TN: 2005 Ch. Monbousquet

quote:
Originally posted by jqmunro:
I'm interested to hear what you think of the leftovers tomorrow.


Nose was 85% of what it was on night one (still very good), but palate lost softness and complexity, maybe showed a bit more oak and some oxidation.
quote:
Originally posted by Machine:
quote:
Originally posted by jqmunro:
I'm interested to hear what you think of the leftovers tomorrow.


Nose was 85% of what it was on night one (still very good), but palate lost softness and complexity, maybe showed a bit more oak and some oxidation.


Oh well, that doesn't sound very promising. I would have thought the wine might be a little more expressive and hold up against oxidation. I guess time will tell...
quote:
Originally posted by jqmunro:
quote:
Originally posted by Machine:
quote:
Originally posted by jqmunro:
I'm interested to hear what you think of the leftovers tomorrow.


Nose was 85% of what it was on night one (still very good), but palate lost softness and complexity, maybe showed a bit more oak and some oxidation.


Oh well, that doesn't sound very promising. I would have thought the wine might be a little more expressive and hold up against oxidation. I guess time will tell...


We actually found the same thing with the 2000 Monbousquet. I think we have had it 4 or 5 times now, every time it was great from the moment it was popped for about 90 minutes, then became more reserved with a more muted nose, and less complexity all around. Setting aside those that would not be a fan of the style of this wine when first opened, I suspect perhaps that some lower ratings for this wine might come from those that allowed it to decant for more than an hour or two. For us, we don't see this as a problem, as we know we can pop it before we intend on consuming and enjoy it over 90-120 minutes without caring what happens after that time. The 2005 went longer than the 2000 before it started to lose some complexity. Who knows, it might also go from expressive to 'closed' and 'open' back up later, i.e. if we had let it sit for even longer...or may have a longer period of being open and expressive with some more age on it.
I too love the 2005 Monbousquet, but this is a prime example of the modern age of wine.

Mediocre properties, revamped, and making the best wine possible off of a decent but not all that great site. While these wines may hold up for one or two decades in the bottle, they are not wines that "get better with age". They are meant to be accessible young, and for the modern palate and world market. Parker pleasers, and modern in style. They are what they are. There is a place for everything, but this is not a classic Bordeaux.
quote:
Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
I too love the 2005 Monbousquet, but this is a prime example of the modern age of wine.

Mediocre properties, revamped, and making the best wine possible off of a decent but not all that great site. While these wines may hold up for one or two decades in the bottle, they are not wines that "get better with age". They are meant to be accessible young, and for the modern palate and world market. Parker pleasers, and modern in style. They are what they are. There is a place for everything, but this is not a classic Bordeaux.


Fair enough. But, who wants to live forever?
Decanted and began tasting after 3.5hrs. Loads of charcoal, graphite, & bitter herb from nose to finish. Gritty gripping tannins showing plenty of life. Paired with steak dinner and warm bread dipped in CA EVOO that cut the graphite nicely- a great complement. Warm dark fruit comes through mid-palate and carries into long evolving finish. Expressive & built for longer haul. This will outlast all previous vintages in the Perse era.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×