1996 Sociando Mallet is a failure

[Comte Flaneur]

My note from 2013

11/7/2013 - I WROTE: (Edit)87 Points
This bottle was very much alive but woody, peppery, dominated by green notes, and fruit shy. Medium bodied, does frankly not provide a lot of pleasure. Was this just a disappointing bottle, or is this wine going through a protracted awkward phase or is it just not what it is cracked up to be? Judgement reserved. Last bottle out of case one, two more to go.

So that was six and a half years ago:

Today it is no better - dominated by green astringent notes that overwhelm any sense of equilibrium this wine might otherwise have. It is not improving with age. If anything its shortcomings are becoming more attenuated. If anything worse.

I opened this first bottle from my second case hoping to put the exasperation of the first case behind me. I waited over six years and this is frankly disappointing relative to where I hoped it would be. I also feel annoyed because Friday nights are valuable.

There is plenty of secondary and tertiary developed but everything is dominated by the pervasive overwhelming green astringency. We had roast beef with Yorkshire pudding tonight and it went well with that and my 22 year old daughter liked it with the food. But otherwise this wine is a pretty big thumbs down. It’s only redeeming feature is that it is good for a Sunday roast.

Not good enough.

I will probably sell the rest.

I don’t know what Michel Bettane was smoking when he labelled this one of the top three wines of the vintage.

I am not giving up on Sociando Mallet. There are so many better vintages of SM than this.

[AKR]

I was once at a blind tasting where the 96 S-M topped the 96 Lafite. This was probably in 1999 or so? I bought a case after experiencing that. Most bottles since then have been good, but there's been some variability. I try to give this a couple hours in the decanter and pair it with red meat when I can.

[Chateau Vin]

Ouch....

As much as I love the 03, 96 version doesn’t seem to deliver as per expectations. I tried the 96 couple of years ago, and thought maybe I should slap a blanquito on it to make it come around. I will sample a bottle in the next few days and see if I still don’t get it...

[Claret]

I have had only good 96's, perhaps not as good as 95.

[JimHow]

2000 BWE wine of the year, our very first selection....

[Nicklasss]

Harsh to read. But the 1996 Chateau Sociando Mallet is a kind of "Yellow submarine".

Nic

[JimHow]

1996 Chateau Sociando Mallet is a kind of "Yellow submarine".

Hmmm....

"...a sea of green...?"

[JimHow]

Full speed ahead, Mr. Maltais, full speed ahead!

[Blanquito]

Disappointing showing Ian. My experiences (a few pasted below) have been mixed, but overall seem better than yours, though my note from 2009 sounds pretty darn similar.

I still like this wine, but I find it too lean to go wild about. It was in 2018 when I decided that the 1995 is better than the 1996 because it has a bit more substance.

1996 Château Sociando-Mallet 4/2/2016 92 points
From magnum at the BWE DC Saturday night dinner... This classic acquitted itself commendably. One of the few understudy wines that seemed ever so slightly less endowed in the middle than its more famous and pricey brethren. But it had great grip, lovely leafy aromatics, and excellent brightness, and of course, it will continue to improve for some time. Showed dark and minerally, like grapes grown on basalt.

1996 Château Sociando-Mallet 7/12/2009 88 points
BWE does Manhattan: a 1996 & 2003 Bordeaux Retrospective: I was a tad let down by this wine, and it was aromatically very similar to the 2003 from this chateau. I’ve had more interesting bottles of this. Truly an essence of green pepper, I can see why some wouldn’t go for this estate. In general, I’m a fan but it didn’t do so well in head-to-head comparisons.

