Home > Vintages and Regions > Bordeaux > Bordeaux 2004 > The Médoc Communes
Bordeaux 2004: The Médoc Communes
Bordeaux 2004
At Two Years
At Three Years
At Four Years
The Médoc Communes
The Médoc communes were well represented at this tasting which afforded a chance to revisit many wines, and also a fabulous opportunity to look at some not assessed before in this vintage, particularly a number of first growths and 'super-seconds'.
Things started very well in St Estèphe, although as is often the case there were only a small number of wines from this commune present. Amongst the four tasted, however, were both Cos d'Estournel and Montrose, both of which were very impressive although I preferred the latter, albeit by a whisker.
In Pauillac there was an embarrassment of riches, with both Lafite and Mouton showing up, as well both Pichons, although sadly not Pontet-Canet. Some experienced tasters who I spoke to, who were mostly MWs, MW students and other members of the trade, rated Pichon-Lalande particularly highly, up with the first growths. The 2004 vintage from this estate is exceedingly good, although to my palate it did not reach the extra level that we may demand from the first growth estates. All the same, a superb wine, as was Pichon-Baron; I found it impossible to drive a wedge between them as far as scores go, but I was forced to choose just one to add to the cellar I suspect I would opt for Baron over Lalande
From St Julien I looked at just four wines, and there are no astounding conclusions to be drawn here. All four were good wines, although I thought both Léoville-Barton and -Poyferré were a cut above Langoa and Gruaud. I tasted more widely when it came to the lesser appellations of Moulis, Listrac and the Médoc; after all, for many of us it is regions such as these that now supply our daily claret. Here there were some decent wines, many of which will drink nicely given appropriate time in the cellar, although few will be more notable than that. The attention lavished on La Tour Carnet came through on the nose and palate, but it was - unsurprisingly to many, I am sure - Sociando Mallet that triumphed here. This will be a great value wine for lovers of classically structured but flavoursome Bordeaux.
I have left my reflections on Margaux to last, for several reasons. First, here resides the wine of the tasting, if not the wine of the vintage. Margaux 2004 is simply divine, an exceptional wine that seduces from the moment the first perfumed molecules of aroma reach the nose. But there are other successes in this commune, and also some wines that have me scratching my head. In the first group we have Giscours, a wine which did not appeal when tasted two years ago, but which now seems really switched on. Or maybe it is me that is more switched on. Other successes included Rauzan-Ségla and Ferrière. But it was Lascombes which, for me, stimulated the most thought.
In the past decade Lascombes has seen a revitalisation, a tale I recount in
my profile, and in short the wines are
today very different to what they were ten years ago. I have stated my
preference for the modern wines before, although I also acknowledge that those
who prefer to see the gravelly, perfumed elegance of Margaux carried by a
lighter, leaner body of red fruits may not be so enamoured by this very modern style. I have
indeed written in a very favourable manner about the 2004 vintage before,
describing it at two years of age as having "great appeal". At four years, on
the nose, this remains a stunning wine; there are complex aromas here, from oak
and fruit, befitting a second growth property. It was exciting to take in this
rich, aromatic complexity, which suggested super-second quality. But the palate
was a complete contrast; it seemed to me
hugely out of kilter, soft and blowsy, lacking definition and focus, and
completely different to that which I tasted in 2006.
I have had previous experiences with wines where they seem to mutate wildly within just a year or two; Lagrange 2003 tasted in 2005 was a notable example. Estery and confected on the nose it was possibly one of the weirdest young wines I have ever tasted (and many other tasters thought the same that day), but a year later it was not blighted by this aromatic characteristic. But this is a note of aroma, and we all know aromas change as a wine develops. 'Blowsiness' and 'vigour' relate more to the structure of the wine, especially the acidity, and I am not so sure how these may be perceived differently over time. I find myself unable to explain my findings, or indeed to predict where this wine is going in the future. (11/12/06)
The Médoc Communes 2004: Tasting Notes
Tasted at the IMW 2004 Claret Tasting in November 2008. Click
to locate stockists.
