…..was the format of the evening. So two wines, same label, different vintages.
Colour – Wine 1: Dense black, slight tile rim, med. legs. Wine 2: Red/purple, dense black, med. legs
Verdict – wine 1 more developed suggests it’s older
Nose – Wine 1: Slight fruit, earthy notes, some rubber (?) Wine 2: Slight dark fruit, not earthy.
Verdict – more confirmation of more mature wine being wine 1. Little indication of area.
Palate – Wine 1: Bramble fruit, well-made wine, soft, medium length, classy. Wine 2: Richer, spicier, more robust than 1, still bramble fruit but more obvious.
As neither wines screamed blackcurrant they were difficult to spot as clarets, although blackberry is also an acknowledged aroma of that grape. They were both generic AC Paulliacs from the Medoc, wine 1 from 06 and wine 2 ’08. I would have liked to have known the blend, especially how much Cab. Sauv. was used.
2006 seems to have produced more variable wines than 2008 which are regarded as generally fruitier and sweeter. Both were good wines, well made. I’ll let Richard fill in the details.
[Richard: Ulysse Cazabonne – not a wonderfully named individual but a Bordeaux negotiant from which came these two wines, via the Wine Society (£17) who say that it is ‘excellent Pauillac from a leading cru classé at an extremely fair price. The deal, which is very much a handshake rather than a formal contract, is simply that we are not allowed to reveal the source.’ Be that as it may it seems to be an open secret that this is young-vined, declassified wine from Latour who briefly owned the negotiant. In addition MWW also stock the 2008 at the same price (for two) so WS claims for exclusivity seem misplaced. Apparently the ’06 has 88% cabernet, no information on the ’08. I preferred the ’06 on day 1 and the ’08 on day 2. Both well made, well balanced, smooth and mature claret. I have few bottles of each left which should keep for a while.]