In chronological order:
September 2025
1955 Ch“teau Suduiraut: I did not take careful notes, but I recall this being a terrific capstone to a long lunch hosted by a friend, who spontaneously went down to his cellar and pulled this for us. I remember the color being quite dark, but also being surprised how lively and fresh it was on the palate, while having plenty of interesting tertiary development to add complexity: Christmas spices, citrus peel bitterness, nuttiness, salinity, and just a hint of balanced sweetness.
October 2025
2002 Ch“teau Latour: Very refined, polished, with some drying tannins on the backend; the primary fruit was framed with cedar and hints of graphite, but kept in balance with a nice acidic tension. I assumed the 2002 was so approachable because of the vintage, but Levi’s note about the 2000 Latour being relatively polished and approachable makes me wonder whether a change in winemaking from the more traditional, burlier style was the primary reason. Highly enjoyable wine, but certainly different from the formidable reputation of Latours of yore.
1970 Ch“teau Figeac: Classic, expressive nose of blackberry and florals with a subtle hint of cedar. Certainly on the back-nine of its evolution, but, in contrast to the 2002 Latour, which had a pronounced primary fruit and power, the Figeac had a delicate elegance, an autumnal, tertiary earthiness, and slightly fading dark red fruit interwoven with notes of cured leather and tobacco, with a puff of smoky minerality becoming more prominent with time in the glass. Tannins were completely resolved, endowing the wine with a silky texture, and the acidity still provided a brisk freshness. Awesome wine (and I personally preferred it to the 2002 Latour).
2000 Ch“teau Pavie Macquin: A little hot and shapeless on the palate. This feels very high in alcohol, while lacking the stuffing to fully contain it. Kind of reminded me of a Chateauneuf du Pape, to be honest.
1986 Ch“teau Climens: Dark orange in the glass, this has lovely acidity to balance its honeyed richness. Nice, long finish of Christmas spices and bitter orange marmalade. A really nice bottle that is very fresh, though still surprisingly primary. [had this bottle back in October]
November 2025
2020 Guinaudeau (Lafleur) Les Champs Libres: This has nice racy acidity, salty minerality with just a hint of citrus. Definitely framed with a touch of oak, but it is not intrusive or overly buttery. Nice freshness and surprisingly drinkable. [this is a Bordeaux Blanc]
1988 Ch“teau Meyney: Nice floral nose that also has a intense streak of rich cured tobacco. Nice acidity that provides a nice balance to the dark fruit. Quite clean and brett-free. Surprisingly bigger than the '89 Meyney.
1989 Ch“teau Meyney: Riper dark fruit than the '88 on the palate, but less noticeable alcohol. Perceived acidity seems lower however. Less smokiness than the '88, but more pronounced herbal flavors. Clean wine that doesn't have any brett.
1989 Ch“teau Montrose: This has terrific balance and polish despite dripping with opulent, dark red fruit. The acidity keeps this from mushroom-clouding into a full-blown fruit bomb, and it evolves into a nice black tea finish with a touch of grip. Beautiful, powerful nose as well. I didn't pick up any brett. Definitely a "100-point wine" that several folks at the table felt was first-growth quality (and I could see that; the intensity of the fruit reminded me of a 2002 Latour I had recently). But, for me personally, this wine was "big as hell," and I'm not sure I would enjoy much more than a glass of it.
Someone at the table, while drinking it, basically wished it was a bit more transparent; personally, I agreed. I was craving some earth, some gravel, some mineral complexity, perhaps even a sprinkle of tobacco leaf or dusting of pyrazine, to be layered into that very intense, though very specific to Montrose, dark red fruit signature. While I like fruit as much as the next person, I wish the terroir could have expressed itself in some non-fruit flavored way as well.
1990 Ch“teau Montrose: This was very big, with rich dark fruit, but lacking the acidity to provide balance and the alcohol being far too prominent. The perceived acidity on the palate does improve and the wine becomes more lifted and lively with time in the glass, but the alcohol and fruit are really just too much and the wine never attains a sense of proportion or elegance. To be honest, I'm not exactly certain why the wine has the sterling reputation it has. At least this particular bottle wasn't afflicted with overwhelming brett.
