Advertisement

Who Likes This Wine(3)

  1. NewFrenchClaret

    NewFrenchClaret

    374 Tasting Notes

  2. jc90254

    jc90254

    0 Tasting Notes

  3. tcarter

    tcarter

    2,872 Tasting Notes

Food Pairing Tags

Add My Food Pairing Tags

Community Tasting Notes (14) Median Score: 87 points

  • Much better than previous bottles, while light, it was soft, elegant, and packed with currants, cranberries, tobacco, cigar box, cedar, and forest aromas. The finish was a bit short but pleasant while it lasted. Drink 2023-2026.

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

  • Bought this as an "unknown vintage" wine, but from a superb cache of wine from auction. Quite pleased it was a '61 when I cut the capsule.

    Very light in color, even for its age, but no shortage of power on the nose. Like all the best examples of this underrated Château it has a terrific meaty quality, but still retains the freshness of Margaux violets. Plenty of complexity, with mint, cinnamon, chocolate and a bit of iodine. Almost perfect.

    The taste isn't quite up to the standards of the vintage though. It's consistent with no particular weaknesses, but lacks the intensity of the best '61s (although perhaps there are few of those left now). The tannins have melted away almost completely, and the structure comes entirely from the acidity, which makes it feel a bit soft, albeit with plenty of flavor. The finish is also drying just slightly, and is medium length at best.

    Overall this is half a great wine, giving far more pleasure to smell than to taste. But that's more than I expected from a bargain bottle.

    1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Comments (2)

  • 30x 1955 & 1961 (mostly Bdx): Tasted single blind. Taste-off between the 1955 and 1961 vintages. Another wine for the 1955 (91 pts) which had a superb nutty nose but was missing a bit of depth on the palate. The 1961 (rates 86 pts) showed lots of intensity but with lots of dried fruit and some oxidation notes as well as a bit too much acidity. Not death yet but this bottle was clearly on is last legs. The Rausan Seglas we had in the same flight showed better.

    TN: Dried, port-like fruit and oxidation notes on the nose and palate. More teritary aromas complement the picutre on the palate which is very fresh but too acidic towards the finish. Good intensity but not overly complex or precise. Overall missing a bit of balance.

    Decanting: Not decanted. This deteriorated a bit with air.

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

  • 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:
    Slightly Porty, pretty concentrated, but also borderline soy sauce unfortunately. This was probably amazing 20-30 years ago but showing clear signs of fatigue now. Same on the palate, lacking balance, austere and astringent. Did prefer the '55 at this stage.

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

  • The Second Avery Family Cellar Wine Dinner - Really old wines (The Grill Room at the Rosewood DC): Slightly madeirized.

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

View all 14 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

×