Advertisement

Who Likes This Wine(3)

  1. Nostromo99

    Nostromo99

    267 Tasting Notes

  2. Pey2001

    Pey2001

    359 Tasting Notes

  3. G_H

    G_H

    5,533 Tasting Notes

Food Pairing Tags

Add My Food Pairing Tags

Community Tasting Notes (10) Avg Score: 90.7 points

  • 30x 1955 & 1961 (mostly Bdx): Tasted single blind. Taste-off between the 1955 and 1961 vintages. The 1961 is the winner (rated 93 pts) thanks to a fully mature aroma profile, good complexity and a flawless structural frame. The 1955 (rated 91 pts) showed a bit less complex and had some heat as well as a slightly astringent finish but was nevertheless a good wine. These Phelan Segurs outperformed my expectations and performed better than their neighbouring Calon Segurs from the same vintages (rated 87 and 93 pts) in the same flight.

    TN: The wine needs a bit of air. At first a bit muted it gets more expressive by the minute with dark fruits, coffee, minerality and some brett notes on the nose. Same aromas on the palate with more tertiary aromas, a broader fruit spectrum (mostly red fruits) and some herbs to complement the picture. The highest complexity of all St. Estephes and with fairly good precision. Quite clean, good tension, fine, velvety tannins, well-integrated acidity, good balance and fine, creamy texture as well as good length. Quite complete. For a higher rating it would have needed even more complexity and precision.

    Decanting: Not decanted. This, like many other 61s, would have needed a solid 1h+ in the decanter.

    1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comments (3)

  • Grand 1961 vs 1955 vintage tasting (Fribourg): Big 1961 vs 1955 tastings including 10 direct match-ups and 11 individual wines from 1961. The tasting was conducted in flights of 4, single-blind and with no previous decant with all bottles opened 1h prior to start. The line-up was dominated by Bordeaux reds, but also included 5 Sauternes, 1 Champagne, 3 Burgundy reds and 1 Ribera del Duero. The following observations are worth mentioning: i) 1961 generally came across as a better vintage today than 1955, ii) the performance correlated with the 1855 classification, iii) The most outstanding wines were outside of the Bordeaux reds with Veuve Clicquot Rosé '61, Vega Sicilia Unico '61 (both 97) and La Tour Blanche '61 (96) worth mentioning, iv) Top-performing Bordeaux was Margaux (95) in 1961 and Mouton in 1955. List of wines included in the tasting story.

    Tasting note:
    Less intense than the '55 initially, but showing nice aging notes along with both blue and red berry fruit. A nice, fresh palate with a long, leathery finish. Not overly complex nor precise maybe, but definitely in a great spot and in much better shape than the '55.

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

  • A evening of 20+ year old Bordeaux (Wilmette Harbor Club, Wilmette IL): DOA

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

  • Mid-shoulder. Shocking cork. Solid garnet with very slight bricking at the edges. Fairly evolved nose - leather, cedar, etc. Amazing mouthfeel - a real density there. Still surprisingly fresh and youthful. Again, plenty of development, but there's still a core of dark fruit. Long finish with just a bit of grip. Still in a good place, but clearly heading towards decline.

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

  • Dark garnet, slightly brown that I was worried it was bricked. Quite closed up when we first opened it. After about an hour decanted, it became very vibrant and lively. Surprisingly bright black berries and fruit. Still a good amount of acidity which leaves it tasting fresh. A bit of cedar and tannins deliciously melted, but enough to cut through the oxtail stew I ate alongside. Was expecting that it was past it, but a delicious surprise!

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

View all 10 Community Tasting Notes

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

×