Open mike: The Musars of 1999

I'll be opening the red and white 1999 sometime soon. Anyone want to join in tasting them? The red I've tried before (but only a taste, I want to drink it too...) and I thought it one of the best young Musars I've had.

-O-

If only I could, Otto. The most recent vintage available around here is the '98 and even that I have yet to find.

Did you see Bob's comments on the '92 Musar Blanc?

[Jenise]

Wish I could join you, Otto, but haven't seen the 99's yet. Have added to my stash of 97's recently, though. Maybe this is when I finally taste one.

I bought a couple of Musar 99 on Christmas Eve at a Waitrose supermarket in north London so I can join in if there are others. But isn't it infanticide to drink this now?

I bought a couple of Musar 99 on Christmas Eve at a Waitrose supermarket in north London so I can join in if there are others. But isn't it infanticide to drink this now?

It will fully depend upon your preferences wether this is infanticide or not. For my tastes, I really love Musar for a couple years after release (1999 is the newest release) and then after the age of 12-15 years. It's the time in between where I find the wine awkward. So for my tastes I do not think it infanticide, but rather enjoying a young wine.

Musar Rouge 1999 14%

On the first day open (4 hours decanted) the nose is rather full of volatility. It does have all the trademark notes of spice, damp earth, sweet yet savoury fruit, funk, but the volatility was surprisingly dominant. Today, on the second day open, the volatility is tamed and the nose is as classic Musar as can be: damp earth, a touch of funk that isn't overpowering, peach stones and a beguiling floral quality.

The palate has been stable on both days: lots of ripe and sweet fruit, lovely acidity, typically funky like Musar should be. No heat noticable despite the high alcohol. Interminable aftertaste. This isn't as good a bottle as the one tasted with Serge Hochar when he visited Finland, but it is a lovable wine for sure. I still agree with my last taste: this seems to have the promise to be on the level of my two favourite red Musars: 1972 and 1991.

Musar Blanc 1999 12,5%

I must admit that I find young Musar blancs difficult to judge for quality. Like the reds, I do like them for a couple years after release, but I am scared of making any judgements on them.

A very deep and golden colour - looks like a dessert wine! The nose is a touch oaky, a touch oxidised and it smells like a good quality, fresh lobster. Very interesting, and I love it. The palate is very full bodied and though there is no alcoholic heat noticable, I would have guessed a 14% wine that holds its alcohol very well rather than a 12,5%. The acidity is moderate and noticable and supports the fruit perfectly. A very rich wine, but also very moreish: the aftertaste is so fresh that it begs me to take another sip. Lovely. But I do think - and this I must confirm in a retasting in 10 years - that this just does not have the elegance of the 1998 white. But I still would like to buy a case of it.

-O-

[Jenise]

Otto, speaking of timing, will I be doing myself a huge disservice by opening a 95,97 and 98? I was thinking of doing a vertical. I realize that they would need decanting, possibly a day or two, but I was wanting to get into them.

[Robin Garr]

I'll be opening the red and white 1999 sometime soon. Anyone want to join in tasting them? The red I've tried before (but only a taste, I want to drink it too...) and I thought it one of the best young Musars I've had.

What the others said, Otto. I'd love to join you, and could justify opening one young for the sake of science (and to report on it), but I suspect that if they're even in the U.S. yet, they are still working through the pipeline.

Otto, speaking of timing, will I be doing myself a huge disservice by opening a 95,97 and 98? I was thinking of doing a vertical. I realize that they would need decanting, possibly a day or two, but I was wanting to get into them.

Jenise,

There are many caveats to this question. If you are drinking just for the fun of it, then I would only open the 1998 (assuming you are only talking of the reds). The 1997 is showing a bit closed already, but can be pleasurable with a long decanting (8 hours + ). The 1995 IMO is closed and should not be opened, but other reports say that it is fine just now.

