Cos D'Estournel tasting
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:05 pm
I attended a Decanter Masterclass vertical of Chateau Cos D'Estournel in London's Landmark hotel today hosted by their business manager Dimitri Augenblick.
We started out with two 'Les Pagodes de Cos' the 2011 and the 2012, and they spin you the usual crock of shit that 'zis is not a second wine' and we put as much passion into this as the GV, which of course is hogwash. The Pagodes is made from vines which are 5-15 years old, and the 2011 and 2012 were approximately 65% cab-sav and most of the rest merlot. The 2011 was utterly unready and numbingly prosaic. The 2012 was slightly more interesting, although is not an adjective that sits at all comfortably with the wine - you could sup on this while you were filing your nails or picking hairs out of your nose. As second wines go this is a Wildebeest.
Thankfully we moved on to the utterly intriguing 1975 grand vin which initially seemed to be somewhat oxidised but picked itself up by its bootstraps and turned out to be a fascinating wine. The initially oxidative notes morphed into one of celery salt with hints of bovril. On the palate it became really interesting with exotic spices and mushrooms in a medium bodied format and a smooth albeit not particularly long finish. It had alluring minerally notes with fossils and sea shells. Thrilling wine. And reassuringly old school.
Next up the 1986, which was also quite old school but of course much thicker and denser. It still has a youngish hue and still sports puckering tannins. It is a big strapping, wine with an expansive finish. Based on this example, it still needs more time. A bit of a brute, it would go very well with roast beef for example. It was a hypothetical cross between the 1975 and the next wine the 1996.
The 1996 was characterised by an inky entry and red berries, with alluring notes of spices and peppers. It didn't quite have the brute power of the 1986 but really was a class act and a complete wine. It just got better and better. In my opinion this could use a few more years, but the consensus was that it is drinking beautifully now. Another fabulous 1996.
The 2002 upped the new oak, and it showed on the nose. Less well-endowed than the 1996 the style by now had become overtly modern. The nose was sweet, and I think that reflected the oak. It was a shame we had neither the 2001 or the 2003, which the Greco-German Frenchie was raving about (if ever there was a reason for us Brits to stay in the European Union this was perhaps it). The 2002 was competent, though not interesting.
The ultra-modern ultra-sleek 2005 was a wine which ticked every box with plenty to spare. You sip it lean, back, twiddle the stem and marvel at it. An opaque colour with a chocolate box, candy store of delights, very full bodied and concentrated with a lot of power, this is less recognisably Bordeaux and more Napa-like. But it did have an alluring peppery spiciness, so its parkerisation was not complete. By 2009 however it was.
The 2006 was toned down, had nice floral, smoky, minty, chalky and gamey notes but was also thoroughly modern. The 2010 was thoroughly modern and monolithic, and shut down. When we asked whether the wines had been parkerised we received a pretty convoluted answer. The answer was confirmed after tasting the Montrose 2006 and 2009 later in the next tasting. Both great wines, neither parkerised.
We finished with the Cos 2012 and 2013 whites a blend of roughly 70% Sauvignon balance and 30 % semillon, from grapes sourced further up the Medoc. The 2012 was very lovely but these wines are ambitiously priced at around £40-50 a bottle.
We started out with two 'Les Pagodes de Cos' the 2011 and the 2012, and they spin you the usual crock of shit that 'zis is not a second wine' and we put as much passion into this as the GV, which of course is hogwash. The Pagodes is made from vines which are 5-15 years old, and the 2011 and 2012 were approximately 65% cab-sav and most of the rest merlot. The 2011 was utterly unready and numbingly prosaic. The 2012 was slightly more interesting, although is not an adjective that sits at all comfortably with the wine - you could sup on this while you were filing your nails or picking hairs out of your nose. As second wines go this is a Wildebeest.
Thankfully we moved on to the utterly intriguing 1975 grand vin which initially seemed to be somewhat oxidised but picked itself up by its bootstraps and turned out to be a fascinating wine. The initially oxidative notes morphed into one of celery salt with hints of bovril. On the palate it became really interesting with exotic spices and mushrooms in a medium bodied format and a smooth albeit not particularly long finish. It had alluring minerally notes with fossils and sea shells. Thrilling wine. And reassuringly old school.
Next up the 1986, which was also quite old school but of course much thicker and denser. It still has a youngish hue and still sports puckering tannins. It is a big strapping, wine with an expansive finish. Based on this example, it still needs more time. A bit of a brute, it would go very well with roast beef for example. It was a hypothetical cross between the 1975 and the next wine the 1996.
The 1996 was characterised by an inky entry and red berries, with alluring notes of spices and peppers. It didn't quite have the brute power of the 1986 but really was a class act and a complete wine. It just got better and better. In my opinion this could use a few more years, but the consensus was that it is drinking beautifully now. Another fabulous 1996.
The 2002 upped the new oak, and it showed on the nose. Less well-endowed than the 1996 the style by now had become overtly modern. The nose was sweet, and I think that reflected the oak. It was a shame we had neither the 2001 or the 2003, which the Greco-German Frenchie was raving about (if ever there was a reason for us Brits to stay in the European Union this was perhaps it). The 2002 was competent, though not interesting.
The ultra-modern ultra-sleek 2005 was a wine which ticked every box with plenty to spare. You sip it lean, back, twiddle the stem and marvel at it. An opaque colour with a chocolate box, candy store of delights, very full bodied and concentrated with a lot of power, this is less recognisably Bordeaux and more Napa-like. But it did have an alluring peppery spiciness, so its parkerisation was not complete. By 2009 however it was.
The 2006 was toned down, had nice floral, smoky, minty, chalky and gamey notes but was also thoroughly modern. The 2010 was thoroughly modern and monolithic, and shut down. When we asked whether the wines had been parkerised we received a pretty convoluted answer. The answer was confirmed after tasting the Montrose 2006 and 2009 later in the next tasting. Both great wines, neither parkerised.
We finished with the Cos 2012 and 2013 whites a blend of roughly 70% Sauvignon balance and 30 % semillon, from grapes sourced further up the Medoc. The 2012 was very lovely but these wines are ambitiously priced at around £40-50 a bottle.