1992 Château Angélus

Community Tasting Notes (11) Avg Score: 90.2 points

• Options

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

  4/30/2022 - KLutt Likes this wine: 92 Points

  Pleasant enough but not a wow glass like I was hoping. And tasting vs great years of Lafite, Cheval and Margaux wasn't really fair.

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

• Options

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

  11/28/2021 - Cailles wrote: 90 Points

  20 Vintages of Angelus (1988-2015): All wines tasted single blind. A few observations and conclusions: It seems that until more recently, Angelus focused on late picking, big wines with too much extraction. Most pre 2004 wines we tasted did not show well and are drying out or already have. The younger vintages showed better but only time will tell if the 2004 to 2015 vintages will age more gracefully. An experienced Angelus collector mentioned a style shift towards more finesse right after the promotion to Premier Grand Cru Classe A with the 2012 vintage. It would have been great to include more of the recent vintages (we had only 09/10/14/15) to better understand when and to what extent that shift happened. Still, there are some very good wines with the 2010 being the WOTN (rated 96+ pts, the structuredness, freshness and purity of the vintage shines through), narrowly ahead of the 2008 (96pts, these 2008 right banks are singing these days and are incredibly fresh) as well as two wines with 95 pts, the 2005 (slightly closed but lots of complexity and no structural deficits) and the 2015 (showcasing the stylistic shift: there aren’t many 2015s out there that share the light- and airiness and perfect ripeness level and purity with their respective 2010 counterparts).
  
  TN: Medium- expressive nose with ripe dark fruit, rather high extraction, some oak notes. Not super precise. On the palate this is quite round with fine not too ripe dark fruit, lots of Cab Franc herbs and stoney aromas, some earthy notes. Overall a touch more fruit would be great. The tannins are noticeable and a touch drying but overall this is a solid effort. 89/90 pts. Other said that it misses a bit of substance but I like that lightness.

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

• Options

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

  11/22/2021 - sirpat00 wrote: 94 Points

  Angélus vertical (Fribourg): Angélus vertical of 20 vintages. Main observations were : 1/ Older vintages before the mid-2000s often suffered from drying tannin and showed a lot of extraction, 2/ Younger vintages quickly benefited from aeration hence decanting advised, 3/ the fruit profile became darker over time 4/ best vintage to drink today: 2004. All wines were directly poured with no prior decant and served in flights of 4.
  
  Tasting note:
  This showed precise red berry fruit, elegant and humble, leather and barnyard, some sweet tobacco. Fresh yet powerful palate, tense with quite some weight behind. A long and leathery finish. Along with 1995 drinking pretty well now.

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

• Options

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

  12/28/2017 - JimN wrote: 86 Points

  Wish I had tried it young. Still some soft tannins hanging on, but the fruit has faded away and what’s left behind is leather and barnyard. Drink five years ago!

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

• Options

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

  9/26/2013 - Javachip wrote: 88 Points

  Perfect capsule and cork. Allowed to breathe in glass 30 minutes before tasting. Clear deep blood-garnet red. Elegant bouquet of cigar tobacco, tomatoes, dried red fruit, cedar, stony soil, touch of balsamic, soy sauce, and savory meat. Similar on the palate, fresh and balanced, full body with nice finish.

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

View all 11 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.