Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post Reply
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by dstgolf »

Regarding recent discussions I had been a supporter on maintaing Mouton's first growth status. The more I have pondered and following a recent tasting I have reconsidered my opinion. My conclusion now reflects what should connotate first growth status and conclusion drawn is how well the wines show in off vintages rather than the touted vintages. Anyone should produce great wines in outstanding years but first growths should rise to the forefront in those questionable years. To prove our point we recently did a vertical at my request(unfortunately) for our pre dinner tasting last week. The hype of knowing the label and the vintages the wines left us wanting and have been universally trashed leaving us thoroughly disappointed. Because the expectations were so high...after all this is Mouton and the bottles should speak for themselves regardless of vintage. After all you pay a small ransom to acquire these things and they should bring some joy shouldn't they? All were openned 3hrs prior aka Audooze, stored in cellars by all very fastidious Bordeaux lovers and everyone came in great anticipation.

We had the following vintages 71,74,78,81,88 & 89 of which the 88 was badly corked so disqualified but sad that this has sat in my cellar for over 25 years in great expectation to only be dashed!!

71 was probably the best of the lot with nice light spiced nose with earthiness and mushroom notes in a nice way. Fully resolved tannins and pleasant soft palate with good length and little light berry fruit in the background. Spice, earth and mushroomy notes with some residual cedar. Pleasant but at the end of its life but probably the best of the worst and would not go looking for this one.

74 and 81 had little to no redeeming characteristics and I/we universally agreed these were not off but just dead. No fruit,mushroom soya and a little too astringent for our taste.

78 showed little to nothing but my buddy had half a bottle left and tried the next night and he said it was stunning??!! Wish I could have had the experience but didn't and can't comment further.

89 still was dark purple showing little sign of age in the glass. Nice brambly nose with cassis and some classic lead pencil on palate. Green pepper and astrigent off putting. If this was a $25 wine fine and I accept Sociendo Mallet's green notes but I don't expect this from supposed berry selection first growths should undertake.

Overall our most anticipated but most disappointing tasting ever. We all expected much more from a first growth and drove us all to the discussion regarding validity of maintaining 1st growth status for Mouton. Universal disappointment across the board and we had to search too hard for redeeming characteristics of these wines. This in our opinion should be a given for a first growth and not a crap shoot. You pay the big bucks for perfection and depenability and this house I'm afraid fell wll short of meeting expectations. What a huge letdown and I must say for the $ value on the table this was a disgrace.

I'll report separately on our dinner wines which were universally stellar!!
Danny
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by JimHow »

I think Mouton Rothschild is definitely a first growth.
I have had numerous thrilling wines from Mouton Rothschild over the years.
I don't think 71 and 74 are stellar years for ANY properties in Bordeaux. 1978 is hit or miss. I bought three bottles of 1981 Mouton from Premier Cru some 15 years ago. Parker rated it 79 points. I rated all three bottles consistently well into the 90s. I thought they were great. Maybe the 1981 Moutons are over the hill now, but I suspect that is the case with more than a few Medocs from that vintage. I've had thrilling bottles of both the 1988 and 1989 Mouton.

And that's not even talking about the great Moutons I've had since the 1982 vintage, like 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, etc., etc.!
User avatar
brodway
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by brodway »

Ok Mounton is good.....but i could probably name a similar amount of Leoville Las Cases that are just as good if not better in a few vintages....so does LLC get bumped up to First Growth status or does Mouton get demoted to LLC status
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by JimHow »

Mouton vs. LLC

1981: LLC
1982: Mouton(!)
1983: Tie
1985: Tie
1986: Mouton(!)
1987: Mouton
1988: Tie
1989: Mouton
1990: LLC
1993: Mouton
1994: Tie
1995: Tie
1996: LLC(?)
1997: Mouton
1998: Mouton
1999:Mouton
2000: Mouton
2001: Mouton

With 1990 and the POSSIBLE exception of 1996, I give the clear nod to Mouton over LLC.
User avatar
brodway
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by brodway »

with 8 of 18 vintages either a tie or in favor of LLC, i'd call that a pretty close race.....now take away the fancy label and drink them blind and i'll venture to say that race may be even closer than you think
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by JimHow »

