04/03/2015
Chronicle 182-183: Angélus, Ausone, Cheval Blanc and Pavie tasted comparatively from bought bottles
- The four new Saint-Emilion premiers grands crus classés A, Angélus, Ausone, Cheval Blanc and Pavie tasted comparatively from bought bottles. 2009, 2008, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 1998 vintages
Chronicle 182-183 (4 march 2015)
The publication of the classification of the Saint-Emilion premiers grands crus classés A spurred me to get a few friends together and taste these wines. In this selection all types of vintage are
represented: 1998, a very Merlot year with an outstanding summer, but a rainy September; 2003 the year of the August heat wave and the difficulty in reaching full phenolic ripeness; 2004, the year of overwhelming volume and an average summer, but with a beautiful, unexpected Indian summer; 2005, the year of sun, but of slow uniform ripening; 2006, the vintage close to 2005, but spoilt by the rain in September; 2008, the year when the drought was worse than the heat in summer and was followed by a lovely Indian summer and 2009, the vintage when ripening was slow with a mild summer (it was forgotten), rain in September, especially on the right bank. So here are the four wines competing in different vintages. The best will be the most regular. After all, the first quality of a great terroir is said to be its ability to attenuate the effects of weather and ensure real uniformity in its production over the years.
Would the two historical leaders, Ausone and Cheval Blanc delight or disappoint us? What would the two new arrivals, Angelus and Pavie be like?
As a reminder, the wines were purchased en primeur and kept in Switzerland 850 km (530 miles) from Bordeaux. I point this out for those, who believe that wines deteriorate when they travel, which isn't in fact true. Tasting was blind. The total cost of the wines was equivalent to €19,000.
The result confirmed what I already knew. In my Guide, published in 2011, I categorised 329 Bordeaux wines according to their score over 15 vintages from 1994 to 2010. Cheval Blanc came out as the best Saint-Emilion wine with an average score of 17.4, Ausone came second with an average of 17.3, Angélus was third with an average of 17 and Troplong Mondot fourth with 16.8. Pavie only came tenth with an average score of 16.3.
In the tasting described below, I arrived at the same sort of result: Angélus was still in third place, but a long way behind Ausone and Cheval Blanc, while Pavie was way behind. Cheval Blanc led with an average score of 16.96 points. Ausone came in a very close second with16.93. Angélus scored an average of 16.18 and Pavie 15.68.
However, with its unwaveringly excellent positions in terms of quality (3 times first and 4 times second), Ausone delighted the tasters the most, because they did not expect it to do so well. Regarding Cheval Blanc, it took first place 3 times in the recent vintages, which is probably a sign of new effort deployed on the property.
The two legacy premiers crus were both first three times and dominated the tasting. They were both distinctively vibrant in their taste and aroma. This standard of aroma, fragrance, taste and texture is also a feature of Burgundy wines. I would even venture that it is the common denominator of the greatest wines in the world. In its short history, since barrels were introduced in its cellars in 1985, Angélus also stands out for its ability to offer a real vibrancy in its taste, but less often. Pavie regularly fails to do this. So my tasting tends to demonstrate that these four Saint-Emilion premiers grands crus classés A are not exactly on the same level.
A few words about the Classification:
It classifies Saint-Emilion's elite wines, but their taste only counts for 30% of their final score!
In the Saint-Emilion wine classification of 2012, how is the final score calculated for the wines, which were candidates for the distinction of premier grand cru classé?
I cite below extracts from the rules published in the Order dated 6th June 2011 concerning the classification of the “premiers grands crus classés” and the “grands crus classés” of the “Saint-Emilion Grand Cru” appellation.
“The criteria and weightings used by the commission to determine the score of the candidate wines are the following:
• For the title of “premier grand cru classé”:
1. The level of quality and consistency of the wines assessed from the results of tasting and from their ageing qualities (30% of the final score)
2. Their reputation in terms of the national and international valuation of their wines and their estates and the exceptional way in which the value of the sites has been enhanced (35% of the final score)
3. An assessment of the estates based on their land value, the uniformity of the unit(s) under cultivation and topographical, geological and soil analyses (30% of the final score)
4. An assessment of how the estate is managed both in winegrowing and winemaking terms, taking into account the grape varieties used, the organisation and management of the vineyard, the tracing of the production of individual plots during winemaking, and the conditions in which the wines are made and aged (5% of the final score)
• Any candidate whose final score is equal to or higher than 16 out of 20 is put forward for the category of “premier grand cru classé”.
• The commission may confer distinctions (“A” and “B”) on wines put forward for the category of “premier grand cru classé”, based on their reputation and ageing qualities.”
