Important Update From the Founder
Read message >
31 Vintages of Château Montrose: 1928-2010
Tasted May 2, 2015 - May 3, 2015 by LWI with 1,354 views
Introduction
Luckily, Etienne Théodore Dumoulin, the owner of the Calon estate from 1812 onwards, discovered that the scrub land some distance from his castle looked promising for growing vines. So, about 1820 he cleared some plots in the land known as Escargeon and by 1825 raised a castle there and cleared even more land. The local heather on the slight hilltop blossom with pinkish flowers during summer, hence the vineyard was termed mont-rose (a bit more charming than the snail reference), or actually Montrose-Ségur at the time. It was indeed an accomplishment that in just 30 years its fame was so established that it surpassed the mother estate Calon-Ségur in 1855 Classification and became a second growth.
As expected the wines were powerful. However, not as rustic as projected, but for most vintages – elegance is not the word. Lots of charm instead. Except for the ‘34 and to some extent the ‘47, all bottles were correct and typical, I would say. Leaving out a rather dark chapter in the 70s and early 80’s, the quality has been outstanding for at least 100 years.
Flight 1 (2 notes)
Red
1928 Château Montrose
94 points
IN/BN – recorked at the Chateau in 1989. Well-developed wine with mostly brown color. Forest floor, leather, scorched earth, but a flowery note emerges after a while. Smooth, feminine (yes, and I never through a 28 could ever be feminine), long, dusty tannins in a complex finish. Glorious wine, considering its age.
Flight 2 (3 notes)
Red
1945 Château Montrose
92 points
High shoulder fill. Mostly brown, watery brim. Some VA, drying tannins, dried fruit at the beginning but with air some red berries as well. Better smell than taste. Most likely not an optimal bottle.
Red
1947 Château Montrose
flawed
Mid/high shoulder fill. Earthy, prunes, warm – almost overripe fruit. A very warm vintage and not optimal fill team up and provide oxidation in the dried fruit spectrum. Drinkable, interesting somehow, nut not rated.
Red
1948 Château Montrose
88 points
IN/BN – recorked at the Chateau in 1989. Quite a bit of read on color, dark. Green/mint on the nose, almost medicinal. Fine length and structure, indeed. Alas, there is an abundance of drying tannin in the finish making the wine unbalanced. A 48 where the fruit were not powerful enough to survive the tannin.
Flight 3 (2 notes)
Red
1959 Château Montrose
95 points
BN fill. Big and complex nose. Menthol, spices, a hint of dried fruit, exotic and wonderful smell. Equally complex in the mouth, warm fruit, and spices here as well, huge sweet fruit.
1 person found this helpful
Comment
Red
1961 Château Montrose
96 points
IN/BN fill, Danish bottled. The 61 is known to have a lot of VA, but not much in this bottle. Dark fruit, more structured and primary than the ’59, but wonderful complexity and spices here as well. The mouth is not quite up to par with the brilliant nose. Nonetheless, a glorious bottle.
Flight 4 (3 notes)
Red
1975 Château Montrose
92 points
Tobacco, leather, cigar box, good complexity; in the mouth it has a sweet core of fruit beneath trying tannins, actually enough fruit to be optimistic about the future. God knows for how long.
Red
1976 Château Montrose
89 points
Brownish color, some vegetables, limited concentration. In spite of the green elements, the fruit - strangely enough - has a decent maturity. Good length.
Red
1978 Château Montrose
89 points
MS fill, but it didn’t show, turned out to be a correct bottle. Black currant, some bonfire, quite primary. Short, and a bitter finish.
Flight 5 (3 notes)
Red
1982 Château Montrose
93 points
Deep and serious smell, faint juniper (which does not accord well with the mature fruit…). Lots of tannin, sweetish fruit, not entirely integrated/balanced, needs more time.
Red
1983 Château Montrose
91 points
Greenish, unripe black currants, menthol. Oddly, the fruit is also sweet. Good length and decent balance.