1996 Château Sociando-Mallet 8/17/2010
This really stood out to me as excellent. In the midst of so many wines, the palate can get overwhelmed, but this youngster demanded attention... Wow, the brute is becoming civilized and in a style that I like- lots of power, but not OTT with plenty of earthy notes to go with deep cassis fruit. Meaty and chewy, yet not clumsy. I’m glad I joined BWE when there was so much ballyhoo to buy this wine. Drinkable now or for another 20 years. A-

[Claudius2]

Folks
It almost sounds as if SM bottles from different vats or barrels.
I tried the 96 a few times on arrival (EP purchase) once in London (en magnum) in 2000, though not for many years.
The first (In Sydney) was cool, long, with classic cassis and dark fruit, a touch of oak and firm tannins, good acid and a long finish.
It was actually pretty good in 1999. I described it as a linear wine. Not thick and heavy, but with length and structure.
I took a magnum of this wine to visit another Aussie in London in 2000, and it was fruitier and sweeter, and I was a bit surprised that it was so ready. Obviously young but a very nice drink.
I had bought it at the Chateau itself. After various champagnes (I had come from France to London and then left from there) it hit you an array of fruit, some oak and good length.

I had not tried it until tried at a tasting a year or so ago in Singapore with the maker/s.
It was not at all green to me, and in fact none of the 96's I have tried showed more than a hint of herbaceousness.
The tasting last year showed a mature profile, some inky, iodine and smoked meat characters, medium body and dark fruit.
However, I did not like the 2000 or 2001, both tasted with a decade of maturation, as they were too green for my palate.

I have full cases of the 2010 and 2014. I hope they will mature well.

[OrlandoRobert]

My recent note on the 1996 Sociando Jean Gautreau cuvee, so not the normale:

Gorgeous Bordeaux perfume with its musk, rich wet earth, cassis and some pencil shavings, almost Pauilliac in quality. A richer, riper nose than the base cuvee, to the best that I can recall, not showing some of the green and tobacco notes to which I have become accustomed in this Chateau. The palate does show some herbal qualities, but moreso, a rich, dense, textured palate presence, tangy red fruits, some spice and deep dark fruits. Massively tannic still at this stage, dry crisp finish. Love the nose and palate but the finish is a bit detracting. Not yet sure whether this is a maturation or aeration thing or the new oak, will follow this over tonight and some tomorrow. I am trying this on pop and pour.

[Comte Flaneur]

Thanks for all your thoughts.

I have another one to try and I am going to double decant in 5-6 hours ahead of time. As per Arv’s comments red meat definitely helps.

[Claudius2]

Ian
I think roast brontosaurus would suffice!

[Jay Winton]

My bottles got better as they aged-one left. I think this was my first purchase due to the BWE enabling devils.

[Nicklasss]

"Yellow submarine". When you listen the Beatle song, sometimes you think it is a "chef d'oeuvre", other time you think it is a "blah song". You don't know if it is serious or not.

I guess the different report on the 1996 Sociando Mallet are a bit the same. The 1996 Pontet Canet i had with Jim less than a year ago, was glorious. It has been a long time since i had the 1996 Sociando Mallet, and last time it was in a vertical (5 -6 years ago) years ago?where the 1996 was very good only, but i preferred the 2000 and 2001 that same night.

Nic

[RPCV]

I went through a case of the 96 and thought the wine was excellent but I believe there is a lot of variability with SM. The 2000 is either great or decent and I'm not sure why that is the case. The 2000's I have opened have been good to excellent and when I looked back at my purchases, the excellent bottles came from one vendor while the "good" bottles came from another. Interesting debate....

[Blanquito]

Bottle variation does seem to be an issue here, not surprising given the size of their operation.

But more generally, can one posit that if you don’t like the 96, then you just don’t like Sociando?

I’m not sure I fully agree with that, but there’s probably some truth.

For me, the 90 is easily the best vintage at this estate if consistency is a factor. I’ve had some divine bottles of the 82, but lots of off bottles too, while the 90 always seems on point.

After those two vintages, my next favorites are a substantial step down. I guess the 95 would be next on the list, but I’d have to put good bottles of the 96 right there in tier 2 as well.

[AKR]

It's not just bottling variation...this is 25 years of storage variation as well as cork degradation. Corks are themselves pretty variable; its not like they are some super precise membrane which has controlled oxidation rates at milspec tolerances.

I guess we have to be humble enough to expect that sometimes we'll get transcendent amazing wine, and other times, its just fermented grape juice, which hopefully comes with a buzz. maybe a bigger issue with some producers than others, but its hard to predict this stuff, and likely by the time something becomes a big known issue - the producer itself will have lots of incentives to deal with it.

[Chateau Vin]

Inspired by the discussion about 96 SM, I pulled the cork on one of these yesterday. I immediately poured and filled a half bottle to its brim, stuck up the cork and tucked it away in fridge.

The rest I poured it in a decanter. I let it air for about few minutes and poured myself a glass. Right out of the gate, nice cassis and black fruit. The tannins were more integrated (than I had last time), but they were there. Nice acid came through and slowly showed pencil lead and bell pepper notes. I enjoyed the wine in its own for the first half hour with typical SM, not hugely complex, but hitting on all its cylinders. After half an hour or so, the greenness showed up and was manageable. As time progressed (over 2 hrs), the greenness dominated the other flavor profiles. It’s not one lean mean green machine that I recall I had last time, but nonetheless I would have preferred if it were to show a bit of less greenness. Not terribly unmanageable, compared to the last bottle I had nearly 2 years ago.

So, in a nutshell, I would say— I enjoyed it first half hour than the following 2 hours of consuming this puppy.

[Comte Flaneur]

Thanks for your impressions Venu.

I have another to hand and I will try it with MEK with some rare barbqued large creature - some kind of dinosaur as Mark suggested or some large bovine creature.

I wish I had loaded in the 95s instead...

[marcs]

I have had both experiences with this wine. I had a bottle about decade ago and it was wonderful, good depth of fruit to support and underpin those leaner and more classical elements. Encouraged by that I bought some more bottles and they were pretty much shot -- just thin, tart, and unpleasant. I chalked it up to bad storage, but who knows.

[Claudius2]

Guys
I don't think it is possible for poor cellaring to cause overt green characteristics in wine. The opposite is probably more likely.
Overt green flavours and aromas are caused by pyrazines.
These compounds are present in the grapes themselves, and whilst I can handle a slight herbal edge to red wine, which used to be quite common in many right bank Bordeaux in particular, my palate does not like more than a touch.
Similarly, I don't have any time for Sav Blanc (with the exception of Haut Brion Blanc) as it is simply too grassy and asparagus-like, particularly from NZ.
Cab Franc (esp in the Loire) can show these flavours more than other red varieties.

If it is oak derived, it isn't going to have a pyrazine character.
Oak lactones CAN impart a dill-like character to wine, and the same group of compounds also adds coconut flavours - which I really do not like (try reds from Wolf Blass or Pesquera for example).
Ageing in coarser grained American oak is more likely to impart that flavour, but again, once bottled, the dill flavour tends to soften over time.

From that perspective, Sociando Mallet can be a chamelion.
I have read notes on the 2001 that said it wasn't green, yet the few I have drunk were quite overtly green to the point of distraction.
Not much of this makes any sense. If the wine is all blended and bottled at once, the extent of green characters (oak derived or pyrazines) should not be significantly more evident in different bottles.
If it is heat affected then the typical grape characters and barrel-derived flavours and aromas are going to be affected, but in the opposite way.

[Chateau Vin]

This 96 Sociando is truly abstruse. The day before, it started out in a beguiling way, but showed its green streak on the palate after half hour. Well, the following day, Sociando today woke up from its green slumber and showed its attenuated verdant profile. Now, a bit more balanced and enjoyable, the 96 Sociando seems truly a flutter from the Northern Medoc...

[Jürgen Steinke]

1996 is not a very good vintage for SM IMO. I bought a case after release and stored it in my active cellar. None of the 5 bottles I had so far were amongst the best SM I had. 1982, 1990, 2001 and 2003 are way superior. At least to me.

[JimHow]

Interesting. We started this website in February 2000. By the end of the year we decided to pick our first "wine of the year." The young 1996 Sociando was drinking well and was a popular favorite on the site, and was our first BWE wine of the year.

[Comte Flaneur]

I agree Juergen. I must have had this wine at least 15 times. Some bottles have been better than others, but on average disappointing and disappointment in the context of a great left bank vintage and what this estate can produce - for example in 1995, which was fabulous when I first tried it.