1990 Ch“teau Cos d'Estournel: Seems to be afflicted with the same issues as the 1990 Montrose: had more of a smoky, tobacco leaf character to it, but it otherwise lacked acidity and was predominantly about one-dimensional red fruit on the palate. Basically, flat, ponderous, and inexpressive.
1986 Ch“teau Cos d'Estournel: This was absolutely lovely. Still tannic and young, but the dark fruit is rather restrained and was accented with notes of tobacco and charcoal on the finish. While still rather primary, it had mineral complexity that I just didn't find in the younger wines in the vertical. Texturally, downright elegant compared to the viscous and lush '90 Montrose and Cos. My favorite wine of the tasting.
1995 Ch“teau Montrose: The quietest Montrose of the tasting: while it still had plenty of that red-fruited Montrose richness, it had enough acidity to provide balance and was not as opulent or ripe as either the '89 or '90. Still quite primary and structured with drying tannins and firm acidity.
1996 Ch“teau Calon-Ségur: I get a whiff of brett on the nose, but otherwise it's mainly a mix of purple fruit and cured tobacco. Quite juicy and elegant on the palate with some in-your-face fruit, but balanced with mineral and leathery complexity, which develops into pronounced smokiness on the finish. Really quite delicious.
2000 Ch“teau Montrose: Loaded with dark cassis aromas in the nose. Quite red fruited and intense on the palate, carrying that very familiar fruit signature I found in other Montroses in the vertical. The body was rather lush and velvety, but not syrupy or overly unctuous. Nice graphite minerality, but not much tobacco or smokiness; it was all about the primary fruit here. However, there is nice tangy acidity that provided lift to the finish and the tannins were already pretty soft, ripe, and approachable. Very big in scale, but had the stuffing to contain what I am sure is elevated alcohol. This reminded me of a younger version of the 1989. Enjoyable, in its own slutty way, but I usually prefer wines that are a bit more demure.
2000 Ch“teau Calon-Ségur: Another highly enjoyable Calon Segur that was basically a cocktail of crushed gravel sprinkled over ripe dark fruit. Tannins here are also relatively ripe and not nearly as drying or as aggressive as the 2001 Calon Segur it was paired with. One of the more mineral-forward wines of the tasting; and it was a 2000 to boot!
2001 Ch“teau Calon-Ségur: Definitely has polish texturally, but the weight and body is a bit slimmer than the 2000 Montrose and Calon Segur. Tannins are still quite drying and assertive; needs food. The palate has dark fruit with hints of charcoal, but it is still quite primary at this point. This bottle was less ready than the 2000 Calon Segur.
December 2025
1987 Ch“teau Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande: Certainly slimmer in profile than its 80s brethren (some may even say a little dilute), but still brimming with character and classic Lalande elegance. I get predominately leafy, smoked tobacco, shaved pencil, and graphite with just a hint of dark red fruit underneath. A really pleasant surprise.
1988 Ch“teau Rausan-Ségla: I didn't take careful notes, but I was impressed how powerful the dark red fruit was while also having a lovely tobacco leaf profile layered on top of it. Tannins were just right for my palate. Very balanced and delicious; this just showed incredibly well.
1986 Ch“teau Gruaud Larose: I did not take careful notes, but this seemed quieter than the 1988 Rausan Segla I had with this. Very restrained, almost withdrawn in comparison to the showier wine that night, but had plenty of interesting cured tobacco and leather notes on top of its subtle dark fruit. I am going to revisit this wine in a couple of months, so will take more careful notes then.
1986 Ch“teau Climens: Similar to the bottle I had back in October, but with a bit more acetone and volatility to the bottle initially, but it was well within my level of tolerance. It had that interesting bitter marmalade complexity paired with nice acidic tension. Great stuff.
1990 Ch“teau de Fargues: I really wished I had taken better notes of this wine, but unfortunately its memory was a victim of my jet lag and the many bottles that came before it. I do recall liking it and thinking it was very fresh, balanced, and enjoyable, for what it is worth. From 375.
