TN : 2006 Cantemerle

[Nicklasss]

It has been sometimes since I opened a Bordeaux. Too long. Each time you go back to Bordeaux, you understand that your favorite wine is special. So last night, I opened a 2006 Chateau Cantemerle, as some 2006 are hitting the shelves here.

The wine is dark red. Nose, closed at first, opened on the long 5 hours we drank it. Nose of roasted oak, smoke, dark berries. Later on, dark rasberries, coffee, vanilla and more dark berries. Smooth at the end of the bottle. In mouth, what look like an austere Cantemerle at first sip, became a nice thick medium concentrated Bordeaux. Flavors of oak, dark grilled berries, cassis, minerals and some earth. This is nice and should be really good in 8-10 years. For now, I prefer the ''claret style'' 2003, but the 2006 is promising. Don't get me wrong, it is not a ''high level'' Cru Classé, but this is what every Bordeaux lover will appreciate anyway. TN : 88-89+.

Nic

[JimHow]

Seems like Cantemerle has been producing some quality wines in recent years, Nic, thanks for the great notes. Interesting that you find 2003 to be a "claret" style year, I would have thought 2006 might be considered more traditional and claret styled than the hot 2003s.

[William P]

Thanks Nic, just bought a few for $27.00 at costco.

[Blanquito]

The 2000, and to a lesser degree, 2005 are both very good Cantemerles.

I haven't had the 2006, Nic, but I did pick up some half bottles for $13. Your note makes me glad I did!

[Ramon_NYC]

Blanquito,
So, how are the 2000 Cantemerle drinking nowadays?
RC

[William P]

I had the 2000 a few months ago and it was great. Not near its plateau but still very enjoyable.

[dstgolf]

Jim,

Claret style year for 2003 is a question mark but I've certainly enjoyed the 2003s across the board more so than 2006. Ripe fruit and tannins make 2003 more enjoyable at this time. Some have heavily toasted oak or torrified earth notes but the majority of the 2006s have harsh tannins,with lurking fruit a la 1986. Not sure if the 20062 will come around but not sure the 2003s are built for the long haul! The 2006s are very much a buyer beware year with many of the regular favourites not showing very well.

Danny

[Blanquito]

I've found the 3-4 bottles of the 2000 Cantemerle I've opened since 2006 to be drinking great. One of the more accessible and open 2000 Left Bankers out there, in my experience. If you own some, Ramon, no reason to wait, nor to hurry (unless you have cases!).

[JimHow]

Agreed, Danny, I'm not quite sure what it is about the 2006s that made He Who Shall Remain Nameless so high on the vintage. The 2003s we had at our Blanquito dinner last year were showing very well.

[William P]

Well the 1986 are coming around, while many of the 1975 never did. I believe 2006 to have the fruit to age but who knows. It's not a vintage that I will jump on heavily, I'll spend more money on picking up some bargain 2006 burgs.

I am still not convince that 2003 is a great year. I'll admit there were some great wines but I continue to be worried about the recorde heat and the oak regime that some took. Time will tell. Somewhere I have two or three case waiting for the proper time.

[JimHow]

I have personally enjoyed the 1986s from early on, they are what they are. 2006 is not even close to being in the same league as 1986L.

I was really pleasantly surprised by those 2003s we had at the Blanquito dinner, Bill, I saw the '03 Pontet Canet go into an awkward stage and I thought the '03s might become disjointed but they were very solid up and down the left bank, at least on that night.

[William P]

I wasn't trying to compare them qualitywise, just saying that both vintages are/were very tannic. The young 86s I drank were very tannic, at times painfully so. But they came around. I would think the 06s will too. Will they be great no, I don't think the fruit is of "super-year" quality. Also, I haven't had too many 06. It could very well be that the one I had were no representative of the vintage.

[Chasse-Spleen]

Looking back on the Blanquito dinner during the Summer, I have to say that I was very impressed with the 2003s. However, you have to remember that these were all highly rated wines, and favorite chateaux of ours, as well. Pontet-Canet, Sociando, Duhart, SHL, Lagrange. The PC and Sociando were huge wines, super with great depth. I think 2006 is more of a 'classic' vintage. I've been liking it so far, although I haven't tried any of the more expensive wines. I can hardly see how someone could describe it as tannic after '05... you mean you can still feel your jaw?
-Chasse

[William P]

While the 05 vintage is very tannic and will be very long lived, the tannins were not as harsh as the 06s at least in my opinion.

