2000-Duhart-Milon...Stunning Bottle

[dstgolf]

Last night for our anniversary we went with friends to our local Cordon Bleu restaurant Signatures and celebrated our combined 89th!! Not a bad feat. BYOB starting with bottle of Laurent-Perrier Rose that I found a little too much sulfur and yeast fighting the normally pleasant strawberry fruits and fine mousse. OK but not a star.

The 2000 Duhart on the other hand was singing. Second bottle in the last three months and from recent reviews you'd not think much but I wanted to share based on the last bottle the pleasures that the bottle brought. This did not disappoint and I must say you can see the parallels with its big brother Lafite. This is in a perfect spot impeccably balanced with resolved tannins,super smooth and great lasting length on the tongue. Light berry fruits, lead pencil cedar lightly sprinkled in made this a delicious accompaniment for our 5 course tasting menu. Again the friends were the hilight as always but this bottle shoots miles above its expectations. If you have any left then pull it out and enjoy now or over the next 5+yrs. For those looking for good QPR in Pauillac this might be it.

[JimHow]

I'm not surprised by this note.
Duhart Milon has been Lafite-like for years, at a tenth of the cost.
I bought a bottle of the 2014.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Duhart was a really great QPR in that time frame, before the Chinese really started bidding things up around 2005. Nevertheless I agree, the 2000 was one of my top wines.

[Ognik]

+1
Great stuff. Like 1996, but richer with more structure.

[Nicklasss]

Agreat bottle, I know.

Dstgolf a great man.

Nic

[jal]

Mine are long gone
Great note, thanks Danny

[Blanquito]

2000 > 1996?

[dstgolf]

Blanquito

I had the 96 too early in its life to provide an accurate comparison. The 96s certainly didn't leave the impression that the last two bottles of 2000 have left. I must say the 2003 if also beautiful with a lot more darker berry fruit at this stage and we also have liked this a lot with my wife actually preferring the 2003 over the 2000. Maybe its the residual fruit factor that she enjoys in the 2003 with the 2000 just beginning its migration into its tertiary phase of its life which is right where I love to drink a bottle. Just enough fruit and acidity to maintain a youthfulness but developing tertiary notes to enjoy the evolution in the glass. This continues to evolve and improve over the course of a three hour dinner which is a very good sign.

[Comte Flaneur]

Thanks Danny. Any chance of smuggling one over to Blighty? I'm curious because I missed that boat. I did enjoy very much a case of 1996, long since gone. One of the more forward 1996s.

Is Duhart really Lafite-like? Are the similarities more than passing? In which vintages is this the case? Jim tell us more.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

I had this last night (Sunday). It was exceedingly consistent with Danny's note. Compared to past bottles it seemed just a bit drier from pop and pour, but it did deepen with air time. Anyway the overall effect is something like a benchmark for an excellent left bank claret. Too bad I'm all out now.

[Blanquito]

I couldn't get enough of the 03 Duhart on release in the spring of 06. I Howed 3-4 bottles in a month, and laid down a case as it was a great QPR (still less than $30 on the shelf). I tried one 2013 and it was much less expressive- it sounds like I can revisit it now.

[JimHow]

mmm yes I don't have a big sample to draw on Ian but I recall the 2000, 2002, and 2003 displaying a lot of Lafite in them.

[Chateau Vin]

mmm yes I don't have a big sample to draw on Ian but I recall the 2000, 2002, and 2003 displaying a lot of Lafite in them.

Missing 2001 in the lineup Jim. I had 2001 Duhart at the Chateau from double magnum 5 years back...It was stunning and IMO probably better than 2000...

[JimHow]

I have an unopened case of 2005 Duhart Milon in my cellar. Baby doll.

[Carlos Delpin]

Had the 1996 recently and it was stunning. It was served alongside a Pavie 82 and gave a fair fight. The Pavie 82 was just too good.

[Ognik]

2000>1996.
Maybe 1996 is beyond top performance now. 2000 is close to, still in its way up.
Pure classizism. Lafite style in a discount price level.
2005 is a stunner too, different style in a more modern way.
Strong on 1996, love this wine, but i think 2000 is better now. Drink or hold for minimal 5 years.

[JimHow]

What are your thoughts on the drinkability of the 2005, Ognik?
Sounds like maybe at least another decade or so?