Chateau Cos d'Estournel 2004:
There is a lot of oak evident on the nose here, dense and toasty, but with good
fruit too, with a sweet and gritty depth. Good weight on the palate, a touch
brawny, with moderate texture and a solid, polished wood background. Firmly
structured, grippy, with a firm core of fruit and a long, dense finish with
tangible extract. Very good indeed. 17.5+/20
Chateau Lafon Rochet 2004:
Youthful and spicy fruit, with toasted oak, with little smoky and minerally
elements. Supple start on the palate, gentle, moderate weight although it does
have a little fat in the midpalate, and nice texture and grip too. Rather firmly
structured, but overall a good character, nice flesh and spicy fruit finish.
Good. 16+/20
Chateau Meyney 2004:
A dense, interesting nose, with rich fruit, with lots of blueberry, bramble and
blackberry character, backed up by polished oak. Soft and broad, a rounded
palate, with spicy tannins at the core. Lots of structure here in fact, but it
is ripe, with nice acidity, and a bright and fresh character to the fruit. A
touch raw though, and a short finish. Good. 15.5+/20
Chateau Montrose 2004:
Dark, black, perfumed fruits here, beautifully exotic and yet composed, with
elegant, bright, minerally, stony character. Broad, with a touch of elegant
cream, good vinosity, harmonious and yet firm. It has a well covered dense
tannic structure at its core, giving a good grip behind all the fruit, rounded
off in a firm, savoury finish. Good length too. This is a really excellent wine. 18+/20
Chateau Grand-Puy-Lacoste 2004:
A densely packed nose, full of sweet raspberry coulis, bright, vibrant and
attractive. Nice flesh on the palate, a touch leaner than I perhaps expected,
with stony raspberry fruit and a little touch of greenness, well framed by the
acidity. Good, slightly tarry tannins. Overall a good wine. 16.5+/20
Chateau Haut-Batailley 2004:
An unusual character here, a rather burnt and feral nose, with notes of rubber.
On the palate it is big, ripe and fleshy, with lots of chewy tannins and that
rubbery note comes through here too, alongside some berry fruit. A touch oily in
terms of texture too. Not showing well today and difficult to judge. This is one
I would like to reassess but this was not possible today as I tasted this wine at the
very end. Not scored.
Chateau Lafite-Rothschild 2004:
This has some very dense, tight fruit on the nose, with an enticing and complex
depth, spicy and full of exotic character, and not as overtly flashy as the
Mouton. An elegant and creamy start on the palate, with beautifully polished
tannins in the middle. Full, building in substance, never revealing its
underlying structure, but showing fine acidity and a ripe grip. Very dense, very
youthful, with lovely potential, and great length. Excellent wine. 18.5+/20
Chateau Lynch-Bages 2004:
Pure and stony fruit on the nose of this wine, with classic blackcurrant tones
and a polished stone-pebble character mingling with notes of exotic fruits and
toasty oak. The same style is found on the palate; elegantly polished forest
fruits, nicely covered structure, good ripe tannins and a creamy, broad,
mouth-filling finish. Very good indeed. 17+/20
Chateau Lynch-Moussas 2004:
Dense fruit here and overtly toasty oak marks the nose of this wine. On
the palate there is a good grip and depth, with lots of firm structure and an appealing
depth of berry fruit with a nicely composed substance. Good vigour, lots of ripe
tannins, good acidity too. It is perhaps a touch on the lean side but it has
potential for sure. 16+/20
Chateau Mouton-Rothschild 2004:
Wow! This has a lovely nose, very exotic, dense and rich in fabulous spiced
fruits, with an impressively dark core. Lovely, and very typical of Mouton as
well. A beautifully composed palate follows, very elegant with a hint of cream,
and a fine ripe structure beneath. The tannins are firm, just poking out a
little here despite the full midpalate and wealth of spicy fruit. Delicious,
fruit-cream finish, and fabulous length. An excellent wine indeed. 18.5+/20
Chateau Pichon-Baron 2004:
Slightly denser than Pichon-Lalande in this vintage, a touch more spice and a
touch more fruit intensity on the nose. Full, elegant, creamy style on the
palate, ripe with well composed tannins. A good vinosity and fine structure in
the mouth, a touch masculine, with a dry structure beneath it all. It has a
nutty, slightly raw finish but this should come together with time. Good length
too. This has great potential for the cellar. 17.5+/20
Chateau Pichon-Lalande 2004:
This has a very flash character on the nose, with dense, claretty, damsony fruit
very nicely integrated with almost creamy oak. This is exotic and very
appealing. The palate is creamy, gently composed, nicely integrated, fine, broad
and supple. Notes of spiced oak can be seen beneath the brightly defined fruit.
