Thoughts on the 2000 Montrose? Anyone had it?

[Blanquito]

I see some 2000 Montrose for a competitive price, especially given what they’re asking for the 2018-2021, but it’s still priced like a wine that should fantastic (or will be one day).

What says BWE?

[marcs]

I had it about six months ago and posted a TN here (on my phone now so can’t drop in the link, but I posted it on July 10 2022 under the title of “some recent wines with a visitor from France”). As my TN indicated I thought it was an excellent wine - fresh, pure, crisp, elegant, and at the beginning of its drinking window. Very left bank Bordeaux in style, but not the slightest bit rustic.

The bottle I drank was a recent purchase and was under $200/bottle (I think maybe 170) so you might target that as a price. I thought it was well worth that price, happy with that purchase

[Blanquito]

I had it about six months ago and posted a TN here (on my phone now so can’t drop in the link, but I posted it on July 10 2022 under the title of “some recent wines with a visitor from France”). As my TN indicated I thought it was an excellent wine - fresh, pure, crisp, elegant, and at the beginning of its drinking window. Very left bank Bordeaux in style, but not the slightest bit rustic.

The bottle I drank was a recent purchase and was under $200/bottle (I think maybe 170) so you might target that as a price. I thought it was well worth that price, happy with that purchase

Perfect, thanks! It is right about $170/each.

[JimHow]

I bought two bottles 20 years ago on release.

I drank one in its infancy at a dinner in the village with the likes of AKR, Jacques, I'm pretty sure Pappa Doc was there, the young wine whiz kid, what was his name, maybe one or two others. Never, before or since, have I tasted a wine as closed as that infant 2000 Montrose. It literally tasted like... nothing. It didn't even taste like water. It was the existential zero digit, it was nothingness. It was the absence of something. Heidegger would have written volumes about it.

The second bottle, uncorked years later, was Montrose in all its glory. To me this estate is de facto first growth. I just got word from Zachys that my six bottles of 2019 Montrose that I got for $135 have arrived. I will try one in the name of science.

[marcs]

William Kelley has said this was the last of the more rustic and old school vintages for Montrose - it was the last before wooden fermenting vats were replaced with stainless steel tanks - but I didn’t find it rustic at all. It had a lot of Cabernet snap and tension to it but I found it very elegant and classic (very subjective terms of course). Many years to go but opening up to drink now

[jckba]

Had a btl 2 weeks ago at a wine dinner and while still youthful it is beginning to drink and show its class. And I fully agree, $170/per is a no brainer entry point especially when considering the price of current releases.

[DavidG]

I last had one 5-6 years ago and it was still shut down. Put it on the 1-2 Blanquito list. Seeing a lot more positive notes in the last year or two.

[Musigny 151]

Yes a no brainer at that price. Powerful wine and easily the same quality as the First Growths.

[Musigny 151]

BTW the even better but far less ready 2005 is available in the UK for around the same price.

[robert goulet]

William Kelley has said this was the last of the more rustic and old school vintages for Montrose - it was the last before wooden fermenting vats were replaced with stainless steel tanks - but I didn’t find it rustic at all. It had a lot of Cabernet snap and tension to it but I found it very elegant and classic (very subjective terms of course). Many years to go but opening up to drink now

Rustic?...Then it looks like I'm not buying anything younger than 2000

[Blanquito]

I found the William Kelley reference Marcus made and I quote more of it here: “After 2000, Montrose has been fermented in stainless steel rather than wood, and concerted efforts seem to have been made in the cellar to tame the estate’s animal side: the 2005 is as great as the 2000, but noticeably more pure, less rustic—a change that some, the present writer included, may regard with cautious ambivalence instead of outright enthusiasm.”

It’s comments like these that give WK some real credibility in my book!

By the way, if we care, he is gaga for the 2000 Montrose, giving it 98+ points. You can read his full piece on Chateau Montrose here: https://wfkelley.com/2016/07/14/chateau ... 1895-2010/

[JoelD]

I only had a half a glass of it at the Saturday dinner this year but I loved it. At that price, I would definitely nab some. The 05 might well end up being the better wine (the 2014 too) but this deserves a place in your cellar. I need some as well so if theres any left at that price let me know!

[marcs]

I by the way got a full case at that $170/bottle price. First bottle of the case was the one I tasted and it was in perfect condition, I’m quite happy to have the rest

[robert goulet]

I found the William Kelley reference Marcus made and I quote more of it here: “After 2000, Montrose has been fermented in stainless steel rather than wood, and concerted efforts seem to have been made in the cellar to tame the estate’s animal side: the 2005 is as great as the 2000, but noticeably more pure, less rustic—a change that some, the present writer included, may regard with cautious ambivalence instead of outright enthusiasm.”

It’s comments like these that give WK some real credibility in my book!

