Margaux the Magificent - but not always

[sdr]

These notes are from one of the tastings conducted by the immodestly but accurately named "The Great Wine Seminar." http://www.thegreatwineseminar.com/ which is held each year in the Miami (South Florida) area. As you can see by the listings of previous events on their web site, the wines are tyically high end and deep in verticals, going back decades in many instances. French wines are emphasized, but there can by presentations of the most interesting wines of Italy, Germany, Portugal or Madeira, for example. Typically, the wine maker or owner is in attendance to present their wares and the moderator for the weekend is a well know winn internationally well known wine critic, such as Clive Coates, Serena Sutcliff or Robert Parker. This year, we had the pleasure of having Allen Meadows (The Burghound) give us his comments, which of course were especially insightful regarding the Burgundy theme tastings.

As is often the case, all the wines were purchased directly from the Domaine or Chateau and flown over to America in ideal conditions about three months before the event, where they are stored meticulously by Arlette and Bob Cataldo, the organizers. Pours are a generous 1.5 ounces per wine and there is sometimes enough to go back for a second sample.

We started off very well indeed with Chateau Margaux. Paul Pontallier, the wine maker, gave us excellent details about the conditions for each vintage, both during the growing season and the vinification. Those BWEers who participated in the Bordeaux trip in May 2005 will of course never forget the experience of visiting as well as dining at Chateau Margaux and the passion and endless depth of knowlege imparted by M. Pontallier.

First, a couple of the whites:

2006 Pavillon Blanc du Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Bordeaux Contrôlée (4/24/2009)
Very pale yellow with a tinge of green. Marvellous delicate aroma of sauvignon blanc in the Bordeaux style. Became more frangrant and more elegant with air. High alcohol at 15+% but ther's no hint of heat or over ripeness. Lots of glycerine and long legs. Light to medium weight, modest length, but strictly one-dimensional at this early stage, and not much acidic spine. The '05 was more impressive at age three, but this might improve in the short term. (88 pts.)

1993 Pavillon Blanc du Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Bordeaux Contrôlée (4/24/2009)
M. Pontallier chose this example of Pavillon Blance to show us how well it can age, but I was not convinced, at least by this vintage. Surprisingly, hardly more pigmented than the '06, not even butter yellow. Very strong aroma of resin, which I find off-putting. (I grimaced instinctively when I put my nose in the glass.) Powerful but oxidative in style - not for me. Perhaps others would like it better. M. Pontalier seemed enthusiastic. (78 pts.)

Then, one Pavillon Rouge:

2006 Pavillon Rouge du Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
Medium light color, transparent. Delightful easy aromas of strawberry and Maraschino cherry. Light, delicate, short and fully ready to drink now. A fun wine but it seems more like Burgundy than Bordeaux. (82 pts.)


Then, the parade of grands vins:

2006 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
Obviously a distinct step up in intensity from the Pavillon. Unusually for the Chateau, this is 90% cabernet sauvignon, 4% merlot since the CS ripened the best in 2006. Good color, but not impenetrable. Smells and tastes like a mixture of red and black cherries. Very rounded tannins; soft, clean and very approachable, but not very impressive for a First Growth in a decent vintage. (84 pts.)

2004 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
The color seems unusually evolved for a 5 year old child. The flavors now are trending more towards blackberry than cherry but the palate is not as good as the nose and there is a herbaceous streak. Could this be under ripe? But a second glass poured about 30 minutes later was better, so maybe this just needs more air time than we were able to give it. (80 pts.)

2003 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
The rim is becoming pale and although it seems viscous in the glass, the wine is fairly dull on the nose and leans more to hard or tough dried fruit such as cranberry. Mouth-coating viscosity, very dense, but lacks all sense of freshness and Margaux typicity. A second pour exhibited a hint of varnish. The super-hot summer seems to have left its imprint on the wine. I can't see this developing positively over the years but I hope I am wrong. (81 pts.)

2002 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2006)
Now this is more like it. Good mouth feel, pure, sensual and pleasant, although clearly not great. Successful for the vintage. (86 pts.)

2001 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
Not much happening on the nose and perhaps the tannins are a bit under-ripe. The color is mature, the rim is fully orange. Medium weight and modestly pleasant. But nothing to suggest this is Chateau Margaux. (83 pts.)