When the good taste of one of the best known winegrowing areas on the planet is supposed to be assessed using regulations according to which the actual score for taste only counts for 30% of the overall score of a wine, you cannot help wonder what bee the legislators had in their bonnet the day they penned the rules.
The least they could have done would have been to make this clear about the title “Saint-Emilion premier grand cru classé” A or B.
What are we supposed to think of point 3 which concerns the terroir and point 4 that addresses the work of people? Why are these separated from the score for taste, while they contribute directly to it? As for point 2, which relates to the “way in which the value of the sites has been enhanced”, it quite simply means having fine buildings, perhaps even a restaurant, in order to get a good score. So it's all about the label and the image before the taste. I wonder if Ausone with its chateau facades that have remained unchanged for donkey's years could have been failed on this requirement.
In view of the average results from our evening's tasting, I would personally prefer the commission to look more closely at the quality of corks and evaluate the regularity of a wine from one bottle to another as an indisputable factor of greatness of a wine brand. Unfortunately for wine lovers, this report informs us that only 5 wines out of 28, i.e. 18%, achieved a score equal to or better than the average score displayed in the database on my website.
All the others were below the standard expected. These are issues that more and more connoisseurs are aware of and for which the professionals have given no insights. I'll say it again, opening a bottle at these price levels and with this reputation, should not be like playing Russian roulette, otherwise nobody will drink them any more.
- 1st series: 1998 vintage
Ausone 1998 16,5 // 92
Logo on the cork : a crown !!!
It's the first time it has tasted so good and less woody, but with this cork supplier, the differences from one bottle to another must be taken into consideration.
Cedar on the nose. Silky on the palate, flavoursome with standard body. Good length.
Pavie 1998 15 // 87
Logo on the cork: SBM
Fruity nose, but oxidative and plain too. Firm tannins. Disappointing bottle. See the history in the database.
Angélus 1998 17 // 94
Logo on the cork: JL
Not so elegant nose as Ausone. Powerful and richly supple on the palate. Finish has slightly overstated tannins, but is flavoursome and long. The best of the four.
Cheval Blanc 1998 16 // 90
Logo on the cork : a crown !!!
Elegant, fruity, subtle nose with a lovely Cabernet Franc smell. Unfortunately the palate develops to become a little acidic. It's a problem caused by the cork supplier, a real handicap for the bottles of Cheval Blanc of this vintage.
- 2nd series: 2003 vintage
Ausone 2003 18 // 96
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
Very nice nose that is elegant, subtle, fresh, deep and mineral. Beautiful caressing attack. Ethereal and luscious in the middle. Subtle feel. Fresh taste. Delicate, silky, flavoursome, it ends up impossible to spit out with fine-grained tannin, and fragrant. Great length. Great bottle.
Angélus 2003 17 // 94
Logo on the cork: JL
Dark colour with black tints. Ripe fruit on the nose, unlike that of Ausone. Powerful on the palate with a hint of alcohol. Long flavoursome finish.
Cheval Blanc 2003 16,5 // 92
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
Nose of ripe fruit. Touch of caramel. Quite powerful on the palate, flavoursome and fresh in the middle. Tannins a little grainy for this wine. Good length.
Pavie 2003 15 // 87
Logo on the cork: AL
Ripe fruit on the nose. Smells of extract. Immediate extracted taste on the palate, developing to become rough and woody. It lacks taste and grace. Disappointing how it has developed.
- 3rd series: 2005 vintage
Pavie 2005 17,25 // 94
Logo on the cork: LBG
Intense, powerful, extracted nose. Caressing and very, very fruity on the palate, a little woody, but flavoursome with taste and a creamy note. Long, very enjoyable finish.
Angélus 2005 17,25 // 94
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
Fresh, elegant, subtle, multilayered nose. Fresh, flavoursome and fragrant on the palate, slightly extracted, but powerful, long and flavoursome.
Cheval Blanc 2005 16,75 // 93
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
There is a sharpness in the body of this wine, which makes its tannins austere, despite the lovely caress on the attack.
Ausone 2005 17,5 // 95
Logo on the cork: A in a circle
The wine really stands out with its minute texture, its elegant feel and its ethereal, melting, fragrant body. Long finish, slightest hint of extract.
- 4th series: 2008 vintage
Cheval Blanc 2008 18 // 96
Logo on the cork: JL
Ripe fruit on the nose, which is fresh, deep and multilayered. Melting, ethereal and luscious on the palate with a noble feel. It rebounds in the middle, then finishes sappy and long with taste and elegant tannins.
Ausone 2008 16,25 // 91
Logo on the cork: no information
A little extracted and oxidative on the nose. Extracted on the palate. Perhaps a bottle with a faulty cork? This is not what it is usually like.
