Advertisement

Who Likes This Wine(1)

  1. Vinum Deorum

    Vinum Deorum

    356 Tasting Notes

Food Pairing Tags

Add My Food Pairing Tags

Community Tasting Notes (5) Avg Score: 93.7 points

  • From a bottle that apparently laid down in the same cellar for over 50 years. Cloudy robe showing its age. The nose was at first diplaying aromas of mushrooms, wet earth, hay, and after opening up much more charming notes of faded rose, orange peel, cherry, truffle and spices. Lovely mouthfeel, very elegant with a nice acidity and gentle tanins. Good structure, balance, complexity and elegance. Loved it, although the wine of the night was a 43 years younger wine (2005 Le Bourg Clos Rougeard).

    Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Comment

  • Aged Bordeaux Gems (with Unico/Heitz MV in the mix): Magnum. Upper mid shoulder level. While this bottle was still there with good tension and a lot of fruit, this Angelus was no winner. It had a bit too much power, too much ripeness and lost its balance and harmony along the way. 1962 isn’t a vintage to chase and this Angelus is no different. As the wine got better with a lot of swirling, I keep wondering if it would have improved with a lot of air. That’s the unfortunate downside of larger tastings.

    TN: Intense nose with a very ripe, liquory fruit expression and some heat interfering. More balanced (especially with some air) on the palate with dark earthy notes, dark fruit, with time more red berries, malt notes and some chocolate hints. Medium complexity with fairly good precision. While it got softer and creamier with time in the glass, it never reached that gorgeous, luxurious structure Bordeaux can have, it always remained slightly angular and too powerful. Medium+ length.

    Decanting: Double decanted only. I guess this wine could have improved with significantly more air.

    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. Intense and surprisingly fruity nose showing dark cherries, plum, dried leaves, moist forest floor and even a bit of sweet Mon-Cherie, all embedded in a smoky and mineral frame, forming a layered and multi-dimensional nose. A soft albeit slightly thinly structured palate where the alcohol shone through more than I would have liked. Intensity was fading quite quickly, although that gave rise to a more delicate and elegant wine where the initial Mon-Cherie turned in a darker, more minty After Eight.

    1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

  • Richter magnum tasting, all wines out of Magnum: Drinking this beauty you forget that '62 followed '61, this is just a great wine. Red berries, ovaltine, fruit tea, beautiful, elegant wine with a long long finish!

    1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

  • I took this out of the wine unit yesterday and stood it upright to settle the sediment. High fill, moist intact cork. Poured into decanter and served immediately. Light, almost clear in glass, reddish brown, like tea. Nose of red fruits, with earth, licorice and cinnamon. Plenty of red fruit left, cassis and red berries with streaks of tobacco, star anise and leather. Tannins almost completely integrated, long finish. After 49 years, plenty of power and intensity left. Plenty to look forward to. Happy.

    1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

What Do You Think? Add a Tasting Note

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.

Add a Pro Review Add Your Own Reviews:
 

Advertisement

×