TN: Chateau Montrose with Mr. Herve Berland

WINE TALK
3

Great notes, Kevin–many thanks! Truly annoyed that I couldn’t join the festivities. Had hoped for reports on the '96, '01 and '04, but was very pleased at the assessment of the '05s, of which I have a number. Very surprised to see that the '01 Rieussec was sleeping, but it’s been quite a few years since last I opened one.

4

Sounds like a terrific day and tasting. I own cases of 09 & 10 Montrose and just have to live long enough!

5

What fun that sounds like! Shocked about the 76. Very interesting read

6

Superb notes Kevin. [cheers.gif]

Bottle variation a factor and I recall tasting two really good 1990s out of the four. The one at our table was quite youthful as you wrote which was good, too. I guess we had the best of the 1989s, because it was darn tasty at our table. I think it was Paul’s, because a particularly pristine bottle of 1989. Anyway, bravo to 1990. I must say it was the best experience I have ever had with that vintage. And provenance does not always mean that ex-chateau is great. The first time I ever tried 1990 was ex chateau and is smelled like horse shit! And that is what the then director had said, back in 2004.

As for the other vintages, I agree with you on the 2000. What a great wine in the making. I was a bit apprehensive about it, given the fact that about six years ago at Vinexpo in a side by side tasting with 2008, then a young and very tasty pup, the 2000 came across as acidic, closed and bordering on pinched on the finish. Sure enough, it was a phase, and as Herve Berland said, the 2000 is now at a stage where the switch has been turned “on” for just the beginning of a soon to be drinking window that should only get better. Having said all that, I agree with you about the 2008: an underrated wine in many ways. So precise. And although we double, double decanted, it was still quite youthful and closed. However, the precision and brightness paired very well with that zesty terrine we had for the starter. I was - as you - a bit less compelled by the 2012 (although still very very good!), but chalked it up to sheer Kindermort (or baby killing). It was to some extent at this stage more a glass of acidity and tannin, as Ken Brown remarked :wink:.

I really enjoyed the 1995 Montrose especially for the pairing, but I think the 2008 is a superior wine for the long haul.

What can one say about 2010? Amazing wine. Such vivacity tied with substance. As you wrote, weightlessness and intensity. Perhaps overall my very favorite of the evening (at least for future drinking, by the time I will be 60 for an early drinking window), but the 2009 comes close. Why? It had such sumptuous juiciness, it was so damn endearing. The acidity was there, as well. Just a delicious lip smacking wine with sophistication of course. And, for me, a better version of the 2003, as the 2009 had more blue fruit coolness by comparison. But as far as 2003s go, Montrose may have just the best wine in that vintage, outside Latour (?).

Agree with you on the 2005. It is really looking amazing, if somewhat closed but indeed “bold” and full of fantastic elements that just need another five years to start coming together fully.

I really liked the 1976! It was as you described Kevin. Some bottle variation, as I think our table had a less optimal bottle, but it was still yummy. Alas, my pour on the 1970 was small. I was talking too much when servers came around and my glass was not there! But when I was tasting from bottles, before dinner, the wine was quite perfumed and savory on the palate. One of the four bottles was gone completely, like a bunch of old mushrooms which we of course discarded.

As for the 1980s, I was most charmed by the softness and elegance of the 1985. The 1986 showed more power, but to drink, I preferred the 1985. The 1982s were a bit problematic. One of the three mags was clearly corked. The other one was borderline, which we decided to pour, but thankfully we had a clean bottle which was good but not great shakes. The only other time I had a 1982 was at the home of Bernard Burtschy from a regular bottle, and it was similar in profile to the good bottle we had at the dinner.

All in all loads of fun, and showing, as Kevin wrote, the glacial pace of maturity of Montrose. And you know, I rather like that. When you spend good money on high quality Bordeaux, you want the wine to last a looooooong time. Montrose does. [dance-clap.gif]

And indeed, many thanks to the restaurant for a fine showing of the cuisine, service and glasses. It was a tall order and they more than lived up to it. And, of course, to Chateau Montrose for supplying the wines.

7

Great event as usual. You really got a sense of the Montrose personality from one year to the next - dark red/black fruit, some Pauillac-like cedar shavings, sometimes a bit of smoke or ash, and seriously muscular tannins.

The 1990 was epic. One of the greatest Bordeaux I’ve ever had and certainly the youngest Bordeaux I’ve ever had to knock my socks off to that degree. RP100 back when that actually meant something - and tough to argue with that rating.

'76 seemed to me like a good case study in provenance. Wouldn’t be surprised if it was brown and tired if you found a bottle on a US auction site, but from chateau stock it was still bright ruby colored and fresh.

The 2003 was particularly interesting to me because I remember all the excitement around this during the en primeurs and after release and was expecting something cranked to 11 and Port-like - it may indeed have been cranked to 11 but the flavors were in line with the other young vintages, not jammy or Port-like at all (nor harshly tannic like so many of the less successful '03s). I had the word “Bigfoot” in my notes. But I’d be very happy to own some of this.

Herve alluded to some modernized techniques since the new owners took over, specifically calling the 2005 an “old-fashioned style of extraction” or words to that effect, but I can’t say I would have been able to discern that from what we tasted. There seemed to be strong style continuity and the tannins of the recent wines certainly aren’t built for early accessibility.