By the way, if we care, he is gaga for the 2000 Montrose, giving it 98+ points. You can read his full piece on Chateau Montrose here: https://wfkelley.com/2016/07/14/chateau ... 1895-2010/

Dudes wine knowledge is exemplary

[JimS]

I don't think you can go wrong with a 2000 Montrose, especially at that price. The last one I opened was in late 2021 and it was an excellent wine. Stylistically very classic, pure, and unrefined (which I tend to find desirable). I have also had the 2003 and 2005 in the last year - they are all great, and each for their own unique reasons (2003 a bit of a "dialed up" vintage, and 2005 modern classical (in a good way!)). With Montrose, in strong vintages, it really can go toe-to-toe with FGs in my opinion and in a year like 2000, I'd bet it could best a few of them in a blind tasting.....all this coming from a big Montrose fan, so keep in mind I am biased haha

[Comte Flaneur]

I had it at least once and I think a couple of times in the last decade - once maybe about 3-4 years ago and once about 7-8 year ago, both tutored on behalf of Decanter by Herve Berland at the Landmark Hotel in Marylebone - and especially on the first occasion it struck me as one of those ferociously tannic old school behemoths. A sort of medieval doomsday cult wine drunk by druids during the winter solstice.

I am not exaggerating.

On the first occasion I much preferred both the 2003 and the 2005 to the 2000. The 2003 was in the sweetspot. The 2005 was great. But the real star the first time was the 2010.

On the second occasion iirc it showed better but the 2003 was past its best and the 2016 was the real star running rings around the 2010.

I bought a case of 2000 Montrose in June 2001 for £380. Apparently it is worth £1850 now. I thought about selling it a few years ago but at least I have a case of the 2016, which is the far better wine.

[JimHow]

A sort of medieval doomsday cult wine drunk by druids during the winter solstice.

Lol. That had me chuckling out loud here on Lisbon Street, as the sun sets and we close the books on another year....

[Nicklasss]

A great wine. This is what i wrote last July, when we drank a bottle with JeanFred :

Than, we opened two red Bordeaux to compare, the 1999 Vieux Château Certan and the 2000 Château Montrose. Both were great with very different styles. While the VCC was a nice mixture of meat, spices, violet flowers and red berry fruit, with good rasberry freshness and leather in mouth from the Cabernets, the Montrose was what you expect from Montrose, all graphite, black currants, blackberries and light soil tones. Both were long, the VCC with that iron clay and fresh rasberries long finish, while the Montrose had that perfect maturity, austere but also ripe long blackcurrants, sage, graphite final. Both respeçted what was exoected, rating the VCC 93 and the Montrose 95.

[AKR]

I went through a half case maybe in its first 10-12 years of life, along with a couple cases of La Dame, and found it to be good of course, but still primary/youthful. Given how long it took years like 70, 75 to round out it is probably starting to hit its stride now.

[Claret]

Arv, we had the 70 the time you came to my house, about 20 years ago.

I am down to one each of 86 and 89.

[AKR]

Arv, we had the 70 the time you came to my house, about 20 years ago.

I am down to one each of 86 and 89.

I've had 1970 a few times since then too; if I recall this is the era where the labeling is 730ml, curiously.

[marcs]

I had it at least once and I think a couple of times in the last decade - once maybe about 3-4 years ago and once about 7-8 year ago, both tutored on behalf of Decanter by Herve Berland at the Landmark Hotel in Marylebone - and especially on the first occasion it struck me as one of those ferociously tannic old school behemoths. A sort of medieval doomsday cult wine drunk by druids during the winter solstice.

I am not exaggerating.

On the first occasion I much preferred both the 2003 and the 2005 to the 2000. The 2003 was in the sweetspot. The 2005 was great. But the real star the first time was the 2010.

On the second occasion iirc it showed better but the 2003 was past its best and the 2016 was the real star running rings around the 2010.

I bought a case of 2000 Montrose in June 2001 for £380. Apparently it is worth £1850 now. I thought about selling it a few years ago but at least I have a case of the 2016, which is the far better wine.

A ferociously tannic old school behemoth is exactly what I expected when I had this wine six months ago, and I didn't get that all. Yes, the tannins were certainly in evidence, but I found it an almost shockingly elegant and graceful wine. It had a lifted, snappy, crisp, red fruited quality, very lively and slightly tense in the mouth but with a sense of much lurking beneath to be discovered when the tannins relaxed. Very poised and well balanced, midweight feel. People mean different things by "rustic", but to me it means an almost rough and raspy quality and a somewhat unbalanced mouthfeel even when the wine is good. I didn't get that at all here, it had a nice mouthfeel to it and seemed perfectly balanced and not rough. As I said elegant. Based on that experience I suspect this caterpillar is starting to become a butterfly.

The 2005 Montrose I tried this year seemed more "rustic" than the 2000 in that it had not yet achieved balance and while it had tremendous power the acidity made it more harsh than the 2000. I guess I did not get WIlliam Kelley's sense of the contrast between the two wines.

I have six bottles of the 2016 but haven't tried it yet. But I think you might want to wait a decade or two to judge the quality differential between the two wines, as those old school Montrose really shine with age.