Morrell Wine Bar and Café, NYC
Tasted Thursday, May 14, 2015 by kenv with 742 views
My tasting notes are single-blind. That is, I knew which wines were in each flight before the flight was poured, but did not know which wine was which.
You can find photos and more details here:
http://www.finewinegeek.com/tn/2015-05-14_AG_ConternoG_Sandrone_Morrell/
[Double decanted at 11am.] Dirty, earthy nose, but not unappealing. Very tannic in the mouth with rich black fruit. Complex and long. Hinting at greatness, but something isn't quite right. Others thought it might have been corked. I did not. 92 points, but may not be representative of this wine.
I brought the 97 CF to this tasting. I bought it in 2008 from a good source, and it has shared a case since then with the 96 CF that we tasted this evening. The cork for the 96 was perfect. The cork for the 97 was dry on top and broke apart as I tried to open the bottle. I did not think it was over the hill at all, but I did think it was off in some way. I don't recall ever having this wine before from any source, so I can't say whether this bottle was representative of any other. I do hope to pop another bottle of the 97 CF from the same box soon.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Pop and pour, which may not have been a good choice.] No nose. Thick, sweet, and gunky in the mouth. Very young and simple.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Double decanted at 4pm.] Tart, tannic, sweet black fruit and licorice. Restrained, but very appealing. Very good structure with a long life still ahead. I guessed this to be the CF!
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Double decanted at 4pm.] Smokey dark fruit in the nose. Smooth and sweet in the mouth. Nice structure. I thought this was the CB.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Double decanted at 4pm.] The most backward of these 3. Muted nose. Ripe, sweet and sour cherries. Needs time. I thought it was the Le Vigne since it showed little complexity. May improve significantly with time. 90-??
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Opened at 1pm. Double decanted at 5pm.] Powerful nose of intense ripe fruit. Incredibly rich in the mouth with great tannic structure but loads of balancing intense fruit. Clearly the WOTN for me, and I think everyone else. Stunning. I was sure this was the Monfortino, until I tasting the CF which was so backward, I thought maybe it was the Monfortino, but surprisingly, the Monfortino is just more forward and open at this time. Worth all its accolades, and maybe even its price! 99-100 points.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Opened at 1pm. Double decanted at 5pm.] No nose. Hugely tannic. So backward and shut down. Thick and juicy, but so tight. Needs a lot of time or a lot of air. Hard to say how terrific it might eventually be, though a bottle tasted last year was open and incredibly good. 93-??
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Double decanted at 2:30pm.] Jammy red fruit nose is also floral and fragrant. Big complex rip and luscious. Easy to pick this out at the one Sandrone in the flight. Young, but drinking beautifully tonight.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Double decanted at 8:30am.] Nose of stewed black fruit, roast beef, and olives. Thick, silky, tannic. Young but great. I thought this might be the Monfortino because the 2nd wine was so obviously the CF and the last one couldn't possibly be a sound Monfortino. Still, on its own merits, this is a terrific bottle of wine.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Double decanted at 11am.] Muted nose of dark black fruits and subtle spice. Rich, ripe, and tannic in the mouth. Long, complex, wonderful black fruit finish. Needs time, but a great wine. 95-??
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Double decanted at 2:30pm.] Candied and ripe sweet fruit. Some tannin, but no structure. I was shocked when this was revealed as Monfortino. It was either a bad bottle or in a very weird phase.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Double decanted at 2:30pm.] Gorgeous, fully mature, but no sign of decline. This was a great way to start the last flight because it showed where the rest are headed. Nose of mulch and red fruit. Long, riveting finish. Complex. From the maturity, it was obvious this was the 85 CF. This will certainly hold for a decade or more, but I see no reason to wait now. If you got it, let it rip. An absolute joy to drink.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Double decanted at 9am.] Gorgeous licorice and black fruit nose. Thick and silky in the mouth. Complex. Doesn't have the tertiary development of the 85, but it is just stunning. Another great wine. If you only have a bottle or two, I would hold another 5 years.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Double decanted at 2:30pm.] Medicinal and withholding at first. Opening more with time. A very good and tasty wine, but disappointing given the reputation of this wine. I now see that I had this 5 years ago, found it a little weird and gave it the same score.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
[Pop and pour.] Delicious, honeyed, sweet. Classic Sauternes. A bit simple at this point.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
Complex and fascinating. If I hadn't drunk so much so far, I would have liked to spend more time with this. Only mildly sweet. Very good with chocolate biscotti.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No
© 2003-26 CellarTracker! LLC. All rights reserved. "CellarTracker!" is a trademark of CellarTracker! LLC. No part of this website may be used, reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of CellarTracker! LLC.

1990 Veuve Clicquot Champagne Vintage Cave Privée 92 Points
France, Champagne
[Pop and pour.] Sweet toast and lemon curd in the nose. Clean and sweet in the mouth. Appealing.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No