Tasted a glass with coravin. Deep almost inky color. The nose was very closed for better than 30 minutes in the glass and then opened to classic notes of dark berries and spice, with a bit a leather and mushroom. It really jumps into the mouth with big flavors and then finishes with a bit of dirt flavor. The fruit is powerful but the wine is balanced with sweet tannins and nice acid. This wine was very good and I think will still improve as the tannins smooth out a bit more.
Drank the rest with friends, no difference in wine (meaning no coravin effect that I could taste). Same notes as above, but was drinking with food and it was a great compliment to the steak. My friends really enjoyed this treat.
Opened in the name of research but wish I had not. Still far far too young for my taste although I suspect it will eventually be very fine indeed. Trouble is I doubt very much whether I will be around to try it.
This is another benchmark Montrose that is right up there with the 2005 and 2009 (and dare I say it, the 2008?). This wine is still another two decades away from real maturity of course, but the quality is already apparent: a deep bouquet of black fruit and developing truffle and rich soil aromas are followed by a strikingly three-dimensional, complete palate impression, with loads of savory tannins and a bottomless core of fruit and acidity. In style this is slightly more rustic and old-school than subsequent vintages—and I love that!
Took about 30 minutes in the decanter. Hard leather and tobacco on the nose initially that gave way to sweet black and red fruits. On the palate much the same with grilled meats following the tobacco notes but the sweet layers of fruit really creeping up to a huge long finish.
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 2000 Montrose was ‘massive.’ There was certainly more t ‘n a here than in the previous two, and the wine had loads of spice and spine, as well as a nutty edge. The style of St. Estephe shone through all three wines in this first flight, as they all had this similar style underneath it all. Mike found the Montrose a bit ‘angular and sharp,’ while also noting that the Cos was ‘well-connected.’ The Montrose was spiny and long but a bit brutish at the young age of seven
(Montrose) This bottle was far from that experience. I found myself about halfway between pomp and circumstance. This bottle, or the experience of this bottle in the context of the evening, was above average but not even very good. I gave the wine 88 points and found it uninteresting overall. All three wines from the 2000 vintage did not rock my socks on this night. Again, I was suffering from some palate fatigue in the second part of the night, but regardless the discrepancies were large
(Montrose) seemed to have tightened up, certainly having much more structure and much less baby fat than the 2003 at this point. There were great aromas of smoke, cedar and minerals; the wine had breed and was elevated and stylish, though definitely in reserve. The nose had impressive length; it was deep, dusty and a veritable spice box of dried herbs. Frank wondered if it was 'a little green,' but I found that to be a quality of the 1996 more so and not here really. Michel Bettane found significant bottle variation between the two bottles of 2000 that were served. Some fireplace action emerged with the wood, ash and brick, and some sweetness slowly slinked out. The acidity kept gaining in the glass, and as previously mentioned, three hours later the wine was still going strong. The structure was indubitably outstanding; there was great balance to its body and flavors between the front and back ends, but it did not quite have the weight I expected, perhaps a stage. The wine was still outstanding, don't get me wrong. Clive called it 'glorious,' though 'a bit adolescent,' and that it had 'gone into its shell, which you'd expect. Drink after 2015.' While the 2003 was more enjoyable right now, the 2000 reeked of more potential
(Montrose) How about a case for your great grandchildren? Here it is. Montrose 2000. This wine hurt me, but is still oh so good. Huge nose of minerals, wet stones, chocolate, earth, spice. Almost Pessac-like was my first impression. Palate was really primary and fat with unreal density and precision. Very backwards with a long finish and a resounding thump of tannin at the end. Incredible wine in need of 20-25 years. A monster.
NOTE: Some content is property of The World of Fine Wine and JancisRobinson.com and Vinous and RJonWine.com and Vintage Tastings and Rockss and Fruit.