Notes taken December, 2005:Nothing exceeds like excess – that said, this tasting was more focused than most, really exploring the signatures of Chateaus Palmer and Montelena. I think the net/net is where we figured we would net out – I have become one of the scores of “Palmer Heads”. While I have always appreciated the wine, this tasting really succeeded in detailing why this wine is so good – and in great vintages it is ethereal. And Montelena is nothing if not consistent. A very obvious signature. Honestly, the wines showed marked improvement in the 90s from the 80s, probably thanks to better wine making tools and technique. I am glad I started buying their wines in 1991.
1st flight: Getting our sea legs. All 3 wines were surprisingly concentrated given their age. Wine one was elegant and perhaps the most fragile of the 3. Mature color to the rim, red fruit, cigar box, cassis, minerals. Really, super good, nice grip, with decent length. With time in the glass more pronounced vanilla and hazelnut. I thought Palmer, turned out to be the 82 Margaux. Wine 2 was lovely as well, a bit darker in color, I thought it suffered from some TCA on the nose. Still… perfumed, violets and black fruit. Integrated on the palate, perhaps a bit thinner than wine one, furry tannins on the finish makes the loss in the mid palate more pronounced. Still, very good. It was the 82 Montelena from magnum. Last wine was dynamite. Also showing a mature color, and red fruit, and tar on the nose, it had a more concentrated crème de cassis thing going on, some cream and pronounced tobacco. I thought this wine was more muscular than wine 1 and so guessed Margaux. Turned out to be 83 Palmer. Most liked wine 3, than 2 than 1, I think. At least I did!
2nd flight: 1st wine was pure elegance. Beautiful red and blackberry fruit, autumnal, tobacco and licorice. Thick full palate, perfectly integrated. Fool me twice, shame on me. It was the 85 Palmer. Wine 2 was something of a dud. Way overripe, stewed fruits and soy, rasiny and blown out. Maybe a bad bottle, but these elements persisted across multiple bottles, in a more integrated way, throughout the Montelena vertical. This was the 85 Montelena. The sleeper of the flight was the 86 Laurel Glen, which was fabulous. Black fruit, mint and yes, forest bottom. Palate coating, great mouthfeel. A bit of heat on the finish tells me this is probably ready to go. Great wine. I flip flopped the LG and the Montelena out of respect for Monti, never again. I think the consensus was 3,1,2.
3rd flight: Some really good wines here as well. Wine 1 was on the softer side nose wise, but showed excellent structure underneath. A little bit more brooding, it offered sweet and minty black fruit, some chalk, lead pencil and cedar which told me Paulliac. It was the 89 Pichon Lalande. Very sexy. Love this wine. Wine 2 had the signature “raisinette” (to quote Bill Rogers) chocolate, raisins and a touch of soy. Firm, complex, still seems youthful. 87 Montelena. The 3rd wine offered solid color and structure, was perhaps more floral and perfumed than other vintages, great balance and integration with sweet tannins on the finish. Again, an incredibly elegant glass of vino. 89 Palmer. Not sure of the table order, mine was 1 and 3 neck and neck, then 2.
Into the 90s we go…
1st flight: Wine 1: Wow! Great wine. Dark and brooding. Still showing the chocolate and raisin thing, but much more depth and concentration, adding minerals and a licorice like element to the fruit. Fantastic. I have always liked this wine and drank too much of it early on. Couldn’t stay away. 1991 Montelena. Wine 2 showed a garnet/almost ruby color, very good extraction, church incense, tobacco, rose petal and jammy red fruit. Wonderful integration and yes, elegance. 1990 Palmer. Wine 3 was for me best in flight. Solid, dark red/purple. Mocha, earth, espresso bean, red fruit. A St. Julien like signature and palate – but since there was non I knew it was the 90 Dominus. Here, finally, the Palmer seemed a bit outclassed by the rivals.
2nd flight: Wine 1 was really, really good. Opulent, mocha and red fruit (seems like there is a lot of Merlot in this wine), bramble and some iodine. Deep, complex, stunning palate. The merlot gives the 95 Pahlmeyer away. Nice bottle. Wine 2 was deep purple, consistent through to the rim. More chocolate and black fruit, much less of that stewed fruit/soy thing, floral and cedar. Lovely wine fine tannins, great balance and integration. The 1996 Montelena shows a marked improvement in my book and I am confident it will cellar well. The 1995 Palmer was particularly good. Great concentration of minerals, red fruit and tobacco, maybe more perfumed cigar box. Big, firm tannins, amazingly young, I am glad I have a bunch of this wine and will leave it in the cellar for a while. Hard to judge ranking here, they were all wonderful.
3rd flight: The 99 Palmer was fantastic. A bit of a sleeper I think. Thick, licorice like fruit on the palate. More black fruit than red, mocha, tobacco and some bramble. Wow. Very young and very good. The 1997 Montelena was also very good. It showed great depth, again mocha and raisins but also black fruit and much better complexity and integration. Big structure without losing balance, a very nice wine as well. I thought the 1996 was better. The 99 Margaux again had me thinking Palmer. Perfumed, maybe a bit feminine, nice red fruit and mocha with some autumn leaves and cigar box. Very nice wine that will probably drink a little earlier than others but still offers great grip and length. I would/will buy more of the 99 Palmer - in fact maybe I’ll sell the 97 Montelena and pay for it that way! Easy choice, 1 then 3 then 2.
