TN: WTN: 1994 Angelus

[DavidG]

Here's a wine that was really good 7 years ago, but got even better with time. I think further cellaring will only increase the pleasure. It went from a fairly primary but very big wine to one that is now showing some additional complexity. One of the better '94s from a challenged vintage. It's got plenty of fruit to stand up to the tannins.

• 1994 Château Angélus - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru (8/4/2009)
  Dark red to rim. Nice rich forward nose of dark fruits, cassis, cherry, leather, roasted meats, and a bit of cigar box. Very full-bodied, muscular, even brawny palate feel, still pretty tannic but not at all bitter, wtih plenty of rich deep cassis fruit and some of the complex leather and tobacco characters coming forward from the nose. Finishes strong. Drinking well now, has the fruit to hang in there with the tannins and make old bones. Excellent-outstanding.
• 1994 Château Angélus - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru (8/22/2002)
  outstanding, great nose from the start, but got much better with
  time, pretty tannic and closed on the palate, but opened beautifully
  after an hour in the decanter, and kept getting better in the glass,
  perfect match with lamb chops

Posted from CellarTracker

[Ramon_NYC]

Thanks for the notes David.

I’ve had my share of hits-and-misses with the ‘94s, but mostly misses. In my opinion, this is a vintage where one should carefully pick.

For what it’s worth, and from the ones that I had, I liked the Tertre Rotebouef quite a bit, while the Pichon Lalande and the Pontet Canet were good enough for me to be satisfied and hopeful with my remaining 1 or 2 bottles each. I didn’t care much for the L’Evangile, the Troplong Mondot, the Leoville Barton, the Montrose and a few others that I probably didn’t’ care to remember. I’ve not had the Angelus, but it sounds a like a good one based on your consistent notes.

Ramon

[DavidG]

Ramon, I agree that there were a lot more misses than hits in '94. The Troplong Mondot stands out in my mind as a horribly tannic beast lacking in redeeming qualities. The Angelus is quite tannic, too, but has the fruit to make it a very nice wine. It's an exception to the rule for the '94s.

[Winesense]

I had the Angelus 1994 right after the Latour 1983. The Anglus 1994 is excellent, but the comparison was not fair. The Latour 1983 is a monster.

[Mike Christensen]

I had the Angelus 1994 right after the Latour 1983. The Anglus 1994 is excellent, but the comparison was not fair. The Latour 1983 is a monster.

I have a lone bottle of the 1983 Latour, tell me more... I'd always heard that the 1983 Latour was "disappointing". Is it time to start thinking about drinking it, or does it still need a lot of time?

I've had the 1994 L'Angelus several times, and never thought it was quite ready, but the last time I had it was about two years ago.

[Tom In DC]

After at least a half dozen tastings of each significant vintage of Latour in the 1980's (i.e, fewer samples of only '80, '84, and '87,but I've tasted all of them at least a couple times), the 1983 comes across to me more as the harbinger of mediocre things to come than a monster. It was better than many later vintages of the decade, but it wasn't worth the price even at my guesstimated US$60 price tag back in the day. (You could have bought 2 bottles of the magnificent '83 Palmer and had money left over for bread and cheese...)

Your mileage may vary, usual dislaimers, etc.

Ciao,
Tom

[DavidG]

'83 was killer in Margaux, moreso than the northern Medoc, and both Palmer and Ch. Margaux made awesome wines. I bought (and have already consumed ) only a couple of bottles of each. '83 Margaux either took or tied for WOTN honors at a NYC BWE '83 retrospective organized by Arv back in the day.