WTN: Chateau Montrose vertical

A Chateau Montrose vertical tasting perfectly arranged by Sebastian ("Baschi") Schwander:

2002 - Scent of sweet black and red berries, slightly oxidative. On the palate it is light, showing meager fruit, appears to be compressed and dominated by acidity. Maybe a good effort from a modern winemaker's perspective but certainly not a particularly impressive Montrose. My personal, subjective rating: 82+/100

2004 - Green and minty and in the nose. Sweet and smoky aroma of caramel (from the oak), dark berries. On the palate it is rich and harmonious with good acidity. Improves with airing but remains a modest Montrose. My rating: 85+/100

2005 - Unfortunately served too warm. Very closed on the nose. Perhaps a shaken bottle. Hints of white rum and banana. On the palate it shows alcohol, defensive fruit and loads of sweet tannins that taste like black tea and herbs. Kind of Californian style. Given its qualities I expect this to age gracefully into a harmonious and massive Montrose. To be retasted in 10 years. My rating: 93+/100

1999 - Yogurt and soap in the nose. Sweet and harmonious on the palate without any depth or inspiring aroma, low acidity, boring. My rating: 83/100

2000 - Extremely closed, nice tannins, but inharmonious acidity at the moment. Difficult to assess actually. Slightly disappointing. My rating: 88-91/100

2001 - Showing fresh, attractive fruit, smoky, medium length on the finish. My rating: 87+/100

1994 - Almost no fruit at all but interesting tannins revealing aromas of bitter-sweet eucalyptus, some minerality, fresh leather with an undertone of medicine and Parmesan cheese. Unfortunately born in the wrong year. My rating: 83/100

1995 - Still very young, showing florality on the nose, roasty, the fruit is reminiscent of rose hips. My rating: 91+/100

1996 - Seems to be mature with sweet, chocolaty aroma, slightly oxidative. Somehow reminiscent of a light Chateauneuf du Pape. A pleasure to drink now. My rating: 92/100

1989 - From a pristine bottle. Fasten your seat belts, this is great stuff. Anise, plum-like fruit, cedar, Irish moss, nice minerality and overall complexity. Great focus and grip despite all the richness it has. Slightly rustic, classic, great Bordeaux. Showing low acidity and some brett. The future of this looks bright. My rating: 96+/100

1990 - From a pristine bottle. Open, expansive and rich, scent of red berries, some volatile acidity and brett. Somehow there's lack of focus. I cannot imagine how this could improve with further bottle age. Great pleasure to drink now. My rating: 95/100

2003 - Magical combination of warm, rich fruit with highly aromatic tannins and ethereal freshness. Fortunately, atypical for 2003 Bordeaux. This is one of the greatest successes of Montrose, in my view. My rating: 97+/100

Thanks for these TNs, my friend! Recently went to a Montrose vertical with Oliver, notes will follow as soon as I have the time to type them (huge backlog). Also had the 1990 and 2003 next to each other at a BYO dinner at a nearby restaurant not long ago, and again came to the conclusion that, as much as I have always liked the 1990, the 2003 may simply be the best wine ever made at Montrose.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

Thanks for these TNs, my friend! Recently went to a Montrose vertical with Oliver, notes will follow as soon as I have the time to type them (huge backlog). Also had the 1990 and 2003 next to each other at a BYO dinner at a nearby restaurant not long ago, and again came to the conclusion that, as much as I have always liked the 1990, the 2003 may simply be the best wine ever made at Montrose.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

David, you won't believe it: some participants of this tasting didn't like the 2003 at all and rated it lower than the ridiculous 1999

David, you won't believe it: some participants of this tasting didn't like the 2003 at all and rated it lower than the ridiculous 1999

Don't worry, I do believe it - there are even people who don't like it because they think all 2003s are overripe (which this one isn't), lack freshness (the contrary being true when it comes to the Montrose), modernistic in style (not that one would be able to tell once this wine's got some years on its back, and anyway, that would be merely comparatively speaking, thinking of an era of Montrose that is over anyhow, plus if so, what would the same people think of e.g. the 2009?), or oversized (hugely concentrated it is, no doubt) and too tannic (finally, a wine with structure and backbone, one wonders what could be wrong with that) and/or lacking in ageworthiness (now that's a paradox - how people could complain about one, then the other, beats me…).

