More refined aromas than a bottle opened in 2010, still displaying a masculine side, but less broth and more black raspberry and nutmeg/spice elements. Great depth on the palate, such a serious and structured wine. One of the best wine values out there.
I did buy this wine frequently in past vintages and usually like it. A 2003 served blind recently alongside some 2003 Burgundies was identifiable as a Beaujolais and I liked it a lot as it was nicely fresh in light of the vintage, had aged gracefully and was well balanced. On the other hand, a recently drunk 2007 was mostly wishy-washy, had a slightly overripe two-days-before-rotting-plum note and simply didn’t appeal to me. I didn’t drink any of the 2009s yet and keep my hands off from the 2005s, too. 2004 and 2006 I left out.
I drank the 2011 over the past two nights. I’ve enjoyed the 2009 vintage more but the 2011 is still a good value.
3/20/2013 rated 88 points: Closed down on day one yielding little fruit on the palate. Lighter red fruits on the nose. Minerals on the palate. Good juiciness that I enjoy from Beaujolais in general. Opened on day two showing more of its fruited charm and depth. Hold remaining bottles for two years. Potential for a higher score down the road as well. (149 views)
It seems very early to be looking for the goods the 2010 and 2011 CT, or even the 2007. 2009 was an outlier in its layers and layers of baby fat, even for Beaujolais, and showed better young than usual. But this is a wine with a reputation for aging.