Seems like a Mouton landslide to me, Brodway, do you see any other vintages where LLC clearly overmatches Mouton?
I love LLC, but overall I'll take Mouton any day of the week.
User avatar
robert goulet
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by robert goulet »

I'll take Sociando over both and pocket a bunch of cash in the process!
User avatar
brodway
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by brodway »

oh i was not implying that LLC is better that Mouton on a consistent basis.....but it can challenge Mouton and they can be comparable in many vintages....i attempted to justify Mouton's demotion ....based on the fact that LLC could be just as good and is not a first growth supports the notion that Mouton being a second growth is not a far fetched concept
User avatar
brodway
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by brodway »

Robert....i like Sociando, i've drank Sociando from the moment our dear BWE commander enabled many of us to hoard the 1996 vintage at $30 a bottle....but Sociando is no Mouton
User avatar
robert goulet
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by robert goulet »

1996 mouton I doubt is better than the highly touted LLC...I have tasted the '96 Mouton and for me it was a good wine...nothing mindblowing...was only able to get an ounce pour, but I clearly remembering it was so loamy..pure clay liquid loam!!
User avatar
Winona Chief
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by Winona Chief »

I attended a major Leoville Las Cases vertical in April and a similar comprehensive Mouton Rothschild vertical in May - each with the respective directors of each estate. I concluded that Mouton deserved it's First Growth status and that LLC wasn't far behind. I thought the Moutons had a special opulence that set it apart from LLC. The only vintage of LLC that I think is clearly superior to Mouton is 1990. Pretty much in agreement with our BD's take on the relative merits of the two Chateau in the vintages he evaluates - only disagreement is that I think Mouton wins in 1995. Also worth noting the great showing of Mouton in 1987. This is not a dis of LLC, I think there wines are outstanding. I just think there is something special and distinctive about Mouton. There were a lot of mediocre wines from the big names in the 1960s and 1970s (like Lafite and Margaux) so I don't hold that against Mouton. I think 1990 is the only more recent vintage that they really stumbled.

Chris Bublitz
User avatar
AlexR
Posts: 2373
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:35 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by AlexR »

I think that Mouton is *less regular* than the other first growths.
And I've had some severe disappointements too.

But when all pistons are firing, it's fantastic.

I remember a BWE 1986 tasting in New York where most people preferrded Mouton to the other firsts.

Alex R.
User avatar
tim
Posts: 925
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:01 pm
Location: Paris, France
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by tim »

I can imagine a rather fun blind tasting:

All five first growths from a great year, and all five from a mediocre year. E.g. 1990 vs 1993.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by JimHow »

Yes, the question is not whether Mouton should be demoted, but rather whether LLC should be promoted.
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by dstgolf »

No issues with Mouton when it's on and the 82 and 86 were special wines for sure. Are they that much better than others of similar ilk. Personally I'd take Pichon Baron or Lalonde, Pontet Canet, Palmer, La Conseillente or even Leoville Barton over Mouton if we use 1996 as a starting point. I could list other favourites as well. For me LLC has underwhelmed and a close cousin to Mouton so yes if Mouton deserves First growth status then maybe LLC should be elevated to be at her side. Maybe we should just be happy that many of the other wines can be had for 25-50% less and bring as much if not more enjoyment than Mouton. I think if the labels were not revealled when drinking the Mouton many of the ratings would not be nearly as good and I strongly believe the label very much influences the tasting. Served blind I don't think Mouton would fair as well in a side by side tasting with many of its bretheren and certainly the wine does not justify the cost but that can be said for all first growths now but I truly feel that Mouton is at the bottom of the first growth barrel or should be demoted.
Danny
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Understand your frustration Danny. Think if the 88 was OK it would have won. We saw how good it is back in September.

I agree that Mouton's FG credentials were pretty dodgy in the 20 years to 1981, but they were also dodgy times for Lafite and Margaux at least up until 1975/1978. Since the mid-1990s Mouton has unquestionably been FG in standard in my opinion.