2000 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
Finally, a stupendous example of Chateau Margaux and the wine of the night. Stunningly beautiful in all its glory. Massive, yet not chewy because the tannins are completely buried underneath the vibrant weight of all sorts of soft red and black fruits. Totally round; immense power allied with equally immense fruit. Lush as the greens at Augusta National. It's so pleasurable right now in its youthful exuberance I would have difficulty keeping my hands off it if I owned any. Those BWE members who tasted this wine at the Chateau in May 2005 will remember it well and it has advanced only slightly since then. (98 pts.)

1999 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
The 1999 vintage in Bordeaux will always be hidden in the giant shadow cast by the year 2000. Yet, as this wine demonstrates, there's much pleasure to be had. Surprisingly, the color was as dark as the '00 and had the same ability to stain the glass purple. On the palate, it was a scaled-down version of the 2000, which is no small compliment given the masterpiece that is 2000 Margaux. Nicely balanced, very good density of fruit with enough structure to stay the course for a while yet. (89 pts.)

1998 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
The right bank gets all the glory in 1998 Bordeaux, but the left bank produced many successes as well, and not only in Pessac-Leognan. Chateau Margaux has produced an excellent wine with the fruit all in the black spectrum - blackberries, blackcurrant, dark raspberries. It's firm on both nose and palate but far from rigid and it should develop extremely well over the next decade or two. For now, it lacks only complexity, but that will come in due course. (91 pts.)

1996 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
Excellent wine. Although still very young, it is mature enough to give off that sexy, sweet yet slightly reserved character of a fine Chateau Margaux. The most complex of the vertical so far (beginning with the '06), there's a wealth of bluebery, blackberry, cassis and a wallop of black licorice as well. The tannins are still prominent so patience is required. There's not the density and concentration of the very best vintages even though it is a clear winner. Better to let it sleep another decade (or two). (90 pts.)

1995 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
The contrast between this '95 and the '96 was extreme - surely this was a off bottle. Fairly unpleasant nose of mineral water and rhubarb and the color is far more advanced than the one year difference in age would suggest. There's good density on the palate but ultimately it falls flat. (79 pts.)

1990 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
This should have been one of the very highest peaks of the Chateau Margaux vertical (2006 back to 1959) and although it was excellent, it seemed like someone mislabelled the '90 as the '59 (which eventually proved to be the more vigorous of the two). Shy bouquet but there's that mysteriously lovely Margauxberry perfume. Very soft, though, a middleweight at most and the color is mahogany even right in the center. Since all these bottles were ex-Chateau a few months ago, we could not blame the provenance. On the positive side, the wine was harmonious, rounded and ultimately delicious, with the fruit, tannin and acidity totally integrated. If I were not expecting so very much I would have been completely satisfied. The Merlot in 1990 was only "so-so" according to M. Pontallier. (91 pts.)

1989 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
I was especially eager to taste this somewhat controversial vintage, at least for Chateau Margaux and a few others. The raw materials in the very hot vintage would seem to sufficient to make something very special, yet many wine critics believe only Haut Brion hot a home rum among the Firsts that year. Yet this was very, very good if not truly great. The color was advanced for a 20 year old, about the same as the '90; i.e., garnet/orange. But the nose was distinctly different; higher toned, more about flowers than fruits (? geranium). Warm and rounded on the attack and mid-palate but not enough drive to make it all the way to the back of the palate. Excellent for sure, but slightly underfruited and not really exciting in the context of what Chateau Margaux can achieve at its best. (90 pts.)

1986 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
An undeniable success. Not as backward as some of the other great left bank Bordeaux from this this very firm vintage, such as Mouton or Leoville-las-Cases, although it will surely continue to improve and gain complexity. Much deeper color than the '90 and '89 we had right before it. Outstanding depth of fruit, concentrated essence of blackcurrants, more intense than complex. The only negative was a very faint hint of acetone. Clearly built for the long haul, yet it's not too soon to enjoy it (a lot) now. According to M. Pontallier, the tannins were not totally ripe in 1989. (94 pts.)

1983 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
Now we began the always fascinating comparison of the excellent '83/'82 duo. Both were true to form. This '83 is a wonderful wine in a "cool" style, Very Cabernet Sauvignon in flavor although I do not know the exact blend. Beautifully ripe, supremely elegant, completely mature. A backlash of perfectly ripe black fruit assaults the back of the palate seemingly giving the taster two hits of wine for each swallow. Fabulous and compelling. (94 pts.)

1982 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
Whether you prefer the '83 Margaux or the '82 Margaux is more about individual preference that quality, assuming you get perfect bottles of each, as we did this day. The '82 is warmer, broader, oakier and bigger. Next to the supremely elegant '83, the '82 seems ever so slightly coarse, but it makes up for that with the sheer drama of its size and flair. Like the '83, this '82 is perfectly mature now and should last for a very long time. (93 pts.)

