2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru.

2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru. *****

Deep dark red, with hints of amber. Blackcurrant nose. Some sediment. Dark black fruits, earthy, cedar, nice rough tannins. Very good for a french wine, like an overpriced Quantum with some more age.

Had it with 2 h decant, before during and after a good steak from the butcher with oven baked taters redwine sauce (using the Morgon I disliked) and butter sauteed asparagus.

I think it can stand a few more years (cellartracker suggests "Drink by 2014").

Reply to
Michael Nielsen
Loading thread data ...

Michael Nielsen wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Michael... that's a Bordeaux Blend with Merlot as the dominant grape on the blend.

Seems you may like Merlot after all

Nice wine from a very modern producer (group) and a very hot vintage.

If you like that wine you may also like: Fombrauge, Les Grands Chenes (same group), and also Poujeaux and probably most of the wines from Michel Rolland or St?phane Derenoncourt.

Reply to
santiago

Nope. it is cab driven (like my beloved napa meritages hehe). 53% Cabernet Sauvignon, 33% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Franc and 4% Petit Verdot.

They do not ring a bell. Ill keep an eye out.

Reply to
Michael Nielsen

Michael Nielsen wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Michael, La Tour Carnet, the property, is more than 60% Merlot. It is possible that in 2003, which was a very hot year, they decided to keep Merlot down since it is the grape that ripens the first and maybe some lots were too high in alcohol before arriving to physiological ripeness. Not that high alcohol is typically a problem for M. Magrez.

s.

Reply to
santiago

The property has 50% merlot, but that means nothing regarding how much gets into the wine. Seems it changes a lot by vintage:

2003: 53% Cabernet Sauvignon, 33% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Franc and 4% Petit Verdot" 2005: 58% Cabernet Sauvignon,42% Merlot 2006: 50% Merlot, 40% Cabernet Sauvignon 2010: 53% Merlot and the rest Cabernet Sauvignon and small quantities of Cabernet Franc and Petit Verdot. 2011: 57% Merlot, 39% Cabernet Sauvignon and the rest Cabernet Franc and Petit Verdot 2012: Merlot 66% with the rest mostly Cabernet Sauvignon

Im surprised that the blend changes that much form year to year. how can it be considered the same wine.

Reply to
Michael Nielsen

This is not untypical of the year to year variation of many, though by no means all, Bordeaux blends — with perhaps the exception of 2012 where the variation does seem great given that — according to its website — the vineyard is planted to 40% Cabernet Sauvignon, 50% Merlot, 7% Cabernet Franc and 3% Petit Verdot. The growers seek to make what they regard as the best wine possible from the vintage so that in a hot year the proportion of Cabernet is likely to increase to bring freshness to the wine which would otherwise be lacking in that year. In a lighter or cooler year the proportion of Merlot is likely to be higher to give the extra fruit and fullness to the wine. Those growers who are particularly concerned to express terroir rather than make a very modern wine which could be from anywhere will try to achieve a wine which does just that and which will be recognisable as their estate‘s wine from year to year even if it varies somewhat in blend.

Tim Hartley

Reply to
Timothy Hartley

Aha. I thought the goal of tweaking the blend was to make as uniform a wine as possible from year to year - changing the blend being "tweaking" - subt le changes in the blend, not tipping over the balance completely. So when n oting that I like a wine, I have to note the name and vintage. Wine ={Name, Vintage} is the correct identifier for that wine I tasted an d like. {Name,Vintage+1} can be a completely different wine. Maybe that's why I feel safer with Californian wines as they are more equal between vintages.

Reply to
Michael Nielsen

The best growers know that they cannot make the same wine as last year. They do not have — or very rarely have - the same weather notr do they pick at the same time. Equally they do not have many acres of ground from which to blend, helping to iron out the combined effects of terroir and weather which big New World estates have. It is that which make European wines both special and difficult. Their aim, as I say unless they have fallen prey to the idea of a two dimensional,fruit jam confection, is to make wine which they believe truly represents in their style the best of what nature has given them in the year in question on the soil in question. However as I say, whilst uniformity is not possible if they stay true to terroir, that does not mean in any way that the wines are completely different in their essentials or will not be recognisable as a particular estate's wine from year to year even if they vary somewhat in blend. I find if you like a wine from one vintage you are very likely to like it in other vintages too — especially those of similar quality to the one you first admired. But, yes, I agree you do need to remember name + vintage in a way you do not with New World wines.

You will find the same thing with many of the smaller Champagne growers too — they are making a wine which is true to terroir rather than a bland same as last year stereotype such as the big Champagne houses make at the bottom to mid end of their ranges.

Tim Hartley

Reply to
Timothy Hartley

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.