Sell it to your friends!
It has those properties right now, in this pandemic…
I have been buying a good number of 2016s recently, including Montrose. There seems to be a rare consensus among critics–everyone from the classicists to the big scorers love them. Everyone from Parker, to Neal Martin and Galloni, to Jancis Robinson all think they are great.
At 35, I am hoping 2016 will be the biggest vintage holding around which to really build by cellar. I hope they turn out!
I’ve always had a soft spot for Montrose; a bottle of the still wonderful 1989 was the first great wine I ever drank and the eye opener for me.
This evolution is not inevitable. Though I was never a big oak guy, I have become much more AFWE since I passed 60. I’m due for 70 in 3 months, so maybe I’ll make a sudden turnaround, but I doubt it.
I know a number of people who go the other direction, away from the big oak and fruit bombs, some developing more and more taste for sharply etched wines…
One of my all time favorites, that ‘89!
LOL. Sometimes you just need a little faith!
The '89 was great, so bright and penetrating as I recall. Different profile than the 2016 I would say…
I’ll have to open a 16 to see what I can get from it. Understood, regarding the different styles. Thanks for the note.
Still going to be better in 20 years, and basically a very different beast. But just as the critics taste these wines young, it is interesting at least to see what they look like at this stage. You can ask yourself whether you would have called this wine the same as the critics out there.
Other than that, the 2016 Montrose seems a no-brainer for a purchase if you think you will be drinking wine in 20 years or so.
My prediction is that in the future, Robert will just prefer more pungent weeds.
Anyway, if you guys don’t taste it, you will never know that Montrose is the new Chateau Margaux. Or only Patrick will know in 20 years because it was smart enough to buy it. About right for the northern drift of climate change, even if the soils are not identical…