2015 Château Palmer

Community Tasting Notes (27) Avg Score: 95.0 points

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View Cailles's profile
  • Report Issue

  3/6/2024 - Cailles wrote: 85 Points

  Margaux Extravaganza: Margaux vs. Palmer vs. Brane over two decades (1996/2009/2015). Given the pedigree of the vintages, particularly for Chateau Margaux, expectations were quite high, but especially the last two vintages didn't live up to past performances (I've previously rated Ch. Margaux up to 100pts, Ch. Margaux 2015 up to 99pts, and Palmer 2009 98pts) at first. There were some overripe aromas that were too prominent and an uncharacteristic imbalance. Of course, Ch. Margaux and Palmer showed remarkable complexity and precision, but the balance was a bit off. Still, these are some good to great wines, especially on day 2 and with more air they got better and better. Ultimately, Ch. Margaux 2015 (96pts) was the winner with its unique aromatic profile, slightly outperforming the 1996 and 2009 vintages, both at 95pts. Brane and Palmer were a notch or two below, with the Palmer 2015 particularly affected by premature oxidation. I don't doubt the potential of these wines, given the many fine examples I had last year, but I wouldn't open them today.
  
  TN: I’m quite skeptical of recent Palmer vintages as I often found them very Napa-esque and this 2015 was no exception. Very spicy, loads of oak and very ripe, too ripe fruit. In addition, there were some oxidation notes tainting the picture further. This was not a very good wine, although there is a lot going on. I hope this was not a representative bottle (a bottle 4 years ago showed (too) Napa-esque but flawless).

  2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View Zweder's profile
  • Report Issue

  2/17/2024 - Zweder Likes this wine: 96 Points

  An easy afternoon with close friends; Bordeaux 2015 (@ FD): Very beautiful bouquet with ripe dark berries, luxurious oak, cedar and cigar box. On the palate juicy dark and red berries and graphite, beautifully mild acidity, round tannin and some smoke. The wine is still very youthful, but already fantastic. The soft tannin and concentration hold a promise. For now 95 – 96+

  2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comment

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View sirpat00's profile
  • Report Issue

  12/16/2023 - sirpat00 wrote: 90 Points

  Part of a Margaux appellation mini-vertical and horizontal comparing Margaux, Palmer, Brane Cantenac 1996, 2009 and 2015. The 1996 were double-decanted prior to the tasting while some of the 2015 spent time in the decanter. Unsurprisingly, Margaux came in first in all 3 vintages, Palmer in the middle and Brane last, expect in 2015 where I think we might have hit a bad bottle for Palmer. 1996 is coming along beautifully and appears to be in its prime drinking window while 2009 took a steep step down from its 10-years state a few years ago. For now, the 2015 appear to manage the concentration better (although Palmer was disappointing).
  
  Tasting note:
  Over-extracted showing more dried fruits rather than fresh. Also a menthol note along with a deeper vegetal base. Oaky and savory notes. Even elements reminding me of soy sauce initially which was quite disturbing. The palate felt disjointed. Lots of power with high acidity, but fairly soft tannin. The balance was ok. This is still an enjoyable wine, but in shocking state versus the last ones I tasted in 2018 and 2020. This particular bottle was bought en primeur and stored under perfect conditions since. The cork was in pristine condition. Hopefully a bad bottle…

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

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View J_H's profile
  • Report Issue

  12/16/2023 - J_H Likes this wine: 91 Points

  Margaux battle: 1996 vs. 2009 vs. 2015: Overall conclusions of the Tasting: Brane vs. Palmer vs. Margaux '96/'09/'15
  1) Margaux has a very nice stilistic and somehow a flowery character and was allways on spot today. I mean the prices of this 1996/2009/2015 are all high but you get a lot in reverse!
  2) 2009 vs 2015: They seem to be quite similar, mostly ripe fruit is standing out. Probably 2015 has a bit more acidity and freshness from the fruit side. It's possible that both of them can be great with more age - I have more hope for 2015s.
  3) Palmer seems to be much more volatile from a performance standpoint than the two other Margaux wine.
  4) Wine of the night was definitely 1996 Margaux. It was just outstanding!
  
  - no decanting
  - Somehow a special nose, smoky, ashy too. Slightly alcoholic, nail polish are noticable. There are as well dark fruit, licorice. Just too ripe fruit in my opinion. It definitely needs time to get aired up guys.
  - On the palate, we have as well the same profile of flavours, gummy, black fruit which shows up too ripe. All in all, it just not the right moment to drinking it right now and even though, there is a good acidity, I have my doubts if this Palmer will ever make fun?? Let´s assume that the fruit will pass away with time, this wine will be better but with the over-extraction of fruit, it wll probably not make so much fun to drink.
  - 91 Punkte

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

• Options

  • Post a Comment
  • View FRFTF's profile
  • Report Issue

  9/21/2023 - FRFTF wrote: 93 Points

  Violet colored, medium-high bodied with round mouthfeel. Higher amount of red fruit (currant, cranberry) than expected. Certainly black currant there too. There's some herbs and spice, mineral stoniness, sandalwood, tea, garrigue, and molasses. Almost a tarry aspect. The wine finishes long. Good backbone - from acid and tannin. Tannin is smooth and ripe. Very well integrated which actually takes a bit away from the fruit which I hope will pull forward with time. Far too young.

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

View all 27 Community Tasting Notes

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.