2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
- JimHow
- Posts: 20292
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
Let the games begin....
- Attachments
-
- hgfdsasdfghjk.JPG (231.92 KiB) Viewed 1849 times
- Michael Malinoski
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:12 pm
- Location: Sudbury, MA
- Contact:
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
So funny! A few of us just did a side by side of these two wines from the 2001 vintage!
-Michael
-Michael
- AlohaArtakaHoundsong
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
The wine fast is over! Can I have an Amen!
- AlohaArtakaHoundsong
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
The PD exposing some midriff there. The Monbo less, and a third label. So modest.
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
I've had the '00 PD twice in the past year -- once it was mind-blowing, the other time shut down hard. A bit of a head-scratcher, look forward to your thoughts.
- robertgoulet
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 12:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
Cracked '01 pd recently....oh my what a nose...like freshly cut cedar...gorgeous
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
I really did not liked the 2001 Chateau Pavie-Decesse a few years ago. Beated easily by the 2003 Chateau l'Angélus that same night.
So Jim, which one did you preferred?
Nic
So Jim, which one did you preferred?
Nic
- JimHow
- Posts: 20292
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
It's hard to say, because my tastes are so calibrated to the left bank. I think I like both of them. The Pavie Decesse was the more serious wine, bigger, lots of sediment, the Monbousquet was its usual voluptuous, flamboyant self. Typical right bank chocolate, the Pavie Decesse more cedary and complex. Still, they seem to lack the gravitas of my St. Juliens and Pauillacs and Margauxs. I'd rate them both 91 points. Very enjoyable, but in my blind devotion to the left bank I am probably not the best person to judge. Like, for example, I enjoyed that 2005 Sociando Mallet more last night.
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
Seemed like a good contrast in stlyes.
- OrlandoRobert
- Posts: 1508
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:19 pm
- Contact:
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
Has anyone checked in on hte 2005 Monbo recently? I have a sixer sleeping.
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
Haven't cracked an '05 yet. CT notes suggest to me it's still too soon.
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
We'll drink an '03 Monbo tonight, mainly because I want to find out if a certain CA palate friend will say that it does not suck.
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
I really like the Pavie Decese. I find the Monbosquet to be too oaky.
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
The Monbousquet 2003 was too oaky for my taste. The texture was rather thick. Maybe in a few years the oak will integrate. The lighter '03 Lucia served by our host is very pleasant for drinking now.
I was also disappointed in 1996 Lagrange. I broke my case on Friday to bring one to the dinner. While certainly good, I expected more because Lagrange has been on such a roll. It does have the backbone to improve, though, and we'll try another bottle in a couple of years.
I was also disappointed in 1996 Lagrange. I broke my case on Friday to bring one to the dinner. While certainly good, I expected more because Lagrange has been on such a roll. It does have the backbone to improve, though, and we'll try another bottle in a couple of years.
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
stefan, I have opened several bottles of the 96 and they have all been somewhat or very closed. Another couple of years is a good idea.stefan wrote:I was also disappointed in 1996 Lagrange. I broke my case on Friday to bring one to the dinner. While certainly good, I expected more because Lagrange has been on such a roll. It does have the backbone to improve, though, and we'll try another bottle in a couple of years.
Glenn
- Michael Malinoski
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:12 pm
- Location: Sudbury, MA
- Contact:
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
This was essentially my take on the side by side tasting we did of the '01's last month...Jeff Leve wrote:I really like the Pavie Decese. I find the Monbosquet to be too oaky.
- Michael Malinoski
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:12 pm
- Location: Sudbury, MA
- Contact:
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
I don't know, a bunch of us drank the '96 a few weeks back after a few hours of decanting and it was extremely nice. Not world-beating, but hardly disappointing.stefan wrote:I was also disappointed in 1996 Lagrange. I broke my case on Friday to bring one to the dinner. While certainly good, I expected more because Lagrange has been on such a roll. It does have the backbone to improve, though, and we'll try another bottle in a couple of years.
-Michael
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
I did not decant, Michael, but opened the bottle four hours before the dinner. Lucie liked it better than I. Maybe I was expecting too much.
Re: 2000 Monbousquet vs. 2000 Pavie Decesse
'00 PD was very shut down when I had it recently. Having had it multiple times, it's a very serious, potentially great wine that imo will have the "gravitas" and complexity of many top left bank wines when it enters its optimal drinking window.JimHow wrote: The Pavie Decesse was the more serious wine, bigger, lots of sediment... the Pavie Decesse more cedary and complex. Still, they seem to lack the gravitas of my St. Juliens and Pauillacs and Margauxs.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 75 guests