This is my 4th bottle of the 1962 Montrose over the past 6 years and, sadly, my last. Sadder yet, my horde went out not with a bang, but with a whimper. 20 minutes of air finds an example of the ‘62 Montrose less detailed than usual, though it grows more articulate with time. Though this eventually shows boysenberry, blueberry, wet clay, and old cedar (‘62 Montrose enough), the details never knit together with the precision or crescendo the way ‘62 Montrose can; at its best, this is a wine that dazzles with a very Montrosian combination of muscle and energy.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Cleaner than the last bottle without the horse; gorgeous, glorious, requiring 30 minutes in the decanter to fully unfold and expand. A deep, potent nose, full of blue and black berries with leather, gravel, and clay alongside - a beautiful, classically strong Montrose, developing floral notes with a little air. Softish tannin now; a delight. Lasted well for a couple of hours in the decanter, not really showing any fatigue by the end of the evening.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Blueberry compote, clay, mineral, and sweaty horse - a big punch of a wine, with classically Montrosian swagger. If not technically perfect, still attention grabbing and entirely characterful.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Why 62 is less than 61 (Wine Watch, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida): Ex Mähler-Besse. Finally a very good example of the vintage. While not close to great vintages for them such as ‘89 or ‘90, it’s easy to appreciate the thrust, concentration and flavor authority. The inky St. Estèphe black fruit is on display with a pleasing hint of sous bois. The group favorite as well as mine. Still, even this long-lived Montrose is probably past its best days.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Aged Bordeaux Gems (with Unico/Heitz MV in the mix): Magnum. Mid shoulder level. The typical aged Montrose nose full of tobacco and truffles was to die for. Sadly, the palate was not remotely as clean and intense. It lacked intensity and harmony. The bouquet promised a 95/96 point jewel but overall not much more than a 92 point experience.
TN: Dark brooding nose full of fine tobacco, hints of truffles and dark fruits. Soft yet intense and well defined. I could smell this for hours… On the palate lots of dark fruit, less intense but still present tertiary aromas of tobacco and forest floor but overall quite hollow and at times slightly disjointed with a too high acidity. As the Angelus 62 we had next to it, this wine has still a firm structure with noticeable but soft enough tannins. Missing some weight, concentration and complexity.
Decanting: Double decanted only. I guess this might have improved with some hours in the decanter.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Magnum rarities tasting (Near Basel): This was part of a rarity old wine tasting hosted by a merchant and collector. All (almost) bottles were from magnum and double-decanted. The line-ups was dominated by aged Bordeaux, but also included two vintages of Unico and one from Martha's Vineyard. The undisputed winners were Pichon Lalande 82 and Lynch Bages 82. The most memorable, however, was the Pontet Canet 29 and St Croix Dumonts 21. The Unico (60, 65) were underwhelming as was – once again for me – Mouton 82.
Tasting note: Double decanted, from magnum. Dark berry fruit and red cherry. Initially some wet cellar notes but these dissipated (somewhat) over time. A bit of dried leather. A well structured, very aromatic palate with a decent length finish and great balance. Fresh acidity and still tangible tannin which - coming to think of it - were maybe just a tad too coarse.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
Richter magnum tasting, all wines out of Magnum: Slightly medicinal, dry old carpet, mushrooms, truffles, medium bodied but kind of atough wine that takes a more experienced borrdeaux drinker to fully enjoy, but I did enjoy that one glass...
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
A serious wine, and very Montrosian in nature. Loads of blackberry, touches of cedar, loam, leather, and spice. A firm personality, but such is Montrose - not even the seductive 62 vintage does much to change that. Overall this is another really nice 62, the pedigree of which is quite clear. These seem best drunk now.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
A beautiful Montrose that is more red fruit and spice with notes of cedar and blackberry. The finish is plush and complex. This supposedly contains 20% of the '61 vintage which probably adds to its appeal and longevity.
Annual Wine Group Summer Event - BBQ Brisket at Siggy's (Siggy & Jenny's Place, Mpls, MN): Very dark red with moderate bricking. Drank 1 glass from magnum. What a treat. It's so rare to get old bottles like these and when they're in good shape you feel quite fortunate. Thanks to Steve and Jenny for sharing this. I adored the nose, so pretty and perfumed with red fruits and high toned cigar notes. The palate still has pretty nice red fruit, cigar, fine grainy tannins and spicebox. Great fun to drink. I hate to even think about a score here, just appreciate it for what it is .
