Brisket, Bordeaux, and Rhones: Stunning, and the first great bottle of the 1990 I've had after a number of disappointments. It shows a little of the fresh, dry hay I always seem to find in the 1990, but not the overwhelming brett that is too common. The red-leaning fruit has toned down with age, revealing more nuance, and savory leather and earth have joined the mix.
The 1990 Montrose is a profound, monumental wine, bursting from the glass after a few hours in the decanter with glorious notes of sweet black fruit, leather, cigar ash and hot bricks. On the palate the wine is stunningly broad and deep, with beautiful, layered structure, fresh tangy acids and an endless finish. This is very similar to the superb 1989 Montrose, which I drink quite regularly, but a step up in intensity, volume and breadth—with none of the torrefied notes of some of the other top 1990s such as Haut Brion, La Mission, Lynch Bages etc. Yet while the 1990 Montrose is a massive wine, its balance is unerring and its sense of proportion perfect. Very, very fine, and entering an attractive phase as the wine's serious tannic structure melts away somewhat.
Professional reviews have copyrights and you can view them here for your personal use only as private content. To view pro reviews you must either subscribe to a pre-integrated publication or manually enter reviews below. Learn more.
(Montrose) The second to last wine of the night would ultimately become the group’s wine of the night. The nose was open and exotic, full of blackberry fruit in its nose. The palate was rich and saucy, with coffee grind and earth flavors and a meaty and dense personality. It was a Dr. Jekyll bottle of 1990 Montrose, which can often be green and unpleasant, but this was obviously one of the ‘good’ bottles that received so many accolades (95).
(Montrose) has always been a bit of a controversial wine in my mind, never living up to my expectations. I suppose I need to curl up with a bottle for five hours, as Mr. Squires insists, one of these days; my one Achilles' heel as a wine writer is that I tend to experience many wines at once and smaller samples. I enjoy the comparison and contrast of that format most; however, I do recognize that my impressions may be more snapshots than full length videos, but I doubt that I am alone in that regard when it comes to those in the business of publishing their notes. Back to the 1990&the nose had that greenish hue with the bean but also a sweet pinch of cinnamon, and there were much more pronounced aromas of barnyard and animal, which has always been one of my issues with this wine. There were a lot of horses racing around my glass, thoroughbreds perhaps, but horses nonetheless. A touch of morning mouth did not help, and I am talking about the wine and not me. The nose needed a lot of coaxing to shed its animal skin and don a mineral one. Once that skin was shed, I slowly started to become more infatuated with the wine and found more mocha, coffee and piercing minerals within. The horsy quality faded back in and out; it was a wine that almost needed to be swirled a few minutes before each sip and evaluation. The richness of fruit was clearly superior though, but its animal components kept distracting me. The plump, rich and fat fruit combined with its elegant and long acidity won me over a bit, but I still have my doubts about this 'modern-day legend'
(Montrose) was never a wine that blew me away, a wine that I always felt was a trip to the farm. This bottle was no different with its horsy, stinky nose, earthy and dirty as it always has been. On the palate, the wine was great, with gorgeous texture and concentration, I will admit. It was oily, balanced and long, with lots of earth. The texture was amazingly concentrated, so much so that it could easily improve, but the animalistic edge to it was not a pleasant one. Clive really felt the Montrose this night, calling it .much more to my taste than the Cos . pure, harmonious, long and intense,. and gave it 19/20
(Montrose.) Eric said it was like Australia meets Bordeaux, which raised some eyebrows, but what he meant was that the Montrose was very concentrated by Bordeaux standards. The nose was a little green and stinky, as it always has been in my book. There was green, barn, horse in the barn, horse out of the barn and earth to its nose, with some cassis underneath. The palate has similar flavors, though less wild. .Interesting wine,. Wilfred said tongue in cheek. The palate was a bit herbal and horsy, although Eric loved the wine, and its texture was its major redeeming quality
NOTE: Some content is property of View From the Cellar and JancisRobinson.com and Vinous and Vintage Tastings and RJonWine.com.