by Nathan Smyth » Thu May 03, 2007 8:50 pm
Well, not exactly a "magnum".
2004 Fabre Montmayou Malbec, $6.99 [Domaine Vistalba]
2004 Fabre Montmayou Cabernet Sauvignon, $6.99 [Domaine Vistalba]
On its own, the Malbec has excellent tannin structure, with good mouthfeel, and predominant earthy, terroir-driven notes [ending up just shy of dirty].
The Cab, on the other hand, is much more polished - slicker - with sweet fruit and just a hint of residual sugar.
My initial impression was of mid- to high-eighty-ish point table wines - very competent, and varietally correct, and certainly excellent bargains in their own right - but I kept thinking to myself "Gee, it's a shame that the Malbec doesn't a have just a little more fruit, and that the Cab doesn't have just a little more texture and rusticity."
So, after a couple of days, on a lark, I poured one glass in the other.
Now I've never had much luck mixing wines, but it was pretty obvious that these two wines were made for each other.
So today, I went back to the store, and grabbed two new bottles, and poured them, together, directly into the same decanter.
And I'd have a hard time believing that Monkton would score this blend much less than about 92 pts.
Certainly better than any table wine that I ever tasted from Marquis-Philips, and in the same general vicinity as the 2002 Thorn-Clark Shotfire Ridge Barossa Cuvee.
By the way, that Thorn-Clark bottling didn't prove to be much of an ager, but I've watched these Fabres over the course of three or four days, and [for what it's worth] they don't seem to show any particular propensity to oxidize.
Quite frankly, if you can believe it, this blend shows just the faintest resemblance to the 2003 Pontet-Canet.