figeac.
I agree with you Figeac 1998 is superb and Trotanoy is a hair better. And 1998 on the Right Bank may be the best vintage there since 1982.
The answer to your Rolland question is a little more complex and is a product of bad timing, family politics and the very obvious wish that the chateau be promoted to GC A alongside Cheval and Ausone. When Figeac was left behind while Angelus and Pavie were promoted, It resulted in a change of management and introduction of Rolland.
The bad timing was the 2012 classification mirrored Parker scores at a time when Parker and his influence was waning. The simplistic view, you want good scores, hire Rolland.
I see why you like it more than I did. I personally do not fine enough depth here for greatness, which is why in 98, I prefer other Saint Emilion and Pomerol wines.
But you’re right, the wines coming from Figeac today blow my mind. They are crazy good !!!
You will like it more with age. Me too. But I like tasting wines young. I find it interesting as well as fun and pleasurable. Though most of my friends do not appreciate wines this young. However a few do get the quality and have bought them based on how well they showed…
I saved about 1/4 bottle since I was drinking solo. Gosh is it on fire right now. Reminds me more of the 1990, taking on even more rich dark wet soil tones. This is a magnificent wine.
Great stuff Robert, and you know I also lament the loss of yet another old school right bank classic. Unlike Canon and Magdelaine, I didn’t load up on Figeac before the train left the station and now backfilling Figeac is stoopid money. So thread like is are all the more painful to the bank account.
Not the 98, but a bunch of BWEers enjoyed a miraculously good magnum of the 95 Figeac in October which totally crushed it, besting for many of us in the room lots other famous chateau (eg two brilliant but oh so young bottles of 2000 Haut Brion and La Mission Haut Brion, the 89 Lynch, the 89 Palmer, etc). Sounds like the 98 is even better!
My recent purchase of some 98 Figeac have been resting in my cellar at 55F for 6 weeks now… time to try one? Is it in the zone with a good decant or does it need another 5 years to really peak?
Yes, but decant it for two hours first. Killer bottle, and to me better than Cheval in '98. But, given the elevated Cabernet presence, that wouldn’t have been self-evident young.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}