This is a gorgeous and very flattering style of wine, which has a long, fading
finish. This is great. 17.5+/20
Chateau Gruaud-Larose 2004:
This has an attractive, mineral-stony fruit character on the nose. First
impressions on the palate indicate this is a touch leaner than some wines of
comparable or greater classification, but through the midpalate it shows a good
and elegant style, not very dense or rich, but more of a well polished
middleweight. There is a firm, tight core of grippy tannins, plenty of pepper
and spice, and lots of elegant Gruaud fruit nicely held together with a complex,
slightly exotic twist. Nicely balanced. Very good indeed. 17+/20
Chateau Langoa-Barton 2004:
Dense fruit here, ripe, rich but with a restrained, minerally edge. Good flesh
at the start, gently composed with a nice, tannic core. It has a very light
creaminess on the palate, a nice vinosity over a framework that seems leaner due
to the firm acidity, although there are some overt, ripe, chewy tannins
underneath as well. It has a good, grippy, toasty finish. This could be very
good, and is much more composed than when tasted en primeur, but it
clearly needs plenty of time. 16.5+/20
Chateau Léoville-Barton 2004:
There is a toasted edge to the bramble fruit here, with a chalky, rather bright
but reserved, restrained nose. Soft on the palate, as restrained as the nose
suggested, elegant but of substance. A very old-school composition, a firm core
of tannin surrounded by gently polished fruit, firm acidity, and plenty of
stone, mineral and pepper in the mouth. It terminates in a ripe, gritty, meaty
finish. Plenty of grip here, really very good indeed. 17.5+/20
Chateau Léoville-Poyferré 2004:
Darker in character, and more exotic than the Léoville-Barton on the nose,
although it still seems quite tightly packed together, with restrained and dark fruit
closely intertwined with smoky, exotic aromas. It starts off very gentle and
composed on the palate, before opening out to show some ripe peppery tannins,
firm acidity and a nice, vinous style. This has good substance, plenty of grip
in the mouth, and a firm, meaty finish. This is very nicely held together, and
overall is very good indeed. 17.5+/20
Chateau Dauzac 2004: Some nice
toasty oak showing her, and a nice depth to the fruit, which has a fairly
appealing, perfumed-stony edge. A moderate texture, perhaps a touch oily, but
brightly composed with nice definition, but overall a touch subdued. A touch
chalky too, but good grip underneath, and a little vigour. Potentially a good
wine, with time. 16+/20
Chateau Ferrière 2004: Really
very closed on the nose, and it seems the same on the palate today. The texture
is middleweight, and there is a gentle substance to it. It has a rather firm but
nice tannic backbone, a middling texture, and good substance on the finish. This
is possibly a very good wine, but it is so tight and ungiving today that I have
given a broad and non-specific range based on today's showing. Reviewing my
notes from two years ago, when the wine was much more open, I see I rated it a
little higher than the top of my range today. 16-17+/20
Chateau Giscours 2004: This
has a lovely, dense perfume on the nose, with dark fruits presented in an
elegant, gravelly style. On the palate it is quite dense and spicy, with a
significant core of ripe and grippy tannin. This has fine style, the texture in
keeping with the structure. It is dense, a wine of substance, but it has an
alluring edge. This seems to have really fattened out since my previous tasting,
and the wine now seems a match for the structure. A higher score is certainly
deserved. 16.5+/20
Chateau Lascombes 2004: Now
here is an intriguing, thought-provoking, perhaps just confusing wine. Previously highly rated, today the
wine does not show so well at all to my palate. On the nose it seems gorgeous, huge fruit
character with beautifully interwoven spicy, cedary, coffee notes, some of which
are oak-derived I am sure, but nevertheless the bouquet is on the whole
captivating. The palate has a very full and fleshy start which is not at all
unexpected, with a huge, fat, creamy weight, backed up by a rather extracted, inky bite.