September 2025
1955 Ch“teau Suduiraut: I did not take careful notes, but I recall this being a terrific capstone to a long lunch hosted by a friend, who spontaneously went down to his cellar and pulled this for us. I remember the color being quite dark, but also being surprised how lively and fresh it was on the palate, while having plenty of interesting tertiary development to add complexity: Christmas spices, citrus peel bitterness, nuttiness, salinity, and just a hint of balanced sweetness.
October 2025
2002 Ch“teau Latour: Very refined, polished, with some drying tannins on the backend; the primary fruit was framed with cedar and hints of graphite, but kept in balance with a nice acidic tension. I assumed the 2002 was so approachable because of the vintage, but Levi’s note about the 2000 Latour being relatively polished and approachable makes me wonder whether a change in winemaking from the more traditional, burlier style was the primary reason. Highly enjoyable wine, but certainly different from the formidable reputation of Latours of yore.
1970 Ch“teau Figeac: Classic, expressive nose of blackberry and florals with a subtle hint of cedar. Certainly on the back-nine of its evolution, but, in contrast to the 2002 Latour, which had a pronounced primary fruit and power, the Figeac had a delicate elegance, an autumnal, tertiary earthiness, and slightly fading dark red fruit interwoven with notes of cured leather and tobacco, with a puff of smoky minerality becoming more prominent with time in the glass. Tannins were completely resolved, endowing the wine with a silky texture, and the acidity still provided a brisk freshness. Awesome wine (and I personally preferred it to the 2002 Latour).
2000 Ch“teau Pavie Macquin: A little hot and shapeless on the palate. This feels very high in alcohol, while lacking the stuffing to fully contain it. Kind of reminded me of a Chateauneuf du Pape, to be honest.
1986 Ch“teau Climens: Dark orange in the glass, this has lovely acidity to balance its honeyed richness. Nice, long finish of Christmas spices and bitter orange marmalade. A really nice bottle that is very fresh, though still surprisingly primary. [had this bottle back in October]
November 2025
2020 Guinaudeau (Lafleur) Les Champs Libres: This has nice racy acidity, salty minerality with just a hint of citrus. Definitely framed with a touch of oak, but it is not intrusive or overly buttery. Nice freshness and surprisingly drinkable. [this is a Bordeaux Blanc]
1988 Ch“teau Meyney: Nice floral nose that also has a intense streak of rich cured tobacco. Nice acidity that provides a nice balance to the dark fruit. Quite clean and brett-free. Surprisingly bigger than the '89 Meyney.
1989 Ch“teau Meyney: Riper dark fruit than the '88 on the palate, but less noticeable alcohol. Perceived acidity seems lower however. Less smokiness than the '88, but more pronounced herbal flavors. Clean wine that doesn't have any brett.
1989 Ch“teau Montrose: This has terrific balance and polish despite dripping with opulent, dark red fruit. The acidity keeps this from mushroom-clouding into a full-blown fruit bomb, and it evolves into a nice black tea finish with a touch of grip. Beautiful, powerful nose as well. I didn't pick up any brett. Definitely a "100-point wine" that several folks at the table felt was first-growth quality (and I could see that; the intensity of the fruit reminded me of a 2002 Latour I had recently). But, for me personally, this wine was "big as hell," and I'm not sure I would enjoy much more than a glass of it.
Someone at the table, while drinking it, basically wished it was a bit more transparent; personally, I agreed. I was craving some earth, some gravel, some mineral complexity, perhaps even a sprinkle of tobacco leaf or dusting of pyrazine, to be layered into that very intense, though very specific to Montrose, dark red fruit signature. While I like fruit as much as the next person, I wish the terroir could have expressed itself in some non-fruit flavored way as well.
1990 Ch“teau Montrose: This was very big, with rich dark fruit, but lacking the acidity to provide balance and the alcohol being far too prominent. The perceived acidity on the palate does improve and the wine becomes more lifted and lively with time in the glass, but the alcohol and fruit are really just too much and the wine never attains a sense of proportion or elegance. To be honest, I'm not exactly certain why the wine has the sterling reputation it has. At least this particular bottle wasn't afflicted with overwhelming brett.
