TN: aged Bordeaux and a young young Chateauneuf...

[JonoB]

A friend has just returned to Japan from Belgium, having spent time in Bordeaux beforehand, so we went for dinner and are now at home with some good bottles... Here are the notes...

1974 Chateau Croizet-Bages, Pauillac
earth, wet soil, cedar, tobacco, stewed cranberry, still quite spritely, but very light, slightly acetic, but still very pleasant. Still a touch of fresh strawberry, cherry and red plum, surprisingly nice, mature Burgundy-esque, blind would be unrecognizable as Bordeaux. Still with a touch of soft small tannin. Balanced, and growing on me, despite a nose that is slightly past it. Sandy, saline, a touch of flint, not at all concentrated, but with nice complexity, so fresh that it still lives and lives well, unlike the overly tannic 1973s... A hint of mint, herbs, dry soil, iron ore, mineral. Very pleasant but isn't going to much further than here. drink up! ******- or [3.5+4+4.5+4=16/20], orange, orange peel, very fine sediment. A slightly Porty note of raisins, old Colheita. As Bordeaux very un inspiring, but as a wine, still very very nice!!!!!

2006 Chateauneuf du Pape, Cuvee Prestige, Roger Sabon
plum, cassis, earth, but a touch closed on the nose, coffee, vanilla, tight, poised, woodsy, needs some series time, but with refreshing acidity, herbs, concentrated, powerful but with an elegance that hot vintages can't produce. It was hollow on bottling but more complete with a two year period in bottle, soft tannins, balanced, it should unfurl, but the wood spice needs to integrate. Rosemary and provencal herbs. Cassis, dark plum, cocoa, coffee, earthy finish, the minerality is probably a touch subdued, but there is a crushed rock character underneath, meaty finish, not quite long enough right now, but age will help this. My only concern is will it outlast the barrique wood and tannins??? ****(*+) or [3.5+4+4+3.5~=15+/20 potentially 17-17.5/20 if it outlast the wood]

[alchemeus]

A friend has just returned to Japan from Belgium, having spent time in Bordeaux beforehand, so we went for dinner and are now at home with some good bottles... Here are the notes...

1974 Chateau Croizet-Bages, Pauillac
earth, wet soil, cedar, tobacco, stewed cranberry, still quite spritely, but very light, slightly acetic, but still very pleasant. Still a touch of fresh strawberry, cherry and red plum, surprisingly nice, mature Burgundy-esque, blind would be unrecognizable as Bordeaux. Still with a touch of soft small tannin. Balanced, and growing on me, despite a nose that is slightly past it. Sandy, saline, a touch of flint, not at all concentrated, but with nice complexity, so fresh that it still lives and lives well, unlike the overly tannic 1973s... A hint of mint, herbs, dry soil, iron ore, mineral. Very pleasant but isn't going to much further than here. drink up! ******- or [3.5+4+4.5+4=16/20], orange, orange peel, very fine sediment. A slightly Porty note of raisins, old Colheita. As Bordeaux very un inspiring, but as a wine, still very very nice!!!!!

2006 Chateauneuf du Pape, Cuvee Prestige, Roger Sabon
plum, cassis, earth, but a touch closed on the nose, coffee, vanilla, tight, poised, woodsy, needs some series time, but with refreshing acidity, herbs, concentrated, powerful but with an elegance that hot vintages can't produce. It was hollow on bottling but more complete with a two year period in bottle, soft tannins, balanced, it should unfurl, but the wood spice needs to integrate. Rosemary and provencal herbs. Cassis, dark plum, cocoa, coffee, earthy finish, the minerality is probably a touch subdued, but there is a crushed rock character underneath, meaty finish, not quite long enough right now, but age will help this. My only concern is will it outlast the barrique wood and tannins??? ****(*+) or [3.5+4+4+3.5~=15+/20 potentially 17-17.5/20 if it outlast the wood]

Interesting how each defines their ratings. 'earth' 'wet soil' 'tobacco' all good things to me. 'stewed' anything a bad thing. Just differences. I do love different aromas wafting up from the stem, but there is no set specifics that determine anything, to me. Some things are bad ('stewed' for instance) but that is me. Stewed tomatoes is a WARNING SIGN for a bad wine. To me. 'Crisp' is always a good thing to me.

Dunno, just thinking about adjectives. How one describes a wine. Better than points. What you realize from a wine is far more important than any grade you give it. Description is essential. And it doesn't matter if one agrees with the other on points, the aromatics and taste each perceives and described is far more telling.

[JonoB]

I should probably put my 'stewed' in context. Your stewed is my 'ripe' or overdone... Stewed is a character of fruit I find in fully mature fruit. For example, the nose you get from old fruit that is going off, or having been slow cooked to go into a fruit pie, etc. That is how my fruit develops in my head and so 'stewed' does not equal 'ripe' or 'over ripe' which to me is a bad thing.

[AlexR]

Jonathan,

A red letter day - the first time I have ever seen anybody say anything enthusiasted about Croizet Bages.

I often go on record as championing unfashionable estates and vintages, but I have to agree with Robert Parker on this one.
He famously wrote: "Life is too short for Croizet Bages".

Or perhaps I need to do my homework a little more with that wine.
Previous experiences over many years have been ho-hum at best.

Alex R.

[Michael-P]

Alex:

Thanks for the great TNs and I can almost taste that 74. It's like a lot of uninspiring old wines, with some interesting characterisitics and perhaps more appealing to wine crazy people like us than your average pedestrian. But sometimes I tire of these old wines that don't deliver what famous old wine is famous for.

Michael-P

[JonoB]

Alex, of course this is an off vintage and expected it to be absolutely dead.
It wasn't but neither did it feel like Bordeaux.

Of course, there are some telltale characteristics.
Croziet-Bages, is clearly not in anyonesn top league, but this bottle was a pleasant surprise.