Margaux Horizontal 2004

See Nutty08 note on Introductory....

All Margaux wines double decanted earlier in day.

Group Rankings:

#1 Chateau Pape Clement
#2 Chateau Malescot St. Exupery
#3 Chateau Margaux
#4 Chateau Palmer
#5 Chateau Pontac Lynch
#6 Chateau Brane Cantenac
#7 Chateau Lascombes
#8 Chateau Fleur Cardinale
#9 Chateau Boyd Cantenac
#10 Sister Creek Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve
#11 Fall Creek Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Meritus
#12 Chateau Rauzan-Segla (possible taint)

• 2004 Château Pape Clément 94 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Graves, Pessac-Léognan

  My WOTN. Incredible nose that demonstrated early maturity, with notes of dark cherries, graphite, fig, and tobacco. On day 2, nose continued to sing. Palate was very plump and rich, demonstrating its pessac roots with flavors of redcurrant, minerals, spice, raspberries, and a slight hint of dark mocha. This had a rich flavor profile that I have come across in the '04 vintage only with Pontet Canet. However, this easily outshines PC as the tannins are already beautifully integrated. A strong impression on the finish which bright acidity. I guessed Margaux blind as did not fit a Pauillac or St. Julien profile (initial thoughts on what Nutty brought). I would have also guessed a bigger vintage.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Château Palmer 93 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux

  A stunning Palmer which I ranked #2. I had this easily marked as Margaux with nose of crushed rocks, violets, and graphite. Very juicy and sweet, but balanced with notes of dark berries, mocha, minerals, vanilla. A touch of oak was noticeable on mouthpuckering finish. Impressive density of the fruit. I marked this as most tannic of my top three.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Château Margaux 92 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux

  Surprisingly muted nose of violets and boysenberries. I took this home and on day 2 still could not coax a more complex nose. Palate was extremely smooth that was consistent on both days. Primary flavors of warm cherries, spice, cassis, with a deft touch of oak. The refinement of the tannins, with a lush strong finish. Although impressed, it was outshined by both Palmer and Pape Clement. My #3.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Château Pontac-Lynch 92 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux

  I was unfamiliar with this non classified Margaux. In researching for this horizontal, found out that Pontac Lynch's immediate neighbors are Ch. Margaux, Ch. Rauzan Segla, and Ch. Palmer. This is why a blind tasting is urged when comparing wines of a different pedigree. I ranked this right behind the first growth. Great nose of blackberry, licorice, minerals, and flowers. The palate showed great depth of fruit as well, with rich dark berry fruit, blueberries, and clay. Very balanced wine as well with impressive long finish. I had actually guessed Palmer or Malescot blind. Most likely the wine is peaking versus the other wines. It will be interesting to compare this wine in several years to its neighbors. In any case, for a $30 price point, this wine is a steal.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Château Brane-Cantenac 90 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux

  My #5. Expressive aromas of cedar and oak. This was the only wine of the night I had notes of wood and smoke on the palate. Slightly musty smoke, with ripe herbs, cedar, and a nice touch of blackberry vanilla cream. Enough sweet lavender fruit that I still pegged as Margaux. A great mouthfeel as well, as the tannins have moderated nicely. I think this wine has matured more quickly than some others in this blind tasting. An inviting, long finish as well.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Château Lascombes 91 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux

  Nose was equally as strong as my tasting of this wine earlier last year. Great violets, blueberries, mocha. Oak receded slightly. Modern palate full of cassis and fruit. Scored this one point less most likely due to comparisons with Palmer and Clement, which were better. Maybe in a dumb stage as last bottle was better. My #6.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Château Malescot St. Exupéry 90 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux

  I was excited to try this wine as the ratings and notes gave an impression of value. Nose was a bit shy, with slight redfruit, spice, and flowers. Sweet and spicy on the palate, though tannic, with raspberries, menthol, tarry oak. Good fruit intensity with some richer chocolate touches on finish. Solid acidity for balance. This wine did not show as well as others in the lineup, possibly in a dumb stage? My number 7.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Château Rauzan-Ségla 87 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux

