WTN: Chateau Musar (Red) 2001

A brief note on Chateau Musar (Red) 2001:

The first bottle I've tried of this vintage, with a dish of lamb, Puy lentils, eggplant, leek and brocollini (with which it combined fairly well).
Quite a ripe nose, showing plum, the typical cedary wood and gentle spice, some acetone and ethyl acetate (and a slightly more floral aspect on day two). It's more sweet-fruited than other vintages, though still savoury.
The palate is pretty smooth, though there's a little astringency, with the plummy ripe fruit carrying through. Well balanced, with very haromnious palate progression. Certainly seems a riper style/vintage.
Lacking the degree of VA and Brett influence of previous vintages, which is a little disappointing for me; though bottle variation is so significant with Musar that I may just have been unlucky.

The Ch. Musar red seems to have been cleaner since (and inclusive of) the 1998 vintage - are other people finding this, or have I just been unlucky with the particular bottles I've drunk?

Ben, from tastings I have read about in the UK, this wine is all over the place! I have some `99 still left, no problem so far.
Will be interesting to see how many Musar-holics show up here with words of wisdom! Over the pond, `01 is lightly regarded by some?

Does anyone have a clue as to what price the 99 and 01 Musar red should sell for? I can get some of both but it is north of $40 per bottle. This distributor apparently doesn't handle Musar regularly or, so I am assuming, since he has only these vintages. When I say that though, I am making another assumption because I am not aware of current vintage. Even at $40 or so I may get a couple bottles of both. So if anyone can guide me as to the better vintage between the two?

Bob
That's pricey compared to this side of the water. OK they're back vintages and Musar does seem to escalate quickly in price 5-10 years after vintage. I'd be hoping for closer to $30, but in truth I'd still buy the odd bottle if it generally jumped up to the price you've been quoted.

regards
Ian
£18 is about the mark here, though it's often on offer at one or two of the supermarkets

this wine is all over the place!

Perhaps the lack of funk is partly due to bottle variation then.

So if anyone can guide me as to the better vintage between the two?

IMO, 1999. But if you generally prefer riper or less funky wines (or if you are new to Musar) you might prefer the 2001. If you enjoy Musar for the uniqueness of Musar, 1999 is perhaps more appropriate choice.

I agree, `99. Nice Tahbilk Marsanne before though, wink.

I definitely preferred the bottles of the 99 to the [fewer] bottles of the 2001 I have had. IMO the 99 is a really good Musar and my bottles of both vintages were less funky than Musar can often be. The 99 certainly has some VA but IMO not in an excessive way. The aroma of old roses in the finished glass is an abiding memory.

I enjoy red and white Musar today [and remember the best of reds from 70s vintages consumed in the 80s] but 40$ plus seems on the high side although Musar prices have been raised in recent years

Any thoughts about the 2002? I was disappointed in a recent bottle but I'm not sure if it was just a bad bottle.

Chaim, Hi...

My own experiences with the 2002 Musar showed it a good but not exciting wine on release which, in the end suffered the same fate as many of the 2002 Israeli wines (the famed "2002 Curse") of not cellaring well, and was well beyond its peak in 2009.

Best
Rogov

Thanks, DR. I thought you had it pegged for a dumb period in mid last decade. Guess it never came out of it in one piece.

Rogov
That's a big call on the Musar, a wine that can be difficult to kill without a silver bullet!

I've got a couple of bottles so will report back when I open them

regards

Ian

IMO the 99 is a really good Musar and my bottles of both vintages were less funky than Musar can often be. The 99 certainly has some VA but IMO not in an excessive way.

That's been my experience too (it being less funky) with all the bottles of 1999 I've had. I've been getting conerned that Musar is heading in a cleaner direction over recent releases.

Rogov
That's a big call on the Musar, a wine that can be difficult to kill without a silver bullet!

I agree. To suggest that a Musar was beyond its peak with only seven years of age seems a pretty tall statement given the development of back vintages (and how much most people enjoy them at 10, 20 or more years old). Perhaps one person's "peak" is another's "past peak" though(?).

Chaim, Hi...

My own experiences with the 2002 Musar showed it a good but not exciting wine on release which, in the end suffered the same fate as many of the 2002 Israeli wines (the famed "2002 Curse") of not cellaring well, and was well beyond its peak in 2009.