1959 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (4/24/2009)
Absolutely stunning, almost shocking, in its liveliness and incredible brown sugar/molasses flavor. This is what you hope to find in a 50 year old wine, but rarely do. The medium garnet color with no hint of rust or brown let you know this bottle had been perfectly preserved, which of course it was, since it was recently ex-chateau. Long legs in the glass, lots of glycerine, perhaps relatively high in alcohol, yet no sense of heat. Deep into its secondary phase, it's not about the "fruit" any more; rather there's an endless panoply of flavors in cedar, wet bark, black dirt and sugar range. Fabulous texture, thick as light cream. It glides gently down the back of the throat seemingly without any effort to swallow it. What a thrill. (A second bottle was very good, but not nearly as etherial.) (97 pts.)

~stuart

[greatbxfreak]

sdr,

I'm sorry to sound a bit rude, but your notes on younger vintages of Margaux are totally outrageous You don't seem to understand these wines at all!

I tasted 2006 both in April 2009 and October 2008, 2004 in October 2008 and 2003 in October 2008 and my TNs are totally different from yours.

[Chasse-Spleen]

Your notes confirm my suspicions that Chateau Margaux is one of the most difficult wines to taste, even for experienced tasters. I also think Ch. Margaux may take on average the most time of the firsts to open up. Of course I have so little experience here but from my reading and the few times I've tasted Margaux, this seems to be the case. 86 pts is "more like it"? You may also be an extremely tough grader.
-Chris

[Nicklasss]

SDR, Thanks for the really detailled comments.

For my part, i thought the 1985 Chateau Margaux was one of the best wine of the night, at the 09 DC convention dinner. I did not taste Margaux often, but I have been lucky and generous people at BWE made me taste the 1982, 1983 and 1985, that were all really good and should I add, glorious.

I had the 2001 with AlexR in 2004 at the Chateau, and found it interesting, but kind of ''light'' for a first growth.

And I don't want to take SDR defense for his notes on the younger vintage, but after reading SDR comments many time on BWE, and having the pleasure to meet him a few times and taste with him, I would say that SDR's palate appreciate Bordeaux wines, especially when they are 12 years old or older. Correct me if I'm wrong Stuart .

Nic

[jal]

Very nice notes, Stuart. Thank you. I have very little experience with Chateau Margaux but always glad to live vicariously through your notes

[DavidG]

Great notes, Stuart - always fun to read about a vertical like this, especially the ones from the '90s and '80s, a few of which I've had, and the older ones, that allow us, as Jacques says, to live vicariously through your experiences. One of these years I am going to make it to one of these events.

Other than the barrel tastings we had at the Chateaux in '05, I have no experience with the more recent vintages. And I don't claim to be able to predict how these young wines will turn out 20 years down the road. But I do have a pretty good idea of Stuart's preferences, and I think I know where he's coming from with the notes on the younger wines. I suspect his criteria are completely different from those, like Izak, who focus so intently on tasting young Bordeaux. Izak, maybe you'd like to post your notes on the same wines and tell us where you differ?

[AlexR]

Stuart,

It seems as though you had a fabulous evening.

I think that the whole point of wine tasting is to be honest, even if it goes against received wisdom or what the château manager says.

I do, however, think that some of the younger wines would present a very different picture in a few years' time - although who knows for sure?

Your notes about the 95 are worrying.

Yours notes for the 98 make me think this vintage is turning out better than expected.

Bestr regards,
Alex R.

[greatbxfreak]

Here are some my TNs:

2006 Margaux 98p

Tasted three times - last time in March 2009. Consistent notes. It impressed with great intensity of flavours, power, refinement and sophisticated touch. Great classic wine for the property. Paul Pontalier tasted with me and he looked to be completely in love with this wine. This wine is long term runner - will be major fire-works in 20-30 years time.

2004 Margaux 95p

Tasted twice - last time in October 2008. Consistent notes. 78% C.Sauvignon + 18% Merlot + 2% P.Verdot/C.Franc.This wine hasd turned out to be another classic - perfectly ripe fruit, stunning richness, extremely elegant and finesse, fleshy and long. Wonderful stuff. 1/3 or more of the price for 2005 and 2006. 20-25 years horisontally in the cellar.

I've been tasting young wines/barrel samples since 1984, so I'm well trained. Older wines came after and I'm trained to taste these too.

