I served this in a brown-bag tasting. The wine poured ahead of this – a 1990 Ch. Montus - Madiran - Cuvee Prestige – tasted like what I expected from the syrah: a bit reduced, a bit backward and pretty tannic. I asked my friend if he might have accidentally picked up my decanter and served my wine but he assured me he’d poured the right bottle.
When it came my turn to pour, it was clear there was no mix-up.
This has some tough tannins out of the gate, but a lot of sweet plum/ripe black cherry in the nose. The fruit was clearly from the New World, though thankfully there was nothing candied. Fairly extracted, with oodles of fruit, but a little disjointed notwithstanding an hour or more of decanting. (To be fair, I’d carried this on foot about 20 blocks, so there may have been some stirred up sediment.) The tannins seemed to soften a bit with time in the glass. The finish pulled up the rear with some ripe, sweet black fruits.
This would have shown better with red meat instead of the ham and salami we had. Still, it showed its Sonoma roots more than I expected; it was exuberant when I was expecting more reserve. It’s a very nice wine and I’m not unhappy to a have a couple more bottles. I’ll make sure it’s matched better with food the next time. 88-90 points on this occasion.
I’d be more interested in this tasting note if John actually existed.
Seriously, can you tell me more about the Montus Madiran? I love that wine, but have never had a 1990 or one nearly that old. My sense is that they should age for a very long time.
Thanks, Chris, for saving me from having to bump this thread. That was kind of you.
That was probably the best Madiran I’ve ever had, which is somewhat damning with faint praise. I had a friend who was into Madiran in the late 90s and organized several tastings with older ones. They certainly do hold up with long aging, but I never found them that scintillating.
The 1990 was a pleasant, big but balanced wine. It had a little reduction, as I said, but that wasn’t an issue for me. It’s pretty four-square, though – not a lot of complexity or elegance. To me it was a bit generic: It didn’t have a particular varietal or regional signature. Perhaps I’d find other vintages more to my tastes. I find many 1990s from other regions of France and Italy a bit simple and straightforward in a similar way.
I’m not John and I haven’t had a Montus quite that old, but a 1994 I had last year surpassed my expectations, and this was for the basic, not the cuvee prestige.
Sorry the Parmalee didn’t show as well as the one I opened for you way back when in the cellar. I’m still holding my 2005s with the possible exception of the WF which, while still going very strong, has been drinking deliciously all along.
While I am generally not a fan of gratuitous Parker bashing, it is worth noting that he thought the 2005 ESJ Parmalee Hill was light bodied and elegant, and is now over the hill by his estimation.