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No
/ Comment
The 1962 Montrose is a very fine wine, and not so far behind the level of the 1961. A bouquet of griotte cherry, dried red berries, cedar and complex, irony soil tones introduces a masculine with a lot of energy, minerality and intensity. More savoury and austere than the ’61, this is reminiscent of the 1970, though somewhat larger-framed.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Second Sunday Group: 2002 Napa Cabernets (Our house): Courtesy of Marty, this had an initial note of wet hay/brettanomyces that faded with time, leaving red currant, cedar and tobacco aromas. Nice weight across the palate, with currants, mushroom and tobacco flavors.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Dinner with Gary (Mon Ami Gabi- Chicago IL): Bottle had signs of fairly recent leakage and mid/low shoulder fill. Still this had very good aromas of tobacco, mature black currant, old leather. Good, balanced flavors of lingering fruit and spice and reduced ceps. At first I thought this simple and enjoyable, suggesting it will fade in 30 minutes. Wrong! This held steady or improved over 2 hours open.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Some debate over whether this was corked - thought it had a little of the mustiness of an older red, but that blew off with some air to show gentle red fruited flavours framed by cedar, graphite and savoury earthy notes. Rather frail in the mouth with the flavours a little tired, but still quite pleasant to drink.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Tasting Group Dinner - '75, '83 and '85 Bordeaux (Brad's House, Minneapolis): Youthfully dark color. Nice plummy nose. The palate is soft, ripe, and a touch horsey/funky, showing tart dark cherries, mushrooms, and leather. Good length. Slightly muddy/mushy on the midpalate and finish. The tannins are fully resolved. A bit over-the-hill, but still quite drinkable.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
This is a much darker red color than the Lafite. At first the nose gives up nothing, but with coaxing there's a subtle blend of coffee and tobacco. Much better on the palate with a rough and rustic personality and pleasant flavors of mainly dark fruit. The finish is extremely long and very impressive. I couldn't decisively associate this in any way with other bottles of Montrose I've had, but enjoyed it nonetheless.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
Very complex and interesting, though there is a strong mushroom aroma, that some would feel shows it's over the hill. Maybe it is, but that doesn't stop me enjoying it for where it is now.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
/ Comment
11/19/2023 - englishman's claret wrote:
This is my 4th bottle of the 1962 Montrose over the past 6 years and, sadly, my last. Sadder yet, my horde went out not with a bang, but with a whimper. 20 minutes of air finds an example of the ‘62 Montrose less detailed than usual, though it grows more articulate with time. Though this eventually shows boysenberry, blueberry, wet clay, and old cedar (‘62 Montrose enough), the details never knit together with the precision or crescendo the way ‘62 Montrose can; at its best, this is a wine that dazzles with a very Montrosian combination of muscle and energy.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/5/2023 - englishman's claret wrote: 95 Points
Cleaner than the last bottle without the horse; gorgeous, glorious, requiring 30 minutes in the decanter to fully unfold and expand. A deep, potent nose, full of blue and black berries with leather, gravel, and clay alongside - a beautiful, classically strong Montrose, developing floral notes with a little air. Softish tannin now; a delight. Lasted well for a couple of hours in the decanter, not really showing any fatigue by the end of the evening.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
2/20/2023 - englishman's claret wrote: 93 Points
Blueberry compote, clay, mineral, and sweaty horse - a big punch of a wine, with classically Montrosian swagger. If not technically perfect, still attention grabbing and entirely characterful.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
2/26/2022 - sdr Likes this wine: 93 Points
Why 62 is less than 61 (Wine Watch, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida): Ex Mähler-Besse. Finally a very good example of the vintage. While not close to great vintages for them such as ‘89 or ‘90, it’s easy to appreciate the thrust, concentration and flavor authority. The inky St. Estèphe black fruit is on display with a pleasing hint of sous bois. The group favorite as well as mine. Still, even this long-lived Montrose is probably past its best days.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/22/2020 - Cailles wrote: 92 Points
Aged Bordeaux Gems (with Unico/Heitz MV in the mix): Magnum. Mid shoulder level. The typical aged Montrose nose full of tobacco and truffles was to die for. Sadly, the palate was not remotely as clean and intense. It lacked intensity and harmony. The bouquet promised a 95/96 point jewel but overall not much more than a 92 point experience.
TN: Dark brooding nose full of fine tobacco, hints of truffles and dark fruits. Soft yet intense and well defined. I could smell this for hours… On the palate lots of dark fruit, less intense but still present tertiary aromas of tobacco and forest floor but overall quite hollow and at times slightly disjointed with a too high acidity. As the Angelus 62 we had next to it, this wine has still a firm structure with noticeable but soft enough tannins. Missing some weight, concentration and complexity.
Decanting: Double decanted only. I guess this might have improved with some hours in the decanter.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
6/27/2020 - sirpat00 wrote: 92 Points
Magnum rarities tasting (Near Basel): This was part of a rarity old wine tasting hosted by a merchant and collector. All (almost) bottles were from magnum and double-decanted. The line-ups was dominated by aged Bordeaux, but also included two vintages of Unico and one from Martha's Vineyard. The undisputed winners were Pichon Lalande 82 and Lynch Bages 82. The most memorable, however, was the Pontet Canet 29 and St Croix Dumonts 21. The Unico (60, 65) were underwhelming as was – once again for me – Mouton 82.
