I was in the mood for Bordeaux, and this bottle was calling to me. I know it’s on the young side, but I figured that it had over 10 years on it, and the CT reviews were very positive. I figured what the hell. It didn’t quite scratch the itch. Here is my tasting note:
Big and young. This is not your parents’ Bordeaux, that’s for sure. The nose is all dark fruits- candied dark cherries, grape jelly, raspberry jam. All dark fruits and fancy oak in the mouth; it tastes like it smells.
Initially, this could be mistaken for a Napa Cab. Air brought out more of the Bordeaux characteristics. It took a good 3 hrs of decanter time before the emergence of graphite, cedar box, wet slate. Tannins are medium and refined. The finish is a bit short, but that can be forgiven since it’s on the young side.
This wine is high quality for sure, but not really my preferred style. It just feels too warm and fruity. Maybe it needs more time in the decanter or time in the bottle- I’m not sure. I have half the bottle left that I’ll try tomorrow and report back. The CellarTracker reviews are very positive, so maybe this just isn’t my style. But to me, this is sort of classic BDX and sort of big New World Cab; it makes me wish that I had one or the other instead of this, which is somewhere in between and feels like a compromise.
One thing that always interests me is that if a Napa cab tasted like a crossover between Napa and Bordeaux, that’s celebrated. If a Bordeaux does, it’s considered a bad thing (or worse).
I kind of prefer this direction, since wines like Malescot, Monbo and Lascombes cost multiples less than Napa cabs that have BDX crossover style.
Really interesting point. If it is the BDX esque Napa, it is terroir. If it is Napaesque BDX it is manipulation. Would make an interesting blind tasting cohort.
I have some of these, so Noah’s report is very helpful, though I expect that I would agree with him.
To Chris’ s point, I get you, but I don’t really think the two cases are equivalent, at least when it comes to Burgundy. When I buy and cellar Burg it’s for a particular experience that only these wines I believe offer. CA Pinot and to some extent Cab are already very varied among themselves; and when the former is more Burgundian, it often simply means it’s more complex and balanced than other Pinot’s, which is generally a good thing. I can also go for a Rochioli now and then, so even this isn’t chapter and verse and when it comes to Bordeaux, even less so. I’m not a purist like Alfert, though I appreciate and get his preference for the older style of wine. At the same time, I won’t anathematize, no less refuse, a richer Bordeaux, a la Leve, that’s well made.
Thanks for the note. I think this is the first TN I have seen (on this site) for this wine - could have easily missed it though. I have just one bottle and its not getting opened until 2026, so hopefully the additional sideways time will help and I will plan on giving it plenty of air too. Cheers!
I bought '09 and '10 after tasting both when the '10 was released and thought they were going to be great. Have not had the '10 recently, but I feel the same way as Noah about '09 at the moment. I would sit on them for a few years before trying.
This is a really good point, and something I haven’t thought much about until now. In the case of this particular tasting note, it’s just my personal taste preference, but you’re right that we tend to idolize New World wines that taste Old World and malign Old World wines that taste New World.
I doubt anyone has a definitive answer as to why this is the case, but I wonder if it has to do with the growing trend towards bigger, richer, more “New World” styles, aka Parkerization, of the past 20 years. The pendulum seems to be swinging back a bit, but we this is a trend that is occurring all over the world. There is a sense that New World is “supposed” to taste big and fruity, and so swinging farther in that direction is ok. A New World wine that tastes Old World is going against the tide of increasing ripeness, making it seem like the producer is independent, doesn’t care about scores, is in some way more true to their craft. Whereas Old World is “supposed” to be more restrained; old world wines that are big and fruity are not only “incorrect” to their region/terroir, but can be seen as pandering to fashions in pursuit of higher scores. It’s like a betrayal. I’m not saying I agree with any of this, but that sentiment seems to be going around.
As someone who is not all that enamored with tertiary development, I find that i love young Bordeaux and with Malescot in particular. I have gone thru my most of my 2015s and a couple of the 2016s. These are definitely big, juicy wines but i would never mistake them for Napa. There seems to be far more structured tannic backbone and acidity here as opposed to the soft and sometimes flaccid Napa versions.
No doubt, if what a consumer wants is wine which tastes like traditional Burgundy, or wine which tastes like traditional Bordeaux, he or she should buy that and drink that.
My comment was about the different emotional reaction WBers have about wines which seem to straddle new world and old world in style. It feels like the response is very different depending from which direction it arrived at that place.
Which isn’t any huge deal, it’s just something I noticed and felt like sharing.
I wonder if the palate-profiles of people who post here align with ‘typical’ drinkers of “premium wines”. Notwithstanding my tongue in cheek post above, I quite like Malescot for what it is a sort of crossover wine. It’s very useful for when we have people that are not traditional Bordeauxphiles. And a good price point.
And don’t forget what’s on the table is changing over time. How often is it a simple roast leg of lamb lightly herbed and seasoned minimal garlic? More likely a steak with highly seasoned rub and high octane wine reduction. Not sure which is chicken egg but changing food tastes I think parallel changing wine tastes.
Seems like they must have changed their style over the years. I had a 2000 about a year ago and it was terrific, very traditional and never would have described it as big. It is the only Malescot I have ever had so nothing to compare it to but definitely seems like things have changed there.
Ya, this wine has been a poster-child of what I do not like in the left bank, going modern like this. The Oracle, Keith, emailed me a couple years ago about the 2016, and after I read his glowing CT note, I almost bought it. But, I refrained after seeing he and Leve scored it the same. Is the pendulum swinging back with this estate?
Nay, that’s not what I meant, or thought, Robert,
You just take a pretty hard line when it comes to your Bordeaux. But I don’t know much about the estate, unfortunately. Just grabbed a few of the '09’s back in the day. Interesting about the intersection of Keith and Jeff, though. '16’s are the last Bordeaux I’ve bought.
Thanks Noah for this thread. Stimulated by the thoughtful comments I opened a bottle of the 2009 from the cellar to see how it showed. I was left the ‘Chuck Berry Teenage Wedding Thought’ ie ‘It Goes To Show You Never Can Tell’.
My wife’s immediate comment was ‘is this the 2013 Tua Rita Guisto di Nostri ?’. I had similar thoughts as it showed a distinct Suvereto nose and richness on the palate. With time the blue fruits and floral notes of Margaux became more apparent. Ultimately it tightened up to show more structure over time in the decanter but remained essentially a wine of the sun.
At the finish my thoughts are this a delicious wine that at this stage of its evolution shows quality and breeding albeit leaning more to the Tuscan structure than Bordeaux but then again you never can tell ! I doubt this will fall in a heap like some St Emillons of modern times but suspect the terroir will declare itself rather like many of the best 1982 Margaux that I cut my vinous teeth on. I will enjoy finding out !
![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}