TN: 1990 Cantemerle

Sep 19, 2006 10 Replies

Betsy took David to a college interview today, as they were on their way back I made dinner. Herb-roasted chicken, broccoli, and rice with furikake. Wine was the 1990 Cantemerle (Haut-Medoc). Good color, seems rather youthful. Tannins are fully resolved, and there are mature notes of leather and tobacco, but the fruit is reasonably lively for a 16 yr old cru bourgeois. The fruit is more red plum than black, and does have a little bit of the roasted notes that can distract in the 1990s. This is not especially deep or complex, but a nice soft Bordeaux. Blind I bet I would have guessed Right Bank (merlot), though label says it is



45% CS, 40% Merlot, 10 % CF, 5 % PV. This isn't a great Bordeaux, but a decent mature Bordeaux with roast chicken isn't a bad way to dine. B/B+

Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.



AFAIC, you never said it wasn't classified, just that it was Haut-Medoc AOC, which it most certainly is. So now you should mentally group it with du Tertre, Camensac, Clerc-Milon and Pontet-Canet -- a fine group of reliable performers in my book (then there's that Lynch-Bag or some such...)

Mark Lipton

(Just avoid that Hot Bag Liberal, or risk the wrath of Ann Coulter)

I referred to it as a "16 year old Cru Bourgeois". You can't deny my wrongness!

In fact, the addition of Cantmerle to the list in December 1855 - months after the closure of the 1855 Paris Universal Exhibition where the classification was presented - was the first amendment to the 1855 classification. Mouton's upgrading in 1973 was the second.

M.

Now, we all know that the 1855 classification is pretty different from a

2006, had there been one. Whether a wine is 5th or cru bourgeois is of no real importance, don't you agree? There's a number of chateaux that have faded away from what they were, and others that have improved immensely. Michael P. surely could provide us with a tentative list for a new classification? :-) Anders

As to Lynch Bages....it's no longer priced like a 5th. And since 2000 I've not actually liked a one (2001-2003). For my tastes has gone from great QPR to poor.

Admit it Anders, you're hoarding Rausan-Gassies!

To me the classification isn't a big thing, but it does make a difference in some pricing. Given a choice of Mouton or LLC without knowing vintage, I'd take LLC (I admit Mouton can be spectacular, but also pedestrian). The wines I buy regularly span 2nd-5th growths (do I buy any 4ths? thinking..) and cru bourgeois. I agree the classification means little to my buying, though it does make a difference to real estate values.

I guess I do- quite a few Talbots. I have a bottle or three of Branaire, Duhart, Lafon Rochet , & Marquis-de-Terme too. Shows you I don't pay much attention to classifications (beyond Firsts)

Agreed. That's why I didn't include it in the list initially and only added parenthetically. It used to be one of our rock-solid "go to" Bdx, but the last vintage of it that we bought was IIRC the '97 (heavily discounted at a Sam's sale). Looking at the DB, I see that we have only the '89 and the '96 in the cellar. Quelle dommage! The '61 L-B still ranks as one of my all-time favorite wine experiences. du Terte and Camensac I still put a lot of faith in, but we've bought so little Bdx in the new millenium that I really haven't much experience with recent bottlings of either Clerc-Milon or Pontet-Canet.

Mark Lipton

"DaleW" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Then it might be a Swede thingy, because I have found out, to my astonishment, that apparently I am. Now, how did that happen?

Cheers

Nils Gsutaf

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required