For me, it looks like sdr isn't well trained in tasting young wines. I completely disagree with his Tns for younger wines.

Alex, come on, you tasted 2006 Margaux with me in March this year "sur place". Don't you agree with me on very high quality of this wine?

[DavidG]

Izak, this is why I think it's so important to know whose notes you're reading. I can't speak to Stuart's experience or training on tasting very young Bordeaux, but I do know his palate fairly well from sharing more mature wines with him over the years. It may not be the recent fashion, but I wouldn't expect a high score from him on a young wine that may or may not be great 20 years down the road. Just like I don't expect you to give high scores to a fruit bomb, though I must complement you for consistently stating your preferences so even the first-time reader of your notes will know where you are coming from.

Anyway, comparing notes to see where the disagreements arise rather than simply disagreeing is what makes these forums fun and educational, so thanks for posting yours. I'd like to see the two of you taste some older wines from the same bottle. I wonder how your impressions would compare there.

[AlexR]

David,

"greatbxfreak" is Izak in Denmark.

It is true that I have tasted '06 Margaux with him and have had it on another occasion as well.
Like Izak, I had a very different impression.

But, like Izak, I have been used to tasting these wines (meant to age 10,20, or even more years) from barrel.
I'm not saying that makes me better than anyone else, it's just that looking behind such wines when they're really young is challenging.

All the best,
Alex

[sdr]

sdr,

I'm sorry to sound a bit rude, but your notes on younger vintages of Margaux are totally outrageous You don't seem to understand these wines at all!

I tasted 2006 both in April 2009 and October 2008, 2004 in October 2008 and 2003 in October 2008 and my TNs are totally different from yours.

You're right, I'm not a trained professional wine taster and you are. But I know what I smell and taste and I just try to describe it. You (and M. Pontalllier, for that matter) are free to disagree and explain why.

86 pts is "more like it"? You may also be an extremely tough grader.
-Chris

I suppose I am a tough grader compared to a lot of wine writers. But when I went to school, a solid "B" (83 - 86 points) was a good grade and an "A" (93 - 96 points) was uncommon and cherished. I am happy to drink again any wine with a grade or 83 points or higher.

~stuart

[DavidG]

Izak, sorry, got my names mixed up... I do know who you are.

I will edit.

[Harry C.]

Stu, interesting notes. It would seem that you are swimming upstream with regard to a lot of other reviewers, but your taste and notes are what they are. But you are a hard marker as I gave a rare 100 points to the 2000 Margaux, and you only gave 98!

[Claudius]

Guys,
I think Stuart IS a hard marker but part of the issue is that he's treid a vertical and they always tend to show the differences in the wines across vintages. That is, you notice differences in style; one has riper tannins, one other has a differnt mouthfeel, different fruit characters, whatever.


Now, I have tried the 82 and 83 on several occasions (hey, they were cheaper then!) and they were clearly two of the very best wines I have ever tried. The 95 bottle must have been dead. I've had one bottle of it a few years ago, and it was nothing like mineral water and ehubard (thank god!). The lesser vintages rely on subtlety and not power and tend to be a bit Burgundy like in colour when maturing. And this wine does show vintage variations clearly.

The 02 I've had on a few occasions and found it to be one of the very best wines of the vintage (I actually think Mouton was the best and I don't normally rate it as well as the other firsts). Yet I have no intention of opening any 02 firsts for many years.

[sdr]

But you are a hard marker as I gave a rare 100 points to the 2000 Margaux, and you only gave 98!

Great to hear from you, Harry. I often think of you in connection with the '00 Margaux. I remember how impressed you were when tasting it at the chateau with BWE in May, 2005, enough to motivate you to buy some when you returned back to NJ. For a 9 year old wine, it just might be a 100 pointer. But being the ruthless grader that I am, I withheld the last two points just in case it falls apart in 50 years

~stuart

[Otto Nieminen]

Thanks - I am intrigued by this property (well...who isn't?), but have had horribly bad luck with it: a corked '83, probably not well stored '85 and '86, a corked '88, a weird, atypical '03 (but at least the bottle was sound - just not a style I liked). But I did have a glass of an awesomely elegant, pure, restrained, graceful, classy '04. It was one of the best young Clarets I have had.

[JimHow]

Provocative notes indeed, Stuart! Not used to seeing Chateau Margaux reduced to mid-to-low-eighties scores! The SDR90 '90 Margaux has (twice) been one of my most profound experiences in wine. And I can still taste the finish from that '83 Margaux I sipped at the end of the night in NYC '03 with werner and Chris.....