So I think we need to distinguish between different periods. What I would also say is that Mouton is less consistent than say Latour within and between vintages. I have had some stellar bottles of 1985 but others have had duff bottles of the same wine.

Broadly agree with Jim's Mouton vs LLC assessment. Fwiw my left bank hierarchy would be something like this:

1. Lafite, 2. Margaux, 3. Latour, 4. Haut-Briton, 5. LMHB, 6. Mouton, 7.LLC 8. Palmer
User avatar
Winona Chief
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by Winona Chief »

I don't drink enough Lafite to evaluate it fairly. When I first got into wine (late 70s), Lafite wasn't doing much - Latour was so much better. I didn't find Lafite particularly exciting in 1983, 1988 and 1990 vintages so I just concentrated on my favorites (Palmer, Gruaud, Pichon Lalande, La Mission, Cos, Montrose and Lynch Bages) adding Margaux and Haut Brion to the mix. Since then Lafite has just got too expensive for me. Have to admit 1996 Lafite really rocks.

Chris Bublitz
User avatar
sdr
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by sdr »

Wow, DANNY stirring the pot and Jim defending tradition.

I too attended a pretty good Mouton vertical recently: 2001, 1995, 1989, 1988, 1986, 1985, 1983, 1982, 1970.

Mostly forgettable and uninspiring. Of course, '86 and '82 were the stars but even they were slightly below par this night. The 2001 was the biggest surprise on the upside, drinking very well already. As for the others, nothing awful but other decent Bordeaux from these vintages would be just as good or better.

On the other hand, for the oldie oldies, 1961 and 1959 are, or were, sensational.

Mouton that lacks opulence is nothing special.

Stu
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by dstgolf »

Stu.

Nothing like getting the black cauldron out and start chanting. Yes there are good Mouton`s out there but too many are Hohum. For the money and the First Growth status hohum doesn`t cut it. Too many other good wines out there to get excited about Mouton and back to the discussion of your most disappointing wines this ranks right up there with the exception of when it shines. I`m no first growth on the links but I can get it under par but mostly I`m a little above average and sometimes stink and I see Mouton in the same light.

PS Glad to hear that at least the 86 & 82 showed well but still not stellar( if I interpret correctly) which is what I want for supposed 100pt rated wines!! :twisted:
Danny
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by Nicklasss »

Stuart not impressed by Mouton, or even La Mish lately, is probably ready for some California Cab.

And don't get it wrong, Jimhow is only bashing GPL or LB lately. One day, it might be Mouton, who knows?

For Mouton, and also the other First Growth, I think that their high prices is playing against them. When you were drinking a Mouton or Latour that you paid 150-200 $, the expectation was slightly different, and it was probably easier to find the wine "interestingly excellent" or "worth the money". Now, when you open a 1000-1200 $ Lafite or Margaux, I think it is harder to get "impressed" or "considering First Growth having a good value". And with the vine growing and wine making techniques, all the same quality around Bordeaux, each vintage you have a few other wines that can be near or equal to the First, for 1/3 to 1/2 of the price.

Nic
User avatar
Chateau Vin
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by Chateau Vin »

Nicklasss wrote:.
.
.
.each vintage you have a few other wines that can be near or equal to the First, for 1/3 to 1/2 of the price.

Nic
Well said, and that's the $1000 disappointment that one faces with the first growths now a days...
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by stefan »

82 Mouton has been fabulous on the occasions I have drunk it, as has been the 86, which I have drunk less often. In my limited experience, Mouton does pretty well in terrible vintages, such as 1977 and 1984. As Stuart mentioned, 2001 is quite good. I rate Mouton last among the first growths for drinking and first for the labels but prefer it to LLC and the Pichons in most vintages.