[Ognik]

Tried on arrivage tasting in a vertikal from mid 90s up to 05.
Did not touch my case of 2005 now, but will do after 2020+. Will go at least 2030+.
Still strong on 96, had a few bottles in last two years. Will drink my last case until 2020.
Only have few bottles of 2000 unfortunately. Last bottle i had was two years ago. Great stuff. Will go 2025+.

[robert goulet]

we had 2 bottles of the 2006 Duhart next to the big brother 2003 Lafite

Not even close...the Lafite made quick work, completely outclassed Duhart...it was child's play.
Granted different vintages, the Duhart's were just pretty good, nothing more.

[Ognik]

Hard to compare. Duhart 06 92 PP, Lafite 03 100PP.
Duhart 06 70$. Lafite 03 1000$. What do you expect? Flying pigs? Sorry buddy.

[dstgolf]

Bobby G,

I would hope that the Lafite is head over heals beyond the Duhart at a 10-15x differential in price. The difference is not as great as you claim in my opinion as to what's in the bottle and I'd take 1 1.5 cases of the Duhart vs 1 bottle of Lafite any day! Your comparison is a little unfair comparing an early drinking Lafite vintage 03 with a firmer later drinker the Duhart 06. I'd love to see the reverse comparison 03 Duhart with 06 Lafite and I bet you'd change your mind as to which was drinking so much better!!

Jim H,

2005 Duhart tonight for dinner INTOS and because its our official 31st date. Definitely a newer world style with more fruit extraction than the 2000 and greater depth/complexity/length than the 2003. Tannins ripe but still present. From experience Jim this is well into the HOW wheelhouse drinking window but has 1-2 decades of life ahead of it. I won't pop another for 5 years.A baby by comparison to the 2000 but very drinkable with duck breast with red wine
/rosemarry/raspberry reduction. A very good match.

[robert goulet]

man this is a tough group, piling on poor little Bobby Goulet!

what I would like to do is try both from the same vintage to see how close they truly are in quality.

[Ognik]

@ robert goulet
Don't get me wrong. Lafite is a perfect wine in almost every vintage, and if i could, i would drink it all day. But unfortunately i have to work for my money and life is expensive.
So what.
Duhart offers a lot for the buck and anyone can go wrong buying 96, 00 and 05 vintage.

Btw: dsgof +1

[Comte Flaneur]

2000 Duhart Milon

The bottle that Danny gave to me. Last Sunday I was going to offer it to the table and leg it downstairs with his Richebourg to put it in the back of my cellar. Until he informed me the Richebourg not the Duhart was for table. Then I tried the 'ah sorry mate its corked' routine on the Richebourg which he didn't buy!

So a week later I cracked open the 2000 Duhart. Really promising nose on opening, with lots of red fruit. This is classic Cabernet, with minerals and earth. What took me by surprise about this wine is how ready to go it is. Also that It comes across as an elegant medium bodied wine, and quite nuanced. What surprises even more is that there is not much oomph, follow through or density here, only faint flavours. It is almost as if this needs drinking sooner rather than later. So I am wondering if this bottle is typical? Doesn't seem like it? This bottle travelled across the pond and was stood up for a week. So maybe it was shocked. The Richebourg otoh which was schlepped all over the places was clearly not, and was magnificent a week ago. I drank through my 1996 Duharts quite quickly and they too were early drinking, but had a lot more going on really.

[Nicklasss]

Hi Comte.

I think it was a representative bottle. The 200 Duhart is not a oomph wine, or a big 2000, but it is a really well made classic Pauillac. And I would agree that it is ready to drink, and will hold for 10 more years.

2000 Duhart way better than the 2003 for me.

I have only some 2005 left, and my brother have a few 2010. Should be fun in 10 years.

Nic

[dstgolf]

2000 Duhart definitely light and elegant with nice spice nuances and lighter on its feet but I wouldn't refer to it as being short unlike the 75 GPL that we had. This wine is ready to go and I thought my last bottle was seemlessly delicious so I wonder if the flight across the ocean,tobbaggan run down the slopes of Madera , cruise around the Iberian Penninsula National express but the 95 degree tube ride up to Islington station may have impacted the bottle a bit. Just think of what that Richebourg really could have shown!!!