[dstgolf]

I agree entirely with Bill about the tannins in 05 vs 06. The former are ripe supported by strong backbone of fruit and balance, whereas the majority of 06's are disjointed with lacking fruit and overpowering tannins. To me this is the worst minefield vintage of the new millennium so far.

[rjsussex]

I'm very bullish about the 06s. Cantemerle I posted about many months ago - drunk blind against the 05 there was little to choose. Was lucky to buy the 06 at en primeur at only about £13 a pop. (2 cases.) Since then I've bought and highly rated cases of Gruaud, Lagrange, Gloria and the giant-killing Moulin de la Rose. Glana is a cheap bargain.

This week my other 06 cases should bge coming - Dom de Chevalier, Clerc Milon and Durfort. Will post.

I think the vintage is absolutely the style I like best in left-bank claret. 04s with more muscle?

In UK Adnams wines have just hosted their annual 4 years on blind tasting (wish they invited me!) and the buzz from that was I think very positive about these 06s. And I gather Cantemerle scored really well.

Best

Richard

[Ramon_NYC]

My foray into 2006, a vintage where I deliberately did not buy any (futures or secondary), did not leave me very impressed. It's OK, but I personally don't have much enthusiasm to rush out and buy. I did scout winesearcher.com for the Lynch Bages, but still did not pull the trigger. Here are some TNs:

Bordeaux 2006 Horizontal
Public Restaurant, NYC
12/15/2009

There were 6 of us and this was a group smaller than our usual. The dinner was jovial, candid, and fun. Matt had organized this annual Bordeaux newly-released tasting for years now and this time he also took care of sourcing a collection of wines for those of us who have not purchased wines from this vintage.

It’s the second time that I had attended a tasting at Public,. The first time was good. This time around, I enjoyed the “free-spirited fusion” dishes that I had and the restaurant’s swanky library/industrial/warehouse setting in NYC’s Nolita area grew on me, especially as the 6 of us were provided a nice and cozy semi-private dining area with the very friendly and efficient, but not overbearing, sommelier. Towards the end of the dinner, he capped off the excellent service by opening a bottle of, and indulging us with, a 1988 white from California that I neglected to write notes on.


The wines –

2006 Henri Gouges ‘La Perriere’ NSG
Dale (thanks!) brought this mystery wine, served blind and which none of us were able to guess the varietal that this was made from. It was a white Pinot Noir from Burgundy. Some oak, but very aromatic, it was rich with minerals and a long, slightly bitter finish. Some guessed Rhone, and I would have gone with that. B+

2006 Ch. La Vieille Cure, Fronsac
A 375ml courtesy of Bob and a last-minute addition to the line-up. Oak, quite tight but showed enough ripeness and sweetness on the nose. Lot’s of merlot and the consensus was it needs many years of cellar time. B+

2006 Ch. D’Aiguilhe, Cotes de Castillon
A bottle whose name only Ned could properly pronounce. Hey, he’s the wine writer/instructor. Another ripe Right Banker, but this was more accessible with sweet tannin, vanilla, quite modern, nice drinking and tasty finish. B+

2006 Ch. Cantemerle, Haut-Medoc
Heavy barnyard nose, wood, and leafy. High acidity and mineral components. A little disjointed. B

2006 Ch. La Lagune, Haut-Medoc
Good level of ripeness, lean. Amidst fruit and vanilla, there is the slight brett on the bouquet. I like the balance. I was told that this was available in the $30 range and I like it at that price. B+

2006 Ch. Malescot St. Exupery, Margaux
Leafy, mineral and very aromatic nose. Some slight greenness but not obtrusive. There’s enough fruit in the overall structure, but I somehow I find the middle quite thin. B

2006 Ch. Haut-Bailly, Pessac-Leognan
Oak, very tight, chalky. I’ve had previous vintages of this producer tasted upon release and were good enough for me to consider purchasing. Not this one. B-