Pavie 2008 16 // 90
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
Multilayered on the nose with very ripe fruit. Hint of vanilla and prune. Unfortunately very extracted on the palate with fruit and spice, and austere as it lingers.
Angélus 2008 16,25 // 91
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
Intense, elegant, fruity, creamy, fresh and ripe on the nose with a hint of truffles. Richly supple on the attack, fruity on the mid-palate, but austere, it ends up spicy and persistent. Final tannins a little firm.
- 5th series: 2009 vintage
Ausone 2009 17 // 94
Logo on the cork: no information
Nose of ripe fruit. Soft, fragrant and smooth on the palate with taste, body and elegant tannins. Very enjoyable, but I was hoping for more.
Cheval Blanc 2009 17,5 // 95
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
Fresh, ripe fruit on the nose. Hint of truffle. Caressing, fragrant, delicious, silky and melting on the palate with taste and elegant tannins. Makes you want to drink it straightaway.
Pavie 2009 15 // 87
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
Plain, oxidative nose. Plenty of body on the palate, but dries up on the finish. Unpleasant surprise. I was bowled over by this wine (18.5 // 97) at the chateau in April 2012, but the two bottles we opened came from the same case and only scored 15.75 (89) and 15 (87) for the second. Strange…
Angélus 2009 16,75 // 93
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
I found it more pleasurable and with no tannic roughness two months earlier at the chateau.
- 6th series: 2004 vintage
Pavie 2004 15,75 // 89
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
My scores for Pavie 2004 remain low. Hint of oxidation on the nose. Dense, extracted, but no real flavour on the palate. Plain finish. ......
Angélus 2004 14 // 85
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
The cooked nose and the dry finish show that this is a bad bottle. See the six other comments on my website.
Cheval Blanc 2004 17,25 // 94
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
Discrete nose with ripe, fresh fruit. Flavoursome, ethereal, very fruity, and aromatic on the palate with medium body, but ending up richly supple with elegant tannins and great length.
Ausone 2004 17,5 // 95
Logo on the cork: A in a circle
A great achievement from this property.
Fragrant and intense on the palate with rich suppleness, fruit and elegant tannins, even if they are a little extracted. Great, flavoursome length.
- 7 th series: 2006 vintage
Cheval Blanc 2006 16,75 // 93
Logo on the cork : a crown !!!
Intense nose of ripe fruit. Smooth, very fruity, fragrant and soft on the palate with taste and elegant tannins. It's delicious, but a touch of sharpness as it lingers, makes this bottle not quite as good as others.
Pavie 2006 15,75 // 89
Logo on the cork: an upside down T
Lovely, intense, elegant, fruity, fragrant nose. Hints of cedar. Lovely richly supple, flavoursome attack. The finish, however, is too tannic and austere. A pity. I've tasted this wine a lot better (17/94) in another bottle taken from the same case in September 2013. Variation from one bottle to another.
Angélus 2006 15 // 87
Logo on the cork: LBG
Substantial on the palate, but develops plainly to a slightly dry finish.
Ausone 2006 15,75 // 89
Logo on the cork: MAS
Fruity nose. Pleasant attack, luscious, richly supple, but more rigid on the finish. Unexpected firmness, I have not found in other bottles.
| 2009 | 2008 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 1998 | Average score | ||||||||
| Angélus | 3 | 16,75 | 2 | 16,25 | 4 | 15 | 2 | 17,25 | 4 | 14 | 2 | 17 | 1 | 17 | 16,18 |
| Ausone | 2 | 17 | 2 | 16,25 | 2 | 15,75 | 1 | 17,5 | 1 | 17,5 | 1 | 18 | 2 | 16,5 | 16,93 |
| Cheval blanc | 1 | 17,5 | 1 | 18 | 1 | 16,75 | 4 | 16,75 | 2 | 17,25 | 3 | 16,5 | 3 | 16 | 16,96 |
| Pavie | 4 | 15 | 4 | 16 | 2 | 15,75 | 2 | 17,25 | 3 | 15,75 | 4 | 15 | 4 | 15 | 15,68 |
Table of scores per vintage and rank out of 4
__________________________________________________
© Copyright 2014.
This publication is the original work of Jean-Marc Quarin Sarl, 10 allée de Ginouilhac, Le Taillan-Médoc. France. - E-mail : jmquarin@quarin.com
The news media and subscribing wine distributors, importers and retailers may use portions of this material (such as tasting notes, ratings or quotes) provided that it is not distorted, the proper wine and vintage are stated, www.quarin.com is given credit for the material utiliz ed, and Jean-Marc Quarin (JMQ) is shown as the Copyright holder.
