Before I even get to the wines, as Keith and Kevin said, this was another brilliant showing from Panos Kakaviatos. He somehow makes it look easy to put together these incredible verticals and serve them perfectly over a great dinner. This dinner stood out even by Panos standards, both due to the terrific level of quality at Conseillante, the great setting at the French Embassy, and also Marielle Cazaux who besides being knowledgeable is a really warm, engaging, and down to earth person.
Someone above said that Conseillante is a consistent producer with “not much variation” from vintage to vintage. I wouldn’t say that’s true; it’s more that Conseillante has no bad vintages. This vertical included plenty of less celebrated and even “off” vintages like 1999, 2003 (on the right bank), 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2012. But not a single one was anything less than a good wine. The quality standard was clearly very high (and unfortunately prices are rising to match). At the same time, there was I thought quite a lot of vintage variation. The 2005 (my WOTN) was a towering, great wine that IMO stood far above vintages like 2003 or 2008, and even some of the very good vintages in the lineup like 2004/2006/2012 or even 2000. Kevin’s notes above are very good but I think his scores may not vary quite enough to express the quality range at least as I experienced it. The heights in this lineup were so high that very good wines, like e.g. the 1999 and 2004, were hard to pay attention to given some of the tremendous wines that surrounded them.
In terms of general impressions of Conseillante, what really stood out to me was a certain lightness and delicate touch to these wines, even in years where they were expressing considerable power. Years like 2005, 2009, 2010 had tremendous depth but still felt light on the palate. One thing I appreciated about this was that in “warm” vintages like 1990, 2009, 2015 the wines had a beautiful caramel/brown sugar sweetness without being in any way cloying or syrupy in the slightest. However, one downside to me was that in some of the more “tannic” years there was a bit of a sharp metallic edge to the finish for me, as if the wine did not have enough weight to buffer the tannins. That is probably just a matter of my palate as opposed to others, but for me it made e.g. the 2010 not as enjoyable right now as the 2009 or even the 2015. It led me to downgrade the 2000, 2008, and 2010 somewhat compared to some of the other vintages. They were just a little edgy and harsh for me in the finish, especially the 2008. But for me, 2005 was the vintage that really brought it all together – that perfectly ripe sweetness but also a deep, profound bottom note of black olive and dark coffee. Just fantastic intensity without the slightest harshness or edginess, especially after some time to warm up. Unfortunately, this wine is out of my price range, but I was very glad to have tasted it. It will age for decades but is very profound already and it would not be a waste to open now with proper decanting.
Some other vintages – 2007 really stood out, and in a good way, for a certain green / vegetal quality that other wines did not have. But that quality really worked when combined with the typical Conseillante sweetness, it became more of a really nice tobacco-y impression. Major success for Conseillante in one of the toughest vintages of the last two decades. I really loved 2009, more than 2010, for its sweetness and great texture. 2010 may surpass 2009 in the long run but for now, at least for my tastes, the finish is too tannic and the midpalate has not “relaxed” to show all its depth. I also enjoyed 2015, which I think is going to end up being rather like 2009.
As far as 1990 goes, I had never tasted this wine before so have nothing to compare it to, and it is certainly showing tertiary notes and browning a bit. But I thought it was fantastic, perhaps my third favorite of the night after the 2005 and 2009. It had a wonderful complexity with lots of truffles and incense but the fruit was still evident. If “aging rapidly” means drink it up within the next five years, then I guess I might agree as it’s hard to see it getting any better. But if it means that it is no longer a top quality wine then I would disagree as it was one of the highlights of the night for me.
By the way, Kevin gave a very good and accurate note on the 2003 above in saying that although there was good concentration, the wine left a “dull” impression and the fruit was flat. That to me is the 2003 vintage character, not excessive ripeness, but a failure to ripen properly in many cases and you could feel that here. At the same time it was a pretty good wine given the difficulties of the vintage on the right bank. For my taste the 2003 and 2008 were the worst wines in the lineup and I would still have been glad to have a bottle of either over dinner.