Flight 6 (4 notes)
Red
1986 Château Montrose
91 points
When opened, some thought it might be corked, but it turned out to be just pronounced bottle stink. After 3 hours in the decanter it was all gone. Some black currants, shy, hint of green, but also some interesting notes verging on complexity; lots of tannin and acidity, which the fruit cannot match. ‘1986 meets Montrose’. Some may call this ‘classic’, others just skinny. I am between those poles.
Red
1988 Château Montrose
88 points
Rather similar to the ’86, albeit two additional marks on the Pietistic scale. Acid and tannins like whip lashes, and that surely hurts when there is not enough fruit to soften the hits, and what fruit there is rather unripe.
Red
1989 Château Montrose
98 points
Dark wine; dark fruits on the nose as well, black currants, some menthol; gorgeous taste, structured, no brett – completely clear fruit, big sweetness. Utterly different from the previous year. Everlasting, just lovely balance, complex finish. A very good bottle, long life ahead.
Red
1990 Château Montrose
99 points
Big, clear and sweet dark berry fruit, even more structured than the ’89. Again, no brett. Explosive finish with kaleidoscopic tastes. Bright future – will get even better. One of my best bottles..
1 person found this helpful
Comment
Flight 7 (4 notes)
Red
1995 Château Montrose
91 points
Dark, primary fruit, bonfire and menthol. The taste is not as impressive as the nose: a little hollow/watery. The quality of the fruit is OK enough, but without depth or complexity. Others liked this better than me.
Red
1996 Château Montrose
93 points
Dark, linear, very good fruit quality; fresh wine with a fine core of fruit – good maturity of the grapes, balanced. Good now, but will improve.
Red
1998 Château Montrose
90 points
Warmish fruit, a bit herbal, menthol; on the short side – falls off the cliff at the end of the taste curve and finishes a bit watery.
Flight 8 (4 notes)
Red
2000 Château Montrose
95 points
Surprisingly cool nose; structured and tight, very fine meaty core of fruit. Even if the fruit is a bit warm, this is by no means over the top. Big mouth feel and high intensity, balanced. A very fine wine.
Red
2001 Château Montrose
93 points
Lots of power here as well. Montrose must have handled the 2001 in an admirable way because the fruit is just perfectly ripe. Quite big acid, linear wine. However, the complexity is not there (yet). Drinkable, but better to wait 10-20 years.
Red
2003 Château Montrose
90 points
Big black current smell, hedonistic, big bodied, almost corpulent. End a bit abrupt, lacks structure.
Red
2004 Château Montrose
94 points
Good structure her, indeed. And it sports some finely mature fruit. More tannins and less acidity than the ’01, this one is verging on being angular at the moment. Wait, but will reward eventually.
2 people found this helpful
Comment
Flight 9 (3 notes)
Red
2006 Château Montrose
92 points
Hollow mid palate, soft fruit, a bit green-angular. Still has some qualities leaning towards elegance.
1 person found this helpful
Comment
Red
2007 Château Montrose
90 points
Soft fruit beneath violent tannin. Fades out after the mid of the taste curve. A split between delicate fruit and overpowering tannin. Doubt that this will come together.
1 person found this helpful
Comment
Red
2008 Château Montrose
92 points
Just very primary, meat, black currants. A hammer of a wine. I think this will turn out well, but patience is required.
Flight 10 (3 notes)
Red
2005 Château Montrose
96 points
Big, complex smell, dark berries. This turned out to be surprisingly open for a ’05, wonderfully balanced, intense and long. Big ball of fruit, yet elegant. Will become even more glorious.
5 people found this helpful
Comment
Red
2009 Château Montrose
99 points
Big extract, freshness and complexity. An open and approachable wine that is utterly gorgeous and balanced. Everlasting. WOTN for me. Extraordinary, will be a legend.
Red
2010 Château Montrose
97 points
Dark, serious, much more restrained than the ’09 and thus much more difficult to evaluate. Structured, but big fruit beneath. Will this ever match the ’09? I am not sure I will live to see.
3 people found this helpful
Comments (1)