Medium-plus core of ruby only fading slightly at the rim. The nose starts with a little oak, slowly settling down to a dense red cherry fruit, slightly powdery but little else showing. The palate shows fine tannins that slowly build and very good acidity. Tightly presented, intense fruit, deep but still quite primary. Tasty enough now, but I’m really looking forward to tasting this again in another 3+ years.
Just a trace of dried wine below the capsule. The colour is medium-plus ruby-red, fading to the rim, but little colour change. The nose starts with some oak, takes a little longer to disperse than with the Clos Saint Denis, eventually a sweet red fruit comes through. Fatter than the Denis with less obviously 96 acidity – but still fine. More tannin and with a slight grain. There seems to be more material here, but in just a little more primary form. It’s easy to drink but it’s about 4 years since I last tasted this one and at the time I thought it was the most forward – not today.
I don’t drink Clos Saint Denis enough – this wine confirms it. The nose seems a little oak-heavy to start with but opens gorgeously – very 93 in it’s fruit complexion and slightly dried cranberry effect. The nose gets more ebullient with time. A focused core of fruit wrapped in 1996 acidity. I’m glad I drank many ’96’s young as I still don’t really know if they will soften with age – but I’ve enjoyed many them on the way. Silky palate but I would have preferred a little more length – worth the purchase only for the nose, it’s like a slightly purer version of Dujac’s ’95 Clos de la Roche – gorgeous!
The slightly cooked nose of the Clos de la Roche is turned up a notch on this Charmes, together with very dusty/powdery red fruit that makes the nose slightly unattractive for my taste. The colour is medium-plus ruby. On the palate the wine seems not that well integrated, deep red fruit, and forward, velvetty tannins that show a bitter edge. The last quarter of the bottle was vacuvined and left overnight – subsequently showing a little more balance and intense red fruit, but this time the acidity seems too forward. A wine that doesn’t find the right balance and isn’t in the same league as the superb 1999.
I’ve bought this wine from 1996 to 1999 (inclusive) but then my overstocked merchant dropped the label – I think I’ll have to pay a visit and keep my mini-vertical running… The wine is medium-plus garnet, little fading. The nose starts a little disjointed and heavy on the oak, given five minutes the oak has harmonised with a coffee topped plum and cherry pie effect – still quite understated – a cooked note spoils the overall effect a little. Direct from the cellar the fresh palate is not obviously fat, but becomes more so as the wine approaches room-temp. The tannins are of velvet and the acidity lingers into a gorgeous and complex finish – which comes as a surprise given the understated way the wine begins. If there’s one criticism, the wine seems more advanced than most ’98’s and not just on the nose – but it’s a lovely drop.
The colour is medium-plus ruby, not quite as developed as the Charmes. The nose shows a trace of oak and also a trace of the cooked note of the previous two Castagniers – but on a much lower register. The fruit is higher toned showing a little redcurrant above the cherry which itself sits above a meaty coffee note. The wine shows in a fresher and more aloof (I wouldn’t go as far as saying austere) manner than the Charmes but with a very impressive length. The acidity is just right and the tannin is thick and velvetty. This is a very good young wine.
Deep cherry red colour. Wow! the nose is a rather fine, pronounced and concentrated cherry cordial, perhaps just a little cream too. Really good concentration with fresh, well balanced acidity and very smooth and well covered tannins. The finish is just a little tart but with pretty good length. Super aromatics here – normally I buy Castagnier’s Clos de la Roche, but it seems that I also need space for the Charmes from 1999!
Deep cherry red colour. Pure cherry but not the penetrating cordial nose of the ‘Charmes’ Much more subdued in character too despite it’s concentration. Good acidity and more noticeable tannic structure – very smooth mind! So, equally concentrated but a little more austere in presentation. A perfectly good, though not an outstanding example.
Medium ruby but already looking mature with brick at the rim. This is a wine that both inspires and disappoints, a gorgeous nose and finish but the palate is a little rough. First the nose, ripe and deeply scented with cooked plums trailing off to dried currants. In the mouth the wine is quite smooth with intense fruit and grainy tannins, the problem is the acidity which is badly integrated and sharp or spiky. I’m assuming that this needed acidifying and the result lacks balance. Despite this, the finish is a very good one with the same dried currants from the nose lingering very well. Given the tannins, I’d still look to leave this for another couple of years and hopefully the acidity might be more balanced.
You are using an outdated browser. Please update your browser to view this website correctly: https://browsehappy.com/;