Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

So who's the winner? If I remember well, you have a "traditionnal" palate, so you preferred the Château Figeac?

Nic

Nic, I expected it to be a close contest. One exuberant and gregarious wine, versus another more introverted and complex wine. Just look on cellartracker.

The Figeac is quite high toned with dark chocolate notes, but scratch beneath the surface and there is so much going on, so many moving parts. Minerals, iodine, iron ore and iron-scented rusty nails, there is also a rotting note which is so riveting in mature red burgundies. And a bit of cigar box and cedar. After a couple of hours this really opens beautifully. It is a wine which is just coming into its prime, and no doubt it is an intellectual wine.

The Angelus seems much more evolved than when I tried it a couple of years ago when it was quite clenched, and surprisingly so. Today it was much more open for business, and it has an enticing nose of soy, sweet cherries and black fruits. It is pretty seamless across the palate with a bit of heat in the back palate, but it doesn't have great length. Superficially sexy and seductive.

I keep sipping this to try to get something on the mid, some nuance and complexity, but there is absolutely nothing there. Nothing going on. Nada. It is very one paced and uni-dimensional. Because I think I am missing something I refer to cellartracker notes which are mostly rapturous. But nobody articulates why they rate the wine so highly. The cynic in me thinks: lazy rich people sucked in by the hype.

The Angelus has little or no substance or complexity. Sure it is nice to drink, but it is superficially attractive. But choose you cliche: the emperor has no clothes, when the tide goes out it reveals who has been swimming naked. On the second glass it is boring, and on the third it is quite frankly tedious. This is like comparing a silicon- and Botox-enhanced blonde bimbo with a somewhat introverted intellectual.

Good though the Figeac is, I think this is only a very good rather than great Figeac. I suspect if we had a Cheval Blanc 1995 along side these two it would be at a different level. But on the night the Figeac is by far the superior wine. Based on this showing, no way should Angelus by classified as Premier Grand Cru Classe. I am mystified why critics rate Angelus so highly.

We are doing a Angelus-Pavie-Cheval Blanc-Ausone dinner here in London on 14 Jan.

I see you opened a Canonica...Although not a great vintage, wonder if it's worth the hype...

Loved it CV - despite being traditionally fashioned, surprisingly accessible. However I wouldn't dare open a 2010. I think you have a good buy. However, the wine on the right, the Rockford, was my wine of the weekend.

Nice...I got couple of more (last two in the US as of now)) bottles of 10 canonica...Looking forward to drink them may be after 15, 20 yrs...

A while back I had 03 Angelus from a split, and I had pretty much the same feelings you described...A bit interesting at first, and after a while nada..A bit disappointed with its short finish (even after discounting not so good 03 vintage standards)....It was so dull that I do not even remember well my notes...

Same lesson here tonight. Even If the 2000 Guigal La Mouline and 1999 Insignia are both superb, i could smell and taste tonight that The Côte-Rôtie terroir/syrah-viognier mix is superior. But this is just one night!

I'm sure 1995 Angélus is something, but i like my wine when they express à lot their soil. I guess The 1995 Figeac is better to do that.

Nic

Ahh, my beloved Angelus, where have you gone? This wine was sooooo good in 1989 and 1990. I fell in love with it and keep hoping to see them repeat that. But perhaps it is not meant to be.

Maybe I was too harsh, and on its own the lack of complexity wouldn't have mattered so much. But putting it up against a complex wine like the Figeac really was telling. I think some would put this down to the difference in terroir.

I have had the 1989 David, and enjoyed its brash personality, everything is up front. But even when you analyse that wine, there is much less going on at the back end.

In mid-January we are doing a Premier a Grand a Cru Class A dinner with the idea of comparing Angelus and Pavie against Cheval Blanc and Ausone. Hopefully the line up will include Angelus 1989, 1998 and 2005.

We also should get Pavie 1989, 1998 and 2004 or 2005, Cheval Blanc 1989, 1998 and 1999 and Ausone 1995 and 1997.

I find a lot of complexity in the 1989 Angelus. Ive had it many times but never alongside a Figeac. The two are very different styles and different palates will have different preferences, but I wouldn't call the '89 Angelus simple or lacking complexity.

The 1989 is clearly much better than the 1995 and is thrilling to drink, but in my opinion all the action is up front and it tails off a bit. Really great wines don't fall away like that. I didn't say the 1989 lacks complexity, but what it does seem to lack is the persistence on the back. That's why my CT note 9/17/14 gave it 98 on the front and 90 at the back.

I remember a fun dinner with the 89 and 90 Angelus (I believe our resident Bluesman supplied one or both), both vintages were outstanding. I think Father Stefan and Lady Lucie were in the house as well.

Left overs on day two.

Figeac: attenuated dark chocolates notes
Angelus: spirity and diffuse

Yes, both the '89 and '90 Angelus are thrilling to drink even if leaning toward the modern up front style.

I'd love either.
Nice pairing.