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

Thanks for the notes. Reading between the lines, are we to assume that Montrose is only a buy in the great years?

Thanks for the notes. Reading between the lines, are we to assume that Montrose is only a buy in the great years?

Can't speak for Rainer, but no, I wouldn't go that far. Not more so than this would be true of any famous wine: since they tend to be expensive, the quality-price ratio of lesser vintages puts them in direct comparison to less famous wines or bottling from top vintages, in other words, one might say lesser vintages of top wines are never worth bothering. However, since so many fine wine buyers nowadays base their buying decisions on ratings by well-known wine critics, one can sometimes find bargains when merchants happen to be overstocked and need room/cash for the next top vintage. I remember Montrose 2001 could be had for very little money. It's not perhaps good enough that a collector would "miss it" if he/she happens not to have any in their cellar, but I have friends who bought it to drink and enjoy, not show off, nor use it as a "ticket" to get into some fancy offline tasting. But it is typical enough that a true Montrose lover is going to get the terroir notes he or she expects, plus an overall sense of balance or early harmony that's pleasing. In other words, if one was there at the right time, and bought it for little money, it made sense as a QPR buy, because Montrose per se is still an irreplaceable wine. To some of course, it used to be that, and there it might make more sense to find some oder vintages at auction, although there, supply and demand rules, and one hardly stands a chance of getting a better wine than one is prepared to pay for, plus unknown storage conditions are always a factor. Guess this is more of an answer than you asked for. Per se, Montrose is unique enough to be worth it, in my opinion. Having said that, I'm the kind of guy who'll do exactly what you're alluding to: economize on the lesser vintages, and instead buy the great wines either at the right time, or then not shed a tear if I happen to miss one.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

[Jenise]

Interesting notes! And I am oh so sad to read your impression of the 02. Because I have a case--of which I've opened one bottle in the last year just to check it out and found it very unMontrose-ish and lackluster. Bought the case originally thinking okay so it's not another 1990 but at the $20ish I paid per bottle I was thinking hey, it's no 1990 but how bad can it be, it's Montrose. I've thought that way about a number of Bordeauxs in difficult vintages an truthfully never been sorry (not that I ever bought a case before). Here's hoping another 3-5 years brings out something a little better than what's there now.

Interesting notes! And I am oh so sad to read your impression of the 02. Because I have a case--of which I've opened one bottle in the last year just to check it out and found it very unMontrose-ish and lackluster. Bought the case originally thinking okay so it's not another 1990 but at the $20ish I paid per bottle I was thinking hey, it's no 1990 but how bad can it be, it's Montrose. I've thought that way about a number of Bordeauxs in difficult vintages an truthfully never been sorry (not that I ever bought a case before). Here's hoping another 3-5 years brings out something a little better than what's there now.

Hi Jenise. I think there's no reason to be worried. Montrose is not supposed to provide early drinking pleasure in its youth. However, lesser vintages (like 2002) bear a higher risk of not improving with bottle age than great vintages. In case you'd still don't like your 2002 Montrose in 3-5 years you can just sell it through an auction. Maybe you'd get even more money back than you've paid. That's the advantage of buying Bordeaux.
I never bet on famous wines from lesser vintages. In my view it simply doesn't pay off as better alternatives are always around: E.g. 2007 Côtes du Rhône, Bourgogne villages from 2005 or 2009, Ridge Estate Cabernet, .. - You see, I'm not too much into Bordeaux

Cheers,
Rainer