Wine Musings Vol#83

Wine of Merit: ****+Ridge, Montebello vineyard, Santa Cruz Mountains, cabernet sauvignon, 1996: A definitive Montebello. I have had this wine a number of times but never better than right now. Wonderfully layered, nuanced, complex…a meal in a glass. Elements of broad leaf tobacco, grilled meats, blood, iron, camphor, mature plum and red fruits, truffle. Wild, montrose-like qualities. Full, concentrated palate adds more plum and Indian spices. Full on finish…but everything is packaged perfectly. As good a Montebello as the 1991 and a wonderful treat to drink or hold.

****+Chateau Grand Puy Lacoste, Estate, Paulliac, 1996: Wow. Just a dynamite wine. Powerful, vibrant. Yes, traditional Paulliac elements of black and blue fruits, graphite, menthol, minerals. Cassis. Cedar. Pipe Tobacco. But this one has a perfect suppleness to it, a finely toned musculature that just ripples. Huge palate adds licorice root, more minerals and church incense. Perfect integration with a bottomless finish. After a few sips I no longer felt like I was tasting this wine…it was more like watching a great athlete on the field of play. Big Ups.

****Dunn, Howell Mountain, cabernet sauvignon, 1996: Fabulous purity and focus. Deep, blue black berry fruit, cassis, dusty, crushed chalk. Just starting to stretch its legs now. Wonderful grip, depth and concentration. Super long but surprisingly supple finish, really great balance. The best Howell mountain I have had since the amazing 1982.

***+Araujo, Eisele vineyard, Napa Valley, cabernet sauvignon, 1996: Classically structured, a statesman of a wine. Perhaps overshadowed today by the Montebello, it still has all of those Eisele qualities that make this wine a poster child for what napa cabernet wishes it always could be. Classic Rutherford dust, cassis and black fruit, menthol, cedar. Good tannic profile from front to back, now starting to resolve. Good grip, depth and balance. Special.

***+Chateau Montelena, Estate, Napa Valley, cabernet sauvignon, 1996: Again, a classic. Showing telltale Montelena notes of slightly overripe plum, chocolate and soy. Still very youthful and promising. In good to great vintages this is accompanied by minerals, white pepper and a fullness that allows these elements to intermarry and create a wonderful mélange. Good delineation and structure but mostly a juicy, coating mouthful of wine. Delicious.

***+Chateau Montrose, Estate, St. Estephe, 1996: I was surprised by how civil and well behaved this wine is right now. Still, the blood lines are apparent. Great, mature red fruit, truffle, violets, molasses and exotic far eastern spices. A touch of iodine, butter sautéed Brussels sprouts and Malabar pepper. Not nearly as full throttle as the 90 or 89 I think this wine is a bit more contemplative but not coy. The palate is classically structured and the tannins on the long finish are fine, layered and integrated. A wonderful example of a young Bordeaux just beginning to strut its stuff.

***Chateau Pichon Longueville Baron, Estate, Paulliac, 1996: Very good and again a classic iteration of Paulliac. Blue black berry fruit, lead pencil. Wet slate. Deep, coating palate showcases plums and minerals, with some espresso bean notes. Fine, balanced, slightly drying finish. Very worthy.

***Chateau Ducru Beacaillou, Estate, St. Julien, 1996: A lovely wine. Perhaps a bit more feminine than other vintages of Ducru. Red and black berry fruit, acacia, violets, cedar, cinnamon stick. Spicy, red fruit palate that is perfectly integrated and lovingly balanced. Maybe a bit lost next to the Grand Puy Lacoste. A little tight perhaps? Still, picture perfect St. Julien.

