Community Tasting Note

RajivAyyangar Likes this wine:

Monday, April 20, 2015 - 99 Musar at Nopa with BFU, WC, SC (Nopa SF): I felt happy to be re-acquainted with this wine, and to share it with some of my good friends. My impression this time, aside from the characteristic Musar tamari, animal notes from Brettanomyces and bruised apple/fig from oxidization, was one of a very large grapey blackberry, looming over secondary details of chamomile, earth, tobacco. I’ve thought this before with young Musar - I wish the fruit would get out of the way just a little so the secondaries could shine through.

It seemed awkward, young, the flavors a bit separate and disjointed (compared to how Musar can be at its best). Will it change more? I’m not a fan of the current fruit character. Will it change or go away? Is my palate changing with this wine? Maybe I’m becoming more attuned with secondary aging flavors, and this wine is just behind the curve.

Referring to my notes, I tasted this in 2010 (at 11 years), and thought it was beautiful, emphasizing fruit. I enjoyed the fruit character, calling it “real, true fruit.” I noted how it didn’t quite have the emotional impact of the ’95, which had had a profound impact on me not that long before.

I tasted it again in London at the end of 2012 (at 13 years) and noted a grapey fruit core that I didn’t particularly enjoy, though the secondaries and Musar character still made for a great wine.

Most recently, I tasted it 2 months ago (at 16 years) at the tail end of a formidable lineup: the ’91, ’94, ’96, and ’98. I noted it was somewhat closed (it hadn’t been decanted), and the fruit was “plummy.”

Extrapolating, I’d say that for me, the fruit character of the ’99 isn’t up to par with the ’95. Maybe it will get out of the way and turn into a fantastic secondary and tertiary wine. Maybe I’ll never like it as much as the ’95, my one fantastic bottle of the ’94, or that great bottle of the ’96 in Orono. Or maybe it will surprise me in young-adulthood.

Sensory Notes:

Visual:
Mostly clear, just bright. Dark garnet, moderate to moderate-minus concentration. Some sediment.

Nose:
Brett and Acetaldehyde were high initially, as was a dark grapey blackberry note. Over time the nose became much more refined, more complex, but still chubby and not fully-integrated. Primary aromas of blackberry, dark plummy fruit. Secondaries of tamari, dried cherry, dried tomato, and chamomile tea. Complex, and still developing.

Palate:
Moderate in body. A slight impression of elevated alcohol that works very well in context of the flavors and acidity. The balance is such that it stands on its own, yet also works with food. Midpalate flavors of tamari, blackberry, dried cherry, tobacco, some dusty, woody oak peeking through on the palate (not excessive, presenting as a bit of clove and nutmeg and freshly-sanded wood). [Aged for 1 year in Nevers oak - age of barrels unspecified]. It finished with just moderate to moderate plus in length, with very little impression of tannins and a bit of tart malic sourness, which I associate with acetaldehyde.

Overall:
That I wasn’t completely taken with how this bottle was showing did not distract from the facts of the evening. We had several other wines to contrast, but only this seemed to rise up and have a conversation. It paired phenomenally with the roasted squab, dusted lightly with Indian spices.

Score: Around 9.

Post a Comment / View RajivAyyangar's profile
5 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue (8,365 views)