Best
Rogov

I see your most recent note is from 2006 and that you planned to hold until mid-2011for a re-taste as you predicted a dumb period. You also scored it a 90, which seems to me to be fairly exciting (I don't score so I wouldn't know).

http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=34474&p=290008&hilit=musar+2002#p290008

My own bottle was not up to par but as my brother in law asked me I wanted him to get me another one from Heathrow, I thought I'd check what the general consensus was.

Chaim, Hi...

Looked ahead at my tasting schedule and you're quite right....the wine is scheduled to be re-tasted in another month or so. If it works out, I'll have my assistant slip it in ahead of that.

Best
Rogov

Post '95 has seemed cleaner to me (though there are one or two exceptions). But the 2002 seemed the most exciting young Musar I have had. Note here: 2002

Post '95 has seemed cleaner to me (though there are one or two exceptions). But the 2002 seemed the most exciting young Musar I have had. Note here: 2002

I'll just keep hoping for Brett blooms in bottles post 1997 (interesting that you take it back to post 1995). I have not tried the 2002 yet (but have some waiting) - good to know it's likely that I won't be disappointed.

I'll just keep hoping for Brett blooms in bottles post 1997...

Store it in very warm conditions?

I'll just keep hoping for Brett blooms in bottles post 1997...

Store it in very warm conditions?

Warm (but not hot) would certainly help, but it still relies on a resident population in bottle (hopefully still present in plenty in post 1995 bottlings). I'll be giving it a go

Re-tasted the 2002 this morning as part of my morning tastings. Following are my tasting notes from this morning as well as my note for the same wine in 2006.

Best
Rogov


Chateau Musar, Bekaa Valley, Lebanon, 2002: Dark garnet in color, a full-bodied blend of Cinsault, Cabernet Sauvignon, Carignan and Grenache. On opening attack maraschino cherries and cedar notes, those yielding to blackcurrants, blackberries and notes of cinnamon and vanilla, all on a background of earthy minerals. Calls to mind the 1997 and like that one this should also develop a meaty-leathery note as it develops in the bottle. Be prepared for this one to go into the traditional Musar dumb period so either drink now or set aside and hold until 2011. Should cellar nicely until 2015. Score 90. (Re-tasted 22 Mar 2006).

Chateau Musar, Bekaa Valley, Lebanon, 2002: Dark garnet with a vague hint of browning, full-bodied, with its youthfullly firm tannins now integrated nicely. On first attack candied cherries and notes of spicy cedar, those parting to make way for currants, blackberries and wild berries, all on a background of earthy minerals and beef jerky. Drink now-2015. Score 89. (Re-tasted 4 May 2011)

Chaim, Hi...

My own experiences with the 2002 Musar showed it a good but not exciting wine on release which, in the end suffered the same fate as many of the 2002 Israeli wines (the famed "2002 Curse") of not cellaring well, and was well beyond its peak in 2009.

Best
Rogov

I see your most recent note is from 2006 and that you planned to hold until mid-2011for a re-taste as you predicted a dumb period. You also scored it a 90, which seems to me to be fairly exciting (I don't score so I wouldn't know).

http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=34474&p=290008&hilit=musar+2002#p290008

My own bottle was not up to par but as my brother in law asked me I wanted him to get me another one from Heathrow, I thought I'd check what the general consensus was.

For GBP 14.55, I'd definitely buy a bottle. So much cheaper than in the US.

Thanks for posting on the re-taste Rogov.

Post '95 has seemed cleaner to me (though there are one or two exceptions). But the 2002 seemed the most exciting young Musar I have had. Note here: 2002

IIRC the 95 was the particularly volatile vintage that broke some legal limits, and had to have special permission to be sold in the EU. Since that vintage (which I think was 95, but it was certainly around then) the chateau has been taking care to actively control the VA level by limiting ambient temperature pre fermentation maceration times. There were a few very clean vintages, then they allowed a bit more VA. All roughly remembered from a tasting, presented by an Hochar, I attended several years ago.

For GBP 14.55, I'd definitely buy a bottle. So much cheaper than in the US.

Sadly, more like £18.50 now for recent vintages. Still decent value, but not the clear bargain it used to be - particularly when supermarkets were discounting the usual price by 25%. I buy less now.

IIRC the 95 was the particularly volatile vintage that broke some legal limits, and had to have special permission to be sold in the EU. Since that vintage (which I think was 95, but it was certainly around then) the chateau has been taking care to actively control the VA level by limiting ambient temperature pre fermentation maceration times.

Interesting, and explains a lot.

Significant VA development during pre-fermentation maceration? That's some serious microbiological activity!