I forgot the mystery wine. It turned out to be the 2000 Falesco Montiano. Italian Merlot (100%)! Made in the Lazio region, not a region we think of as wine producing. To me it was very new world, lots of purity of forward fruit, not a lot of structure, very “international” in it style. I didn’t get the mocha element, instead thinking it almost more blueberry. I guessed Grenache. A very, very nice glass of wine…but not what I think of when I think Italy.
1st flight: Getting our sea legs. All 3 wines were surprisingly concentrated given their age. Wine one was elegant and perhaps the most fragile of the 3. Mature color to the rim, red fruit, cigar box, cassis, minerals. Really, super good, nice grip, with decent length. With time in the glass more pronounced vanilla and hazelnut. I thought Palmer, turned out to be the 82 Margaux. Wine 2 was lovely as well, a bit darker in color, I thought it suffered from some TCA on the nose. Still… perfumed, violets and black fruit. Integrated on the palate, perhaps a bit thinner than wine one, furry tannins on the finish makes the loss in the mid palate more pronounced. Still, very good. It was the 82 Montelena from magnum. Last wine was dynamite. Also showing a mature color, and red fruit, and tar on the nose, it had a more concentrated crème de cassis thing going on, some cream and pronounced tobacco. I thought this wine was more muscular than wine 1 and so guessed Margaux. Turned out to be 83 Palmer. Most liked wine 3, than 2 than 1, I think. At least I did!
2nd flight: 1st wine was pure elegance. Beautiful red and blackberry fruit, autumnal, tobacco and licorice. Thick full palate, perfectly integrated. Fool me twice, shame on me. It was the 85 Palmer. Wine 2 was something of a dud. Way overripe, stewed fruits and soy, rasiny and blown out. Maybe a bad bottle, but these elements persisted across multiple bottles, in a more integrated way, throughout the Montelena vertical. This was the 85 Montelena. The sleeper of the flight was the 86 Laurel Glen, which was fabulous. Black fruit, mint and yes, forest bottom. Palate coating, great mouthfeel. A bit of heat on the finish tells me this is probably ready to go. Great wine. I flip flopped the LG and the Montelena out of respect for Monti, never again. I think the consensus was 3,1,2.
3rd flight: Some really good wines here as well. Wine 1 was on the softer side nose wise, but showed excellent structure underneath. A little bit more brooding, it offered sweet and minty black fruit, some chalk, lead pencil and cedar which told me Paulliac. It was the 89 Pichon Lalande. Very sexy. Love this wine. Wine 2 had the signature “raisinette” (to quote Bill Rogers) chocolate, raisins and a touch of soy. Firm, complex, still seems youthful. 87 Montelena. The 3rd wine offered solid color and structure, was perhaps more floral and perfumed than other vintages, great balance and integration with sweet tannins on the finish. Again, an incredibly elegant glass of vino. 89 Palmer. Not sure of the table order, mine was 1 and 3 neck and neck, then 2.
Into the 90s we go…
1st flight: Wine 1: Wow! Great wine. Dark and brooding. Still showing the chocolate and raisin thing, but much more depth and concentration, adding minerals and a licorice like element to the fruit. Fantastic. I have always liked this wine and drank too much of it early on. Couldn’t stay away. 1991 Montelena. Wine 2 showed a garnet/almost ruby color, very good extraction, church incense, tobacco, rose petal and jammy red fruit. Wonderful integration and yes, elegance. 1990 Palmer. Wine 3 was for me best in flight. Solid, dark red/purple. Mocha, earth, espresso bean, red fruit. A St. Julien like signature and palate – but since there was non I knew it was the 90 Dominus. Here, finally, the Palmer seemed a bit outclassed by the rivals.
2nd flight: Wine 1 was really, really good. Opulent, mocha and red fruit (seems like there is a lot of Merlot in this wine), bramble and some iodine. Deep, complex, stunning palate. The merlot gives the 95 Pahlmeyer away. Nice bottle. Wine 2 was deep purple, consistent through to the rim. More chocolate and black fruit, much less of that stewed fruit/soy thing, floral and cedar. Lovely wine fine tannins, great balance and integration. The 1996 Montelena shows a marked improvement in my book and I am confident it will cellar well. The 1995 Palmer was particularly good. Great concentration of minerals, red fruit and tobacco, maybe more perfumed cigar box. Big, firm tannins, amazingly young, I am glad I have a bunch of this wine and will leave it in the cellar for a while. Hard to judge ranking here, they were all wonderful.
3rd flight: The 99 Palmer was fantastic. A bit of a sleeper I think. Thick, licorice like fruit on the palate. More black fruit than red, mocha, tobacco and some bramble. Wow. Very young and very good. The 1997 Montelena was also very good. It showed great depth, again mocha and raisins but also black fruit and much better complexity and integration. Big structure without losing balance, a very nice wine as well. I thought the 1996 was better. The 99 Margaux again had me thinking Palmer. Perfumed, maybe a bit feminine, nice red fruit and mocha with some autumn leaves and cigar box. Very nice wine that will probably drink a little earlier than others but still offers great grip and length. I would/will buy more of the 99 Palmer - in fact maybe I’ll sell the 97 Montelena and pay for it that way! Easy choice, 1 then 3 then 2.
I forgot the mystery wine. It turned out to be the 2000 Falesco Montiano. Italian Merlot (100%)! Made in the Lazio region, not a region we think of as wine producing. To me it was very new world, lots of purity of forward fruit, not a lot of structure, very “international” in it style. I didn’t get the mocha element, instead thinking it almost more blueberry. I guessed Grenache. A very, very nice glass of wine…but not what I think of when I think Italy.
No comments:
Post a Comment