As Nic and others have mentioned, the QPR of the first growths are terrible now. When I was young, the firsts carried a reasonable premium over other outstanding Bdx; now their prices are out of all proportion to their quality. Consequently, I have not bought any FG from vintages after the 2002.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by JimHow »

As an actual Bordeaux Wine Enthusiast, I see the glass half full when it comes to the Moutons and LMHBs of the world.
These are great wines that on average exceed 99.8% of anything else out there.
Yes, you have to take price out of the equation nowadays.
But with a very few exceptions from the Medoc and Burgundy, these wines blow away just about anything else out there that the world produces.
User avatar
Rudi Finkler
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: Saarland, Germany
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by Rudi Finkler »

Nonsense! :-)
User avatar
Michael Malinoski
Posts: 677
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Sudbury, MA
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by Michael Malinoski »

I can't see demoting Mouton, based on my experiences. Hell, even their 1965 was darned tasty for about 45 minutes a few years back. And don't get me started on those who would promote LLC to first ahead of Mouton, a great wine but not first growth to my tastes...
User avatar
marcs
Posts: 1850
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:51 am
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by marcs »

I suggest a Dstgolf do a comparative blind tasting between Mouton and Grand Puy Lacoste, so he can drive Jim insane with the suggestion that GPL is better than Mouton
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by JimHow »

Hey, Danny seems to think Mouton sucks and GPL is great.
More power to him! It's what makes the world go round.
Myself, I think Mouton is great and GPL sucks.
I'll take all the Mouton in Danny's cellar and will be happy to trade for any post-1981 vintage of GPL that I can source!

Sincerely,
JimHow
Bordeaux Wine Enthusiast
User avatar
sdr
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by sdr »

Nicklasss wrote:Stuart not impressed by Mouton, or even La Mish lately, is probably ready for some California Cab.
Nic
Not to worry, Cult California Cab sucks too.

2007 DaNa, Lotus Vineyard (6/10/17)

It's impossible to try this wine without thinking of the price, a cool $1K for this vintage, which puts it in Harlan territory and well beyond Schrader, Cogin, Bond or Hundred Acre, among other cults. It's also much more than the other DaNas, even from the same Lotus vineyard in other vintages. It came my way though and since I had never had a DaNa, I wanted to see what was so special.

What it is - is liqueur of boysenberry. That's it. Great color, aromatic, ultra fruity. Good acidity, minimal tannin, silky texture, not hot despite 15.1 ABV. But very simple grape juice and nothing compelling. Okay for pancake syrup. A little work to slog through the bottle and we didn't even finish it. I wonder if the other DaNa wines from other vineyard sources are any different.

Stu
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by dstgolf »

Jim,

Lets not get carried away. GPL is not as bad as you say it is and | Mouton is not as good as it should be. Yes it struts its stuff in peak years but I want/expect/demand more from a first growth in off years. Isn't that why you pay the big bucks. They talk about grape selection, best techniques,reverse osmosis,lower yields, green harvesting etc etc. Now if you said Pontet Canet vs Mouton and not GPL we could have a deal! Just remember wines are just like women. There's one on the planet for everyone and sometimes you just don't get why someone loves the one they chose!!!
Danny
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by JimHow »

As far as I know, I was the first person in the world calling Pontet Canet a de facto first growth, about ten years before Bob Parker did.
Pontet Canet is first growth quality, like its contiguous property.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by stefan »

>>
Cult California Cab sucks too.
>>

Screaming Eagle is pretty good, Stuart, but you cannot find it under $1000. 3rd growth quality, IMO; a few steps below La Lagune.

Jim, in 2025 BWE should have a taste off between 2005 Pontet Canet and 2005 Mouton. Might be close, and closer still if we repeat 4 and 5 years later with the 2009 and 2010 vintages.
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: Concur on Mouton's Demotion

Post by dstgolf »

Yes Jim. I will give you 100% credit for enabling my Pontet Canet buying before the prices shot up. Unfortunately like the 89 Lynch you also started the beginning of the end with everyone jumping on the band wagon forcing the prices to rise. I like marcs attitude on the other thread regarding not wanting to reveal the auction house because he wants to keep prices low! There needs to be a method of only revealling to the inner circle of regulars so you don't effect the market with the next great discovery!!
Danny
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 12 guests