Wine Musings Vol#79

Wine of Merit: **** Domaine Philippe Delesvaux, Anthologie, Coteaux du Layon, chenin blanc, 1997: Wow. Initially I feared this wine had suffered poor storage and had been oxidized; the cork was brittle and the color a very dark amber. Lucky for us this was not the case and the wine was excellent, if of disconcerting color. Initially the nose was pure black mission fig jam; a touch earthy, ripe, sweet (the wine has 535 gr. of residual sugar!) and deep. With time, the wine added more traditional botrytis nuances...lichee, ripe persimmon, thick clover honey, nectarine, vanilla orchid. The palate was thick and excellent, adding orange marmalade, caramel, biscotti and baking spices,a touch of brandy. Perhaps influenced by the color, a few said it reminded them of a vin santo. The finish was excellent; spicy and seemingly endless. I am sure storage has played some role here but the experience was outstanding.

***++Chateau de Baucastel, Chateau Neuf du Pape, 1994: A lovely wine. Initially offering complex, rustic, barnyard and grilled meat notes, this wine unfurled with time to offer very focused blackberry, herb, licorice root and iron aromas. Further development in the glass offered a floral hint of violet and lavender. The palate was lively, with more black fruit, pepper, minerals and brier. The palate is fine and firm. An excellent bottle.

***++Beringer Private reserve, Napa Valley, cabernet sauvignon, 1991: The essence of Napa. Just stuffed with wonderful, deep, red and black stone fruit, cassis, cedar and a hint of chalky, wet slate. The palate is deep, concentrated and chewy, surprisingly youthful yet still deftly integrated. The tannins are fine and the finish long. A great ambassador for the area - a wine I would consider a first growth, or at the very least a super second, of the Napa Valley.

***++Chateau Montelena, estate, Napa Valley, cabernet sauvignon, 1995 (from magnum): Speaking of ambassadors! Here is another wonderful example of what the left coast has to offer. Signature notes of mature plum, chocolate, a hint of soy, black tea and licorice. Vibrant. The palate is downright juicy, vivacious and fun to be around. Great balance. More feminine than the Beringer but not fragile or dainty, this wine is stacked. Just plain old yummy. The mag disappeared in a heartbeat. Drinking great right now.

***++Kongsgaard, Napa Valley, chardonnay, 2004: I believe the 2004 vintage of Kongsgaard chards suffers in comparison with the 2003 and 2005. Still very much a worthy wine, it does not show quite the depth and concentration of the other two vintages. That said, this wine is stunning. If a bit demure, it has a stunning mineral focus, accompanied by bright marzipan, Meyer lemon and honeyed kaffir lime notes. the palate is bright and intense, more taught than other vintages, with resounding minerals and a long, Asian spice imbued finish. Great stuff!

***Clos Pegase, Napa Valley, cabernet sauvignon, 1995: Lovely and surprisingly fresh. Perhaps the first of the "let's take a large fortune and turn it into a small fortune" wineries in the Napa Valley...see Revana, Vineyard 29, Darioush, etc. This wine is nonetheless very legit. Dominated by red fruit, morrels, eucalyptus, tisane and spice, the wine is elegant and expertly crafted. The palate glides, offering good concentration, weight and balance. The finish is fine and medium to long, with spicy oak notes at the tail. Delicious and worth the wait.

***Matanzas Creek, Sonoma, merlot, 1991: I have had some success with older Matanzas Creek merlots, so I had some hopes for the longevity of this wine. It is delicious, if perhaps on the downward slope. Mature plum, blackberry and lavender mix with tertiary bell pepper, garrigue and iodine notes. Hints of mineral, vanilla and violet. The palate is full, receding here and there, with more overripe plum, violet and chocolate. The finish is of medium length and fine. Probably more vibrant and primal in its youth, it is still fun and perhaps more complex now...and very much worth drinking tonight.

A quick P.S.: The ****Aubert, Lauren Vineyard, Sonoma Coast, chardonnay 2004 continues to be a breath taking, wonderful, amazing chardonnay. My notes from January of last year (Musings Vol#46) remain almost identical this week.

Wine Musings LTD: Palmer vs Montelena

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.