Chateau Cantemerle dinner
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:37 pm
Our London tasting group held a Cantemerle dinner last night with three flights of this fifth growth.
The first flight was the most fun and the highlight for me. My expectations were high for the 1989 but not for the 1979 (91) and 1983 (91), which turned out to be a revelation. The 1979 needed drinking, but had a highly alluring truffly note, which made it special in my book. The 1983 was superb too. A fine example of mature claret with a nod to the old school, but hardly thin, and with plenty of life left in it, unlike many 1983s which need drinking. The 1989 (96) however was the star of the flight, and was characterised by a supreme elegance and lightness on its feet that you might get in Lafite or Margaux. It romped home with the wine of the night accolade, by a country mile.
On to the next flight and the 1996 (93) seemed to have an abundance of vanilla oak, which was starkly obvious after tasting the golden oldies. But underneath that cloak is a very fine wine. It will easily last a couple of decades to allow some of that attack to blow off. The 2000 (94) did not have the same oakiness and had a bit more power and density on the mid, not that the 1996 was lacking. I slightly preferred it on the night. Both are terrific. The 2002 (90) is a very satisfying claret. Again with a nod to the old school. I would be more than happy to own this, but a bit more pedestrian and prosaic than its flight mates.
The last flight wines were juveniles. The pick was the 2005 (93 now possibly higher later), which unlike say Beychevelle is not even close to its drinking window. I would say give it another decade. The 2009 (91) and 2010 (92) were babies, the former easier to drink than the latter but both needing ten probably 15 years. If you had any if these in your cellar you need to be patient but will be amply rewarded in time. All three have what it takes and I am sure the scores will creep up.
We voted on the reds and the result was:
1989 - 23 points
1996 - 8
2000 - 7
2005 - 7
1979 - 2
Everything else - like the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest
So the eight Brits around the table did not 'get' the 2010. We all agreed it is potentially an outstanding wine, but that it needs so much time. A couple described it as less obviously Bordeaux-like than even the 2009 and a wine which could be mistaken for a Napa. My take was that all three wines in the third flight were ridiculously young but all of them could one day vye for the 'greatest ever.' The 2010 was the most painfully awkward of the three, which in itself is reassuring.
Thus I don't think the 2010 marks a shift to the 'dark side', but others had their suspicions. However some would say that the 1953 and 1961 would never be surpassed. Right now the 1989 reigns supreme. I am just kicking myself I did not pull the trigger on this on release.
This estates punches well above its weight. It is easily third growth quality, knocking on the second growth door.
The first flight was the most fun and the highlight for me. My expectations were high for the 1989 but not for the 1979 (91) and 1983 (91), which turned out to be a revelation. The 1979 needed drinking, but had a highly alluring truffly note, which made it special in my book. The 1983 was superb too. A fine example of mature claret with a nod to the old school, but hardly thin, and with plenty of life left in it, unlike many 1983s which need drinking. The 1989 (96) however was the star of the flight, and was characterised by a supreme elegance and lightness on its feet that you might get in Lafite or Margaux. It romped home with the wine of the night accolade, by a country mile.
On to the next flight and the 1996 (93) seemed to have an abundance of vanilla oak, which was starkly obvious after tasting the golden oldies. But underneath that cloak is a very fine wine. It will easily last a couple of decades to allow some of that attack to blow off. The 2000 (94) did not have the same oakiness and had a bit more power and density on the mid, not that the 1996 was lacking. I slightly preferred it on the night. Both are terrific. The 2002 (90) is a very satisfying claret. Again with a nod to the old school. I would be more than happy to own this, but a bit more pedestrian and prosaic than its flight mates.
The last flight wines were juveniles. The pick was the 2005 (93 now possibly higher later), which unlike say Beychevelle is not even close to its drinking window. I would say give it another decade. The 2009 (91) and 2010 (92) were babies, the former easier to drink than the latter but both needing ten probably 15 years. If you had any if these in your cellar you need to be patient but will be amply rewarded in time. All three have what it takes and I am sure the scores will creep up.
We voted on the reds and the result was:
1989 - 23 points
1996 - 8
2000 - 7
2005 - 7
1979 - 2
Everything else - like the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest
So the eight Brits around the table did not 'get' the 2010. We all agreed it is potentially an outstanding wine, but that it needs so much time. A couple described it as less obviously Bordeaux-like than even the 2009 and a wine which could be mistaken for a Napa. My take was that all three wines in the third flight were ridiculously young but all of them could one day vye for the 'greatest ever.' The 2010 was the most painfully awkward of the three, which in itself is reassuring.
Thus I don't think the 2010 marks a shift to the 'dark side', but others had their suspicions. However some would say that the 1953 and 1961 would never be surpassed. Right now the 1989 reigns supreme. I am just kicking myself I did not pull the trigger on this on release.
This estates punches well above its weight. It is easily third growth quality, knocking on the second growth door.