A little more than medium colour. The nose starts deep and oaky, slowly the aromas widen to a panorama of creamy oak, understated cedar and eventually red berry fruit. In the mouth there’s sweet fruit, background ripe tannin and nicely lingering acidity – very well balanced – maybe the finish could be a little longer. This is very moreish and is drinking very well at the moment.
A medium, quite mature colour. The nose starts deep, stemmy and interesting – over the next two hours it goes from strength to strength, with red berries, mineral notes of pencil lead, occasional caramel or cream etc., etc. – it was first class. In the mouth I expected it would have little chance of competing with the aromatics and so it turned out – but it was still a worthy choice. Not the density of of a grand cru from most (recent) vintages, medium bodied with very slightly elevated acidity, but as the wine developed and became sweeter this was hardly noticeable. The faintest hint of tannin remains and the wine never withered in 2 hours, rather it became more interesting and complex. This is mature, reasonably long and tasty. Nine from ten for the nose and more like seven for taste. Lovely.
Medium red colour just a faint amber transition at the rim. The nose is deep, brown sugar and baked red fruit with some higher alcoholic traces and faint vanilla – it’s lovely. On your tongue you miss a little ‘fat’ and there’s just a bitter chocolate edge to the tannin, but the fruit is equally lovely and the finish is very, very long with a raisin-fruit edge. Value alone vs recent vintage pricing is enough to guarantee this being a ‘rebuy’ – it’s hard to find good 1er crus from 2005 at this price.
Another corked bottle, so onto number 2. Medium-plus cherry-red colour. The nose is very wide and somehow silky. It’s very slow to evolve, but first you note dried cranberry fruit before a subtle blackcurrant confiture, the last drops in the glass are sweet and red. Like the nose, my first impression of the palate is its silken texture, the second is the length – impossibly long – no other of these wines comes close and it’s not about bitter oak, it’s about a subtle sweetness that clings to the palate. There’s a real, but measured intensity about the palate, driven by perfect acidity and tannins that are there only if you search for them. Despite the concentration there is perfect balance, this wine is the ultimate in sophistication. Monumental, it’s the best wine I’ve drunk this year…
Medium-plus ruby red. The nose is higher-toned than the Clos de la Roche, more floral with violets and perhaps peony. In terms of texture this is also very like the Clos de la Roche, though the real differentiator is the fruit, it is even more linear – this wine would certainly benefit from another 3-5 years in the cellar – but it drank very well!
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!
You are using an outdated browser. Please update your browser to view this website correctly: https://browsehappy.com/;