If you are having a tasting where you want to see the differences of the wines, I do think that it is worth opening all of them if you give them all a proper decanting - i.e. 95 = 10 hours; 97 = 8 hours; 98 = 4 hours; all assuming they are the red wines. Or even better, experiment to see how you like them best!

[Jenise]

Thanks for the advice, Otto. I want to get a benchmark baseline going. I've only had aged Musars, and these bottles (or at least two out of three) would mean more to me someday if I know them now. Perhaps, considering that I have 2, 2 and 4 respectively starting with the 95's, it would be wisest to open a 97 and 98 only and preserve my two 95's intact.

Alas ! I was convinced that I had brought back two bottles of Musar 99 from London but could only find one (perhaps my son dipped into my shopping bag). Not wanting to deprive this only child of time to develop, I cheated and opened –

CHATEAU MUSAR (red) 1990 –

after standing it up for three hours and then decanting one hour before the meal – succulent lamb.

COLOUR was, as usual, not very deep but brightly transparent with no bricking at the rim. At first the NOSE showed mainly light varnish with raspberry and saddle notes but deepened and became more complex with exposure. Likewise the PALATE seemed rather lightweight and one dimensional at first, the combination of varnish-like acidity and gently sweet fruit was already delicious but the finish was slightly cloying. As the meal progressed and the wine took more air and gained a degree or so of temperature, it seemed to fill out, deepen, show more structure and lengthen smoothing away any impression of cloy. This is a classically well balanced wine allied to an unique flavour profile and, if that is a hint of VA that I flair, then it is no fault and essential to that profile just as a hint of brett is to that of other wines. Really lovely!

In spite of an announced 13.5% of alcohol, I felt as if my wife and I could have consumed another bottle with ever increasing pleasure and cannot understand why I have bought so few Musars to refill my cellar (my 88s are all gone, perhaps prematurely, and I recall that they were a touch more animal, spicy, exotic and “decadent” than this).

I will go out next week to see what I can find here in Brussels though I think this is one rare instance where the Belgian importer charges more than London retailers.

( In a visit to memory lane, I recall from frequent business trips by train from London to the North-East of England in the late 90s that Château Musar 90 in half-bottles was the only serious wine in the restaurant car- all the others were Aussie fruit and oak bombs- and the trains’ vibration make the drink very cloudy without fortunately spoiling the taste. I ordered it whenever I travelled on this route.)

Jenise, I'm sorry, I have no idea how I missed your message! If that is the number of bottles you have, I would only open the 1998. That is drinking very well right now, but a 1997 that I got a sip of just a week ago, was rather closed (but it wasn't decanted long either....). Leave the sublime 1995 and the nice 1997 for later.

Tim, thanks for that note. I must be honest and say that I haven't enjoyed the red 1990 all that much and find it alongside the 1996 the only red of recent years that I don't actively seek out. It isn't bad, so if an odd bottle came my way I would buy it if the price were ok, but it isn't IMO Musarian.

I don't know if it's right saying that the 88's are gone prematurely as they have been drinking well for all my adult life (i.e.2000->). I also wish I had more of the '88 - it's bloody brilliant.

And yes VA is perhaps a Trademark of Musar. I guess I am a bit immune to it, since I don't view it as a fault, but rather sense it as a lifted nose.

Otto,

I meant that my bottles of 88 had gone prematurely, i.e. down the gullet, not that the wine itself had gone; quite the contrary. As my note says, it has a dimension that the 90 doesn't but yesterday's bottle of 90 was far better than "not bad".

Otto,

I meant that my bottles of 88 had gone prematurely, i.e. down the gullet, not that the wine itself had gone; quite the contrary. As my note says, it has a dimension that the 90 doesn't but yesterday's bottle of 90 was far better than "not bad".

Tim, no worries, I understood what you said. But what I meant to say was that it was no crime to drink the 1988s earlier since they have been drinking so well all the time. In that sense they weren't prematurely drunk, but optimally. The optimum just continues still.