Pavie Macquin

Is this an interesting case of bottle differences or another example of how different people rate wines so very differently? — I wonder about Bill‘s source‘s storage as does he. The 1989 and 1990 were both before Nicolas Thienpont took over (in 1994) and I cannot remember drinking those vintages in recent years. However I do not think that I have ever had a bottle of Pavie-Macquin which I remember with less than pleasure since he took control. I tasted the 2004 last year at the Chateau as well as 2002 — a difficult year and have drunk both the

1995 and 1996 in 2006 — both seemd to me still to be young with the and needing time. It goes without saying that the same is true of the 2001 and I would say truer still of the 1998, 2000 and 2004.

Please give me a ring if you have any queries. . I must say that I differ with Bill - I could easily see why the Chateau had been promoted even in a year when some of the promotions were controversial this did not seem to be one of those. Out of interest I looked to see what Stephen Brook says in his new book on Bordeaux and was not entirely surprised to see that his views and mine largely coincide — not always true about Saint-Emilion - I quote:

”The only venerable Pavie-Macquin I have tasted is the 1937, which was very acidic and dry - no pleasure there after half a century. I found the 1990 and 1992 charmless, but from 1995 onwards quality has been very high. The 1995 itself has an elegant if oaky nose, a voluptuous texture, soft, ripe tannins, and excellent length. The 1996 has smoky, oaky aromas, and like the 1995 is very well balanced, with every element in place, though it is less fleshy than the 1995. The 1999 has a light structure but clear and sustained fi-uit. The 1998, tasted recently, had a pronounced mintiness on the nose and palate,an excellent attack,a tight structure,and impressive length. Pavie-Macquin was untouched by the hailstorm in 1999,so the wine that year remains impeccable: very oaky with some coffee tones, concentrated and juicy, with ample tannins and extract without being overbearing. The 2000 is more sumptuous and generous, though there is a slight confected tone, but that may well diminish with further age. My notes on the 2001, 2002, and 2003 are in the same vein. The 2004 is magnificent, and when tasted blind alongside the premiers crus,it showed at the Same level, with intense aromas, wonderfully ripe tannins, abundant fleshy fruit, and ample lift and elegance. Few St-Emilions, over the past decade at any rate, offer the same consistency as Pavie-Macquin.”

I am surprised that Bill finds these are not true to Saint-Emilion character - I take it he means the traditional character of the Jurisdiction rather than the modern or Parkerised character which finds favour in some quarters. The truth is there is a range of Saint-Emilions almost as wide as the range of soils — it is one of the pleasures of the place. Bill might find it interesting to taste some of these again against, for example, Pavie Decesse or Pavie at one end of the scale and, say, Grand Mayne or Beau-Séjour-Bécot amongst the traditional. (I know Grand-Mayne is GCC not PGCC — but only because, as in the case of Figeac, the Commission said that it did not charge enough for its wine to be promoted!)

Tim Hartley

Sorry about this intrusion from the clipboard in my last message — it was not meant to be there!!

Tim Hartley

Bill might find it interesting to taste some

I guess I am a bit of a 'terroirist', but none of us really saw it in this wine, with the exception of the 2001.

I grant you that the ideal is a bit much to look for when so many wines have been through the 'blender' of Parkerization, and many Bordeaux last showed true typicity in the 1970s!

As for other St. Emilions I enjoy, I own and like the 1995 Grand Mayne, 94 Beausejour Becot, 95 La Croix du Casse, 93 and 95 Magdaleine, and have a half case of Pavie Mcquin 1995 so far untouched (these are just the more recent vintages). Based on this tasting I am going to have to locate that case of the 95 PM pretty soon and tuck into it.