2006 Ch. Lynch-Bages, Pauillac
Notes of gravel and pencil eraser. This was tannic with a nice high acidity level. Power and muscle, with good overall balance. The groups WOTN. A-

2006 Ch. Grand-Puy-Lacoste, Pauillac
Slightly floral with something pungent in the nose. Vegetal notes that I can’t get over. Not impressed with the balance. B-

2006 Ch. Pontet-Canet, Pauillac
What a heavy bottle. Floral, cigar, gravel and meat on the nose. Savory, dusty, but nicely balanced with lean fruit. I like this wine. B+

2006 Ch. Leoville-Barton, Saint-Julien
Dry earth on the nose. Agree with Dale on the heavy wood on this one. Slightly green and am not sensing sufficient fruit. A personal perennial favorite, but this one disappointed. B

1988 Ch. Rieussec, Sauternes
A 375ml bottle. Dark gold, some wood notes, nice restrained sweetness, but definitely less sweet than previous bottle that I had and which, then, seemed to offer more in terms of complexity. B+

[Comte Flaneur]

Confession time: I started drinking wine again last week and ended my self flagellation with a bottle of Grand Puy Lacoste 2006. Maybe any wine would have tasted good after my self-imposed misery but this one really rocked my boat...it was delicious accessible berry-fruited and moreish Pauillac, like a slightly toned down version of the 1995, which is developing into a really serious wine. So maybe Ramon you might have had a duff bottle? This really restored my faith in the 2006 vintage after mixed experiences so far.

[Ramon_NYC]

Ian,

One of the many thing that I’ve learned when doing multiple-bottle tastings within a matter of 3 hours is that getting to really know the wines doesn't quite compare to having the more intimate, solo, one-on-one with each of them.

I’m glad that you’re having a good experience with the 06 GPL. Thanks for the notes and I will look forward to revisiting the wine.

Ramon

[Nicklasss]

I did not opened lots of 2006, but from that 2006 Cantemerle from last weekend, I understand that the wine is nothing seductive after opening. But at the end of the night, it was way better. But it will never be a 2005 or 2000 vintage. Or even a 2001. over the 5 hours I drank the 2006 Cantemerle, I could imagine that 2006 vintage is a mix (or midway) between 1994 and 2002. But this is just one sample. I plan to open the 2006 Tour Carnet soon and I have a small tasting at the end of February, where the theme is 2006 Bordeaux.

Thanks guys for all the comments.

For Ramon, i don't know your rating system, but to me, you gave B- or over to all 2006 you had, so I thought it would be at least a good/average vintage.

Nic

[Ramon_NYC]

Nic,

The 2006 wines aren't bad, but were not very impressive to me. I should have worded it appropriately and qualified that while they were not bad, the prices are making them more un-impressive to me. Given the prices that I see them around here, I expected to be impressed and I should be able to score them around at least A-. At those prices, I'd rather look for and back fill with similar wines from 2000 and 1996 which I find better than just average.

[William P]

On the west coast I am seeing some decent 06 closeout prices. Grand Puy Lascost for $38 and Malescot for $35. I can't remember when I saw Cru Classe for those prices. Again I am not backin up the truck but if I can get good wines at a low prices, I will buy. This way, I will something to pop while I wait for the 00, 03 and 05 to shine.

[Houndsong]

When you can pick wines you like at the right prices it doesn't matter what year is on the label. Make a short list and grab things as they go on clearance. In the immediate context I'd wager most people don't have (or don't think they have) enough of the uber ripe-uber hyped vintage of the century type wines in their cellars. I filled out my "classic" Bordeaux (if such thing exists) space my ellars with 01s, 02s and 04s, all as Ramon points out, at better prices than the 06s.

[Chasse-Spleen]

Sounds like '06 appeals to tasters from the the UK... I think more organized, group tasting is in order.

[William P]

I suspect we are arguing different points. What I am saying is I can't backfill for less than the discounted prices of the 06. True if I bought the 01, 02 and 04 maybe I wouldn't buy any of the 06. But what I bought of those years died early deaths. I can't backfill bordeaux at the quality and for the price that I am seeing for 06. However, I am still not buying much 06.