Drank one of my last remaining bottles of this wine 2 nights ago. The wine is still holding up ok, though the fruit has faded a little. Still pleny of tannins as you would expect from the '75s. I still have quite a few Montrose and Ducrus and was wondering if anyone has tried these lately.
Ron Lel
I have not tasted 75 Montrose or Ducru recently, but M. Broadbent has. Here is part of what he had to say.
"Ch Ducru-Beaucaillou Many notes. Good colour; classic cedary nose; fruit and extract almost succeeding in masking its silky-leather tannin. Last tasted June 1999." He rated it 3-star out of 5-star.
"Ch Montrose Understandably hard in cask and, as usual, slow to develop. Classic. Lovely flavour and texture. Spicey. Silky tannins and slightly astringent. This has a future." He rated it ****(*), meanig he thought t was 4-star but might improve with time to 5-star. No last tasting date was given, but he published the book with this information in 2002.
I have 5 bottles of the 75 Montrose that have been stored properly since release. I might open one within the next 5 years. However, this wine likely would be quite good drinking now if you do not mind a bit more tannin than it will have when fully mature. If it has been stored under conditions warmer than ideal, then it likely is fully ready and you should taste a bottle soon to make certain that it is not starting to decline.
My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net from my email address. Then add snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com . I do not check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.
Thanks. They have been stored in a climate controlled cellar, but I will try one anyway. :-)
Ron
>
Does anyone remember the 197_4_ Beychevelle? That was a real gem from a crummy vintage. I bought and immediately enjoyed many bottles of it for ~$7 US when it was just released.
I remember paying a lot more for the 1975 and expecting it to be even better, but was quite disappointed. :^(
Tom S
My last 5 notes:
Montrose (St. Estephe) - This wine has been quite backward, even by the standards of this vintage, until quite recently. I had a bottle the week before as a test, and enjoyed it, and this one was entirely consistent. It had a nice cedar and fruit nose, and the fruit was exhibited on palate, with a pleasant smoothness, not too tannic, as it was well balanced by the flavour intensity. Now entering it''s (probably lengthy) plateau of drinkability.
1975 Montrose - I am a big fan of this tough vintage, or at least of the wines that had enough fruit to outlast the substantial tannin that earmarks this year. This Montrose was by far the darkest wine of the flight, and had the best nose. It has the usual high level of tannin, with only slightly inadequate fruit that tailed off a bit at the end when it hardened up. My bottle was not as good as several I have had of this wine, and one table that obviously had a good one, voted this wine of the night. I desperately wanted to like this one, but knowing what it could be, I had to give the nod to the 83 La Lagune.1975 – a similar somewhat light colour, with a nice nose of mature fruit, a bit herbaceous, and not much oak showing. It also had a rather startling structural resemblance to the 89. This is a good wine that the big ‘P’ doesn’t like much (he doesn’t like the 85 much either).
1975 Montrose - bit of sulphur initially on nose blew off, leaving a fairly tannic yet surprisingly forward wine tht finished a little on the acidic side. I never thought this one would come around, shame it has lost a bit too much fruit, but that is a common problem with the 75's. fairly drinkable now.Montrose – my favourite, and perhaps the last truly typical St. Estephe ever made – after this vintage, to make an old style hard wine became fiscal suicide for the producers. Quite dark, and a nose of dusty fruit, it showed as a huge wine on the palate, though not unbearably tannic, with a finish that seemed to go on for minutes. Can take a few more years. As noted by Albert Givton, one of our most experienced tasters, these wines would be wasted completely on the new sort of wine drinker brought up to expect the effusive if often one dimensional fruit of the popular style of Californian cabernet and modern Bordeaux. A wine for contemplation!
I did the same with the 1963 La Tour which was from a disastrous vintage that almost no one else bottled.
earle
*
If stored well, the ones you've cited are certainly *not* over the hill. Latour might not even be really ready.
M.
Not at all.
My notes:
La Gaffeliere - nice garnet, clear with oak and dark fruit on the nose, over all a bit short on both fruit and finish, where it became a little tart. Nevertheless, it was well structured and classy. Some tasters noted an initial cabbagey nose but this blew off quickly.
Mouton -a pleasant surprise, as this isn't the best Mouton generally. It had a dark colour, a leather and spice nose, very full on the palate with chocolate and other sweet elements, and was very long. Heaven only knows why Broadbent dumped on this wine, and yet praised the very mediocre Margaux of the same year (tasted in the first session). It was not terribly complex perhaps but was nevertheless delicious.
Latour - very dark, and clear, without any appreciable browning, this wine was my favourite of the day. It has everything you would want, fruit, chocolate, spice, weight, all in spades, ending in great length. A magnificent wine!!
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.