The acidity seems rather lost here, and the overall impression is of a rather
soft, blowsy and jammy style which lacks definition and vigour. It certainly has
opulence, but that isn't everything in a wine. It is difficult to reconcile my
experience and score here with my previous opinion, and this is patently a wine that needs reassessment
in the future. A retaste on the day did nothing to change my opinion. I have
added a huge note of caution to my score. 16+?/20
Chateau Margaux 2004:
My first though here is simply "beautiful". The nose has a toasted
character, with exotic spices and a lovely perfume to the fruit. The oak is
still evident, as we might expect, but the wine clearly has great style. The
palate begins with an elegant but creamy nature, gentle but with fine substance
and vigour, and a great grip underneath. This is full, but delineated and
certainly stylish. Wow! This is a stupendous wine, fine and harmonious in
composition, yet full of vigour and life and is for me, on the day, the wine of
the tasting. 19+/20
Chateau Palmer 2004:
The assemblage is Merlot 47%, Cabernet Sauvignon 46%, Petit Verdot 7%.
Dense, stony and well-delineated fruit on the nose here, restrained but spicy,
and overall appealing. This character continues onto the palate which is dry,
reserved, with soft fruit showing through the midpalate. Stony, subdued, but
with well-covered tannins with a gentle grip and a nice acid structure. Moderate
length too. A good style of wine. 16.5+/20
Chateau Rauzan-Ségla 2004:
Very bright and elegant red fruits in evidence here today, raspberry, cherry and
liquorice, with a complex and very true gravel edge. It starts off soft, but
builds to a gently creamy midpalate of good vinosity and a sappy-savoury edge.
The tannins are ripe, well covered, and there is well balanced acidity. On the
finish there is a wealth of lovely, vibrant fruit. Elegant, and very good. This
sits at the top end of my score range from two years ago. 17+/20
Chateau Beaumont 2004:
A minerally nose here, showing red fruits with a slightly cooked feel to them.
Lean on entry, a lightweight texture, with a soft and chalky character. It is a
touch oily too. It seems a touch stretched out, although there is a little grit
and substance to the fruit, and it still seems rather unfocused, as it did
earlier this year. Nevertheless, this may come good with time in the cellar. 15+?/20
Chateau Cantemerle 2004:
Showing some spicy fruit on the nose now, with a slightly high-toned edge. A
nice character, elegant with crisp and chalky red fruits, although again a touch
of oil to the texture. Not a lot of flesh here, and a lean toffee-laced finish.
Nevertheless this has a nice balance, and there is good potential here, but this
is not a great Cantemerle. 15.5+/20
Chateau Citran 2004: The nose
here is interesting; I recall being wowed by the 2000 and 2005 in particular,
but this seems quite different in style. It has pepper on the nose, with a
green, vegetal streak. Rather lean on the palate, an oily edge, with some feral
fruit. Ripe and slightly chewy tannins. This might develop more interest with
time, or at least we can hope so. 14+?/20
Chateau La Tour Carnet 2004:
This is a completely different kettle of fish compared to the other Haut-Médoc
wines tasted alongside; here we have ripe and rather tarry fruit, still
smothered in oak, with spicy and high-toned elements alongside. Soft on the
palate, with nice flesh, and some definition provided by a firm seam of ripe,
slightly chewy tannins. There is a good acid core, bright flavours, a little
freshness and even a little length. This could be really good, given time. 16.5+/20
Chateau Sociando Mallet 2004:
This has lovely, vibrant, pure and gravelly fruit on the nose; it is so
typical of Sociando. It has a lively and vivacious character which is very
appealing, and a soft, fruit-rich entry. Bright flavours, some black fruits too
on the midpalate, and a core of ripe tannin. Fairly well framed substance,
bright acidity, and a rich fruit finish. Lots of appeal here; I like this very much. 17+/20
Chateau Preuillac 2004:
This wine has some roasted elements apparent on the nose now, with
bramble-blackberry fruit. The palate has appeal, is fleshy, and has a nice
depth. A good, well-integrated character, with nice substance and peppery
tannins and a firm frame of acidity. A good presence of fruit, firm
creamy-svelte substance and a chalky finish. Short but well made. 16+/20