1990 Ch“teau Cos d'Estournel: Seems to be afflicted with the same issues as the 1990 Montrose: had more of a smoky, tobacco leaf character to it, but it otherwise lacked acidity and was predominantly about one-dimensional red fruit on the palate. Basically, flat, ponderous, and inexpressive.
1986 Ch“teau Cos d'Estournel: This was absolutely lovely. Still tannic and young, but the dark fruit is rather restrained and was accented with notes of tobacco and charcoal on the finish. While still rather primary, it had mineral complexity that I just didn't find in the younger wines in the vertical. Texturally, downright elegant compared to the viscous and lush '90 Montrose and Cos. My favorite wine of the tasting.
1995 Ch“teau Montrose: The quietest Montrose of the tasting: while it still had plenty of that red-fruited Montrose richness, it had enough acidity to provide balance and was not as opulent or ripe as either the '89 or '90. Still quite primary and structured with drying tannins and firm acidity.
1996 Ch“teau Calon-Ségur: I get a whiff of brett on the nose, but otherwise it's mainly a mix of purple fruit and cured tobacco. Quite juicy and elegant on the palate with some in-your-face fruit, but balanced with mineral and leathery complexity, which develops into pronounced smokiness on the finish. Really quite delicious.
2000 Ch“teau Montrose: Loaded with dark cassis aromas in the nose. Quite red fruited and intense on the palate, carrying that very familiar fruit signature I found in other Montroses in the vertical. The body was rather lush and velvety, but not syrupy or overly unctuous. Nice graphite minerality, but not much tobacco or smokiness; it was all about the primary fruit here. However, there is nice tangy acidity that provided lift to the finish and the tannins were already pretty soft, ripe, and approachable. Very big in scale, but had the stuffing to contain what I am sure is elevated alcohol. This reminded me of a younger version of the 1989. Enjoyable, in its own slutty way, but I usually prefer wines that are a bit more demure.
2000 Ch“teau Calon-Ségur: Another highly enjoyable Calon Segur that was basically a cocktail of crushed gravel sprinkled over ripe dark fruit. Tannins here are also relatively ripe and not nearly as drying or as aggressive as the 2001 Calon Segur it was paired with. One of the more mineral-forward wines of the tasting; and it was a 2000 to boot!
2001 Ch“teau Calon-Ségur: Definitely has polish texturally, but the weight and body is a bit slimmer than the 2000 Montrose and Calon Segur. Tannins are still quite drying and assertive; needs food. The palate has dark fruit with hints of charcoal, but it is still quite primary at this point. This bottle was less ready than the 2000 Calon Segur.
December 2025
1987 Ch“teau Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande: Certainly slimmer in profile than its 80s brethren (some may even say a little dilute), but still brimming with character and classic Lalande elegance. I get predominately leafy, smoked tobacco, shaved pencil, and graphite with just a hint of dark red fruit underneath. A really pleasant surprise.
1988 Ch“teau Rausan-Ségla: I didn't take careful notes, but I was impressed how powerful the dark red fruit was while also having a lovely tobacco leaf profile layered on top of it. Tannins were just right for my palate. Very balanced and delicious; this just showed incredibly well.
1986 Ch“teau Gruaud Larose: I did not take careful notes, but this seemed quieter than the 1988 Rausan Segla I had with this. Very restrained, almost withdrawn in comparison to the showier wine that night, but had plenty of interesting cured tobacco and leather notes on top of its subtle dark fruit. I am going to revisit this wine in a couple of months, so will take more careful notes then.
1986 Ch“teau Climens: Similar to the bottle I had back in October, but with a bit more acetone and volatility to the bottle initially, but it was well within my level of tolerance. It had that interesting bitter marmalade complexity paired with nice acidic tension. Great stuff.
1990 Ch“teau de Fargues: I really wished I had taken better notes of this wine, but unfortunately its memory was a victim of my jet lag and the many bottles that came before it. I do recall liking it and thinking it was very fresh, balanced, and enjoyable, for what it is worth. From 375.