  I did not get the ominous taint that others in the tasting found. However this was the lightest and most acidic of the Margaux in the lineup, lacking the concentration of fruit its neighbors demonstrated. Nose did show Margaux, flowers, minerals. Medium bodied with notes of sour cherries and oak. Perplexing as two others had marked as flawed.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Sister Creek Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve 88 Points

  USA, Texas, Texas Hill Country

  Ringer which was easily identified. Lots of prune, toast, and cherries on the nose. Good fleshy concentration of sweet fruit with moderate acidity. Nice red fruit lingering on a solid finish

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Château Boyd-Cantenac 88 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux

  Also did not guess Margaux. Color was deep purple to black. Rich perfumed nose of black fruit, leather, coffee. Palate was very sweet and tannic, with deep black and smoky plum fruits. Medium bodied palate with moderated tannins, savoury but with a lower acidity than other wines in the grouping. It seemed to be slightly out of balance for a higher rating.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Château Fleur Cardinale 88 Points

  France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru

  I did not peg this as Bordeaux. Despite classic year vintage, this wine came across as a hot year production. Ripe, sweet nose of cherries, cinnamon, and figs. Ripe palate as well with cola, black cherries, earth, and hints of vanilla. Obvious ringer, but also with mineral touch and racy acidity. Thus did not think Cali., but I had written down guess of Super Tuscan. Decent tannic finish.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

• 2004 Fall Creek Vineyards Meritus 85 Points

  USA, Texas, Texas Hill Country

  Very sweet nose of cherries, oak, and figs. Very concentrated palate with cough syrup like intensity. I had in my notes it could be a heated Shiraz. Not my style and obvious ringer in classic Bordeaux tasting. Was at the bottom of my ratings.

  Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue

Group rankings will be updated once all the scores are tabulated.

Here are my thoughts on questions brought up before tasting:

1 - The initial drinking window for the 2004 Bordeaux vintage is believed to begin in 2011. Are these wines truly ready for early drinking? How much maturity are these wines showing at this point in time?

A: These wines are just beginning to demonstrate secondary notes. So early drinking window does apply. However, most of these wines will improve as tannins are still elevated. The most improvement I would guess would come from Ch. Margaux & Ch. Malescot.

2 - The 2004 vintage is considered a moderate one, one of "classic or cool" typicity. What is the overall quality of the wines in this 2004 vintage, especially the Margaux region? Margaux wines are frequently labeled as "light & delicate" during cool vintages like 2004. Does the group agree with this assessment for the 2004 vintage?

A: I thought this was a high quality vintage, especially for the price point. I did not consider most of these wines "light or delicate" except perhaps Rauzan. I believe this was consensus in the group.

3 - The various "wine experts" such as Robert Parker (RP), James Suckling (JS), Steven Tanzer (ST), and Neil Martin (NM) all had different pecking orders for these Margaux wines. Robert Parker, for example, rated third growth Chateau Palmer at a 94 rating, while he gave first growth Chataux Margaux a slightly lower score (93). Both JS and ST scored Chateau Margaux ahead of Palmer. RP gave rave reviews for Chateau Lascombes, however JS scored it a lowly 88 rating. Chateau Lascombes also won the blind tasting of 2004 Bordeaux done by Executive Wine Seminars (EWS), outperforming all the second growths. Which expert will the group come most closely to in regard to ratings?

A: I agreed with Parker as I rated Palmer ahead of Margaux. For the rest, I was inline with Parker except for Boyd. Parker only gave 91 to Pape Clement, I gave 94. I thought Lascombes is a solid wine, but did not outperform the higher pedigree selections as revealed in the EWS tasting.

4 - Chateau Rauzan Segla is considered one of the top estates within Margaux. However, the 2004 vintage from the chateau has been universally panned as below average (except for NM). How will this fine estate's wine show during this blind tasting?

A: Rauzan did not show well to my palate, well below other second and third growths in the tasting.

5 - Chateau Pontac Lynch is a non-classified growth, not listed as up to the standards of the other Margaux wines in the lineup. Will the wine be universally criticized and picked out by the group as the non-classified? How will this $27 wine compare to the $270 Chateau Margaux?

A: Pontac Lynch was the steal of the tasting. Obviously the location of their property right next to Palmer makes a difference. Can't believe I never heard of this estate.