8

Great evening. Thanks for pulling this together Panos. A very successful evening and Montrose showed quite well in DC!

I thought the flight of 2005, 1990, 1989, 1976 was the flight of the evening. I was expecting the 89 to Trump (sorry couldn’t resist) the 90 but this bottle of 90 was exceptional. So sweet and pure without the issues associated with changing a diaper. If you find a bottle that has not been hit by the S-Storm you are blessed and rewarded with a wine that has an amazing long life ahead of it IMHO. The 76 was a fine example of a fully matured and resolved wine. I can’t say that I have ever had the wine before, but like Keith, would expect it to be over the hill and not enjoyable. This was NOT the case last night.

I loved 2005, 2000, 2010. I was not as big a fan of the 2009. I found it a bit flabby and lacking structure. The 03 was good, not the roasted mess that people thought or concentrated, overly hot, exotic Cali cab wannabe that others claimed. I will be interested to see how the 03 continues to evolve. Other than the 76, the most surprising wine for me was the 98. I thought it had balance and a lovely combination of cassis and cedar that I was not expecting. I love many of the right bank 98’s and HB made a killer wine that year as well. I would be happy to own the 98 Montrose.

The meal was first rate and service at such an event is always difficult but the team at Ripple did a fine job.

9

Thank you Panos for setting up another wonderful tasting. I was impressed with how consistently good the wines were. They were of a very consistent style.

I was very impressed with the 2008 and 1998 from less heralded vintages. Beautiful balance on these wines. I also was very impressed with the 2000 and the 1995. I have generally liked 1996s (which we did not have) more than 1995s, which I often find too soft. But this was a very impressive 1995. Excellent wine.

I very much preferred the 1985 to the 1986, which tasted a bit funky to me. The 1985 was the second excellent 1985 I have had in the last six months of so. This one was really good, but not in the same class as the 1985 Leoville las Cases I had last fall.

I really liked the 2010 and 2005. I thought both of these were real highlights of the night. I liked both of these more than the 2009, which had less acidity and tasted less fresh to me than the other two.

Interestingly, I had the 1989 and 1990 together a couple of years ago and really preferred the 1989. This time, I thought the 1990 was much the superior wine. I think that the 1990 was not that much different (maybe a bit better this time) but the 1989 I had this time was nowhere near as good as the 1989 I had previously. I think it teaches all of us to not make definitive judgments based on one tasting of a wine.

Finally, I am amazed by how well 1970s are doing these days. Right now, more them seem fresh than do 1982s!!! The 1982 Montrose was very good, but I thought the 1970 was better. Certainly, back at the time of 1970 there were fewer really good producers than today or even in 1982. But for producers who were on their game at the time, this is just a truly great and I think underrated vintage.

Then, a real shout-out to Ripple. They have a lot of new people there and I know a lot of us wondered what would happen to quality. Well, this is the third big wine tasting I have been to there this months and all three were home runs. In food and service. Great job.

10

Alan,

I agree on all these wines. Great job.

It was great to catch up with you. It has been a while.

11

Cheers Keith and Howard and Alan! Thanks for chiming in! Next year, it may well be a Saint Julien coming to town.
And I must say, too, that the 1998 was better than expected. Not such a great vintage for the Medoc in general, and I recall not liking very much the Pichon Baron 1998 a few years ago, for example, but, hey, Montrose did a really fine job in 1998, as we tasted. I liked the 2009 more than Alan and Howard, but chalk it down to gustibus non disputandum est. :slight_smile:

12

Great notes everyone. Routinely a favorite chateau of mine, so it’s great to read all the positive notes (not all that surprising, though). I think it’s time to beef up my 2008 inventory.


Panos’ events were always a favorite of mine…glad they’re still going strong!

13

Cheers Matt.
Need to get to Chicago one of these days.

14

Some of this is a matter of taste. Pretty consistent, Panos, when I taste with you I think I like wines with more acidity while lower acidity does not bother you as much. For example, you liked the Richebourg earlier this month much more than I did, while I liked the Chambertin more than you did.

15

Was there any discussion of the quality or character of the 2014?

16

Yes there was. Having tried both the 2015 and 2014 side by side in October last year, I found that consumers would get a better QPR from the 2014. Over 50% of the harvest was used to make the first wine in 2014. Under 40% was used to make the first wine in 2015, which was a more challenging vintage. Herve pointed out that 2014 has a bit more Merlot in the blend, making it seem softer, while the 2015 has a more traditional blend. Both are very good, but 2014 strikes me as a bit more effortless in a good sense while 2015 has some just slightly more raw tannins… It is important to note that rains fell at not the best time in the northern Medoc in 2015, which was not a problem in 2014 (and also not a problem in 2016). And that 2015 is more expensive than 2014. But we did not have/try either for the dinner.

17

2000 my 2016 wine of the year. Great bottle on New Years Eve. My notes very similar to yours.

18

Monstrose is King. Thanks for the notes, Kevin. Definitely one of my all-time faves. Gotten a bit pricey but hard to argue with the quality.

19

It’s cheaper than Dominus [wow.gif]

20

Isn’t Monstrose bigger, oakier and with higher alcohol than Montrose. neener

21

LOL, but apropos typo, eh?!

22

[welldone.gif] isn’t Monstrose a garargiste wine from St. Emilion?