Tasting note:
Double decanted, from magnum. Dark berry fruit and red cherry. Initially some wet cellar notes but these dissipated (somewhat) over time. A bit of dried leather. A well structured, very aromatic palate with a decent length finish and great balance. Fresh acidity and still tangible tannin which - coming to think of it - were maybe just a tad too coarse.
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
6/27/2020 - G_H wrote: 92 Points
Richter magnum tasting, all wines out of Magnum: Slightly medicinal, dry old carpet, mushrooms, truffles, medium bodied but kind of atough wine that takes a more experienced borrdeaux drinker to fully enjoy, but I did enjoy that one glass...
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/28/2017 - englishman's claret wrote: 94 Points
A serious wine, and very Montrosian in nature. Loads of blackberry, touches of cedar, loam, leather, and spice. A firm personality, but such is Montrose - not even the seductive 62 vintage does much to change that. Overall this is another really nice 62, the pedigree of which is quite clear. These seem best drunk now.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/24/2017 - dream Likes this wine: 93 Points
A beautiful Montrose that is more red fruit and spice with notes of cedar and blackberry. The finish is plush and complex. This supposedly contains 20% of the '61 vintage which probably adds to its appeal and longevity.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comments (2)
2/23/2017 - tinybubbles wrote: 89 Points
Austere red fruit with animalistic volatility. Good tension across the palate. May benefit from the inclusion of some '61 but still not a standout
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
2/23/2017 - nywine68 Likes this wine: 94 Points
An epic vertical of Chateau Montrose (Restaurant Daniel): Initially not as expressive. Beautiful flavors and acidity, though. Pure elegance. The 60s were clearly superior to the 70s. Montrose vertical 1895-2000
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/30/2016 - rocknroller wrote:
Annual Wine Group Summer Event - BBQ Brisket at Siggy's (Siggy & Jenny's Place, Mpls, MN): Very dark red with moderate bricking. Drank 1 glass from magnum. What a treat. It's so rare to get old bottles like these and when they're in good shape you feel quite fortunate. Thanks to Steve and Jenny for sharing this. I adored the nose, so pretty and perfumed with red fruits and high toned cigar notes. The palate still has pretty nice red fruit, cigar, fine grainy tannins and spicebox. Great fun to drink. I hate to even think about a score here, just appreciate it for what it is .
1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment
7/14/2016 - William Kelley Likes this wine: 94 Points
The 1962 Montrose is a very fine wine, and not so far behind the level of the 1961. A bouquet of griotte cherry, dried red berries, cedar and complex, irony soil tones introduces a masculine with a lot of energy, minerality and intensity. More savoury and austere than the ’61, this is reminiscent of the 1970, though somewhat larger-framed.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
8/2/2015 - AllRed wrote: 88 Points
Second Sunday Group: 2002 Napa Cabernets (Our house): Courtesy of Marty, this had an initial note of wet hay/brettanomyces that faded with time, leaving red currant, cedar and tobacco aromas. Nice weight across the palate, with currants, mushroom and tobacco flavors.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
7/10/2012 - Burgundy Al wrote: 89 Points
Dinner with Gary (Mon Ami Gabi- Chicago IL): Bottle had signs of fairly recent leakage and mid/low shoulder fill. Still this had very good aromas of tobacco, mature black currant, old leather. Good, balanced flavors of lingering fruit and spice and reduced ceps. At first I thought this simple and enjoyable, suggesting it will fade in 30 minutes. Wrong! This held steady or improved over 2 hours open.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
3/25/2012 - salil wrote:
Some debate over whether this was corked - thought it had a little of the mustiness of an older red, but that blew off with some air to show gentle red fruited flavours framed by cedar, graphite and savoury earthy notes. Rather frail in the mouth with the flavours a little tired, but still quite pleasant to drink.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/23/2009 - Siggy wrote: 85 Points
Tasting Group Dinner - '75, '83 and '85 Bordeaux (Brad's House, Minneapolis): Youthfully dark color. Nice plummy nose. The palate is soft, ripe, and a touch horsey/funky, showing tart dark cherries, mushrooms, and leather. Good length. Slightly muddy/mushy on the midpalate and finish. The tannins are fully resolved. A bit over-the-hill, but still quite drinkable.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
1/23/2009 - Dave Dalluge wrote:
This is a much darker red color than the Lafite. At first the nose gives up nothing, but with coaxing there's a subtle blend of coffee and tobacco. Much better on the palate with a rough and rustic personality and pleasant flavors of mainly dark fruit. The finish is extremely long and very impressive. I couldn't decisively associate this in any way with other bottles of Montrose I've had, but enjoyed it nonetheless.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment
5/4/2008 - Ian S wrote:
Very complex and interesting, though there is a strong mushroom aroma, that some would feel shows it's over the hill. Maybe it is, but that doesn't stop me enjoying it for where it is now.
Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment