On Tuesday night my good friend Spencer opened 10 vintages of Chateau Clerc Milon (Pauillac), covering 1995-2005 less the 1999 vintage. This isn't really a set of tasting notes, but more impressions of the wines.
The 1995 was very closed but still quite dense with good acidic backbone. People are beginning to wonder what the heck is going on with 1995, and I can see comparisons with 1975. They may never come around.
The 1997 was delicious. I have liked some 1997s in the past, but this was in another league. Spencer acquired the bottle for the tasting, and it was truly outstanding, with good fruit, great structure and outstanding balance. I loved it.
The 1996 was more open on the nose than the 1995, but not as well endowed for lack of a better phrase. I think it would be very good on its own, but it was outclassed by the 1997 in my book (but not the group's book).
The 1998 showed quite well, though it was less open on the nose than the 1996. It had more flesh and weight than the 1996 (which it was served with), and came across as a wine with a lot of potential.
The 2004 was the shocker of the night. It was outstanding in every way. I don't like giving 20/20 scores, so I was looking for reasons to deduct half points here or there. It was still open and fruity on the nose, and it had depth and richness on the palate. Lovely wine that is well worth buying. I am going to get some. This was WOTN for me and the group. We were stunned.
The 2001 was also very good, but had the misfortune of being served with the 2004. Too bad, as it had very nice balance and palate presence.
The 2003 was another winner, and I am really not surprised, as 2003 seems like a year that could be good for a wine that is normally very austere. The fleshiness made it more approachable, and it seemed to still have the balance to reward aging rather than dry out like the 1995 might.
The 2002 did not do anything for me. Austere and fruitless, it made my mouth hurt (as did many of the wines to be honest - I have never liked punishment so much as that night).
The 2005 is big, fruity, but oh my gosh so tannic. I am 41, and I am too old to buy the wine. It really is delicious, but only for those with a thing for wines in leather boots with spiked heels and carrying a palate whip.
Finally the 2000 is sullen, closed, dense and sort of like drinking a cannon ball right now. Keep away.
In retrospect, these wines represented everything I have always expected from Clerc Milon. It is the least fun Pauillac I know. Where Mouton is opulent and d'Armaillhac is friendly yet reserved, Clerc Milon is brooding, mean and takes great patience to create a friendship. I like a lot about the wine, but I am not sure I want to do the work to be its friend.
And I'm happy to read your note on the 04, since that's the only vintage of CM I own. A non-board friend has other vintages, however, I'm going to send him a copy of your note. I know he'll be interested in your comments on the '95--I've tasted this wine twice from his stash in the last three years and it's been just as you say. At the very least, reading your notes will convince him to leave them alone for awhile.