<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/?sAtom=1" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" />
    <author>
        <name>Paulson Rare Wine</name>
    </author>
    <title>Blog / Atom Feed</title>
    <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/?sRss=1</id>
    <updated>2026-04-18T03:08:52+02:00</updated>
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">1947 Bordeaux </title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/1947-bordeaux</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/1947-bordeaux"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            1947 Bordeaux 
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                  1947 - a magically faulty vintage  
 On a Saturday in September 2017 I was a guest at, yet again, one of the greatest wine dinners I have had the pleasure to enjoy for the last thirtyfive years or so. Thirty wines from 1947. 
 The host, Robert Langer, is the same generous wine lover who organised a splendid dinner with the top 1961s a year ago. He also takes great care when sourcing his bottles which explains the splendid condition of the wines we were served. The venue was again Restaurant Königshof in Munich. Their chef, Martin Fauster, is one of Europes best in matching food to great wines. The service was perfect with their sommelier, Stephane Thuriot, not only overlooking everything but also able to coach old corks out of bottles like no one else I know. 
 I had organised a major tasting of wines from 1947 together with Dr. Peter Baumann in Linz Austria in 1992 so it was interesting to see how the wines had developed over a quarter of a century. 
 The problem of acquiring well stored bottles was difficult then and must have been much more so now. So, I was a bit apprehensive before the tasting fearing that a number of wines would be at the end of their lives. This was not at all so, most wines were at their very best with many still having a few years reserve. I dug out my tasting notes from the 1992 tasting and was surprised how similar they were to the ones 25 years later, it was as though the wines hadn&#039;t aged at all in all these years. 
 1947 belongs to the small group of legendary Bordeaux vintages from the 20th century together with 1928, 1945, 1949, 1953, 1959, 1961, 1982 and 1990. 
 It is a vintage that was marked by a very hot August and September. The grapes were harvested in a heatwave with a sugar content no one knew how to handle at the time. There were no temperature controlled fermentation vats nor cultivated yeasts that could cope with such ripe grapes. This led to many wines showing volatile acidity that would become more obvious as the wines aged. Many wines also show much more residual sugar than any respectable cellarmaster would allow now. 
 The wines from Médoc have not aged as well as the wines from the right bank as a whole.&amp;nbsp;There are however two wines from Médoc that stands out from all the rest - Mouton and Margaux. 
 The Mouton is a fantastic wine (we had a perfect magnum at the Langer tasting) - on par with the wonderful 1949 and maybe very close to the great 1945. I was once told at a dinner at Mouton by their director that they had blocks of ice delivered from Bordeaux to be put into the fermentation vats to cool the must in 1947.&amp;nbsp;Château Margaux made one of their best wines ever in 1947. I have often had this wine both château bottled and the bottlings from van-der-Meulen. To me both are equally good, the van-der-Meulen bottling being a touch sweeter in Munich.&amp;nbsp;Latour and Lafite are both quite disappointing in this vintage.&amp;nbsp;Palmer and Calon Ségur are two of the better Médocs and are still drinking well out of well stored bottles. 
 Graves produced some fine wines - La Mission Haut Brion and La Tour Haut Brion are both very good. I only just preferred the La Tour Haut Brion to La Mission on both occasions. The Haut Brion shows quite a bit of volatile acidity and is not a success for the vintage. 
 There are two wines from Pomerol that stand out - Pétrus and Lafleur. 
 I have unfortunately had the experience of tasting faked bottles of Pétrus more than once and was very happy to be able to drink two bottles that, in my opinion, were the real stuff at Langers dinner. The château bottling was very powerful and concentrated whereas the van-der-Meulen bottling was sweeter and showed a bit more age. Both very good. 
 Château Lafleur 1947 is one of the rarest and also most faked wines of all. I had searched for a bottle for the 1992 tasting for three years and never saw a bottle. My luck changed as I ran in to John Avery whose father Ronald Avery had imported this wine to England for his company, Avery&#039;s of Bristol. Only five magnums were bottled according to the château and we were having one of these next to magnums of Cheval Blanc and Figeac at a dinner the evening before the tasting in 1992. It was such an amazing wine that John Avery invited us all to join him in Bristol the following spring to open his last remaining magnum.&amp;nbsp;The Lafleur in Munich was very good and since it was négociant bottled it may explain it being slightly different from the wine I remember. 
 St Emilion produced a number of very good wines, some that I remember with fondness are Figeac and Canon. But here one wine stands out - Cheval Blanc. 
 1947 Château Cheval Blanc is rightly a legend and a living one at that. It is however also a wine that would be classed as faulty by todays standard. Volatile acidity and residual sugar - enough to fire any winemaker producing such a wine.&amp;nbsp;Thankfully, Cheval Blanc produced a large harvest in 1947, more than the double of the 1945 vintage. I have therefore had the pleasure of drinking this giant of a wine on more than 30 occasions over the last thirty years. With the exception of some poor négociant bottlings this has always been a stunning experience and a wine always recognisable in its unique style.&amp;nbsp;It bowls you over with its sweetness, voluptousness and richness. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 At the Munich tasting we were served five different bottles of 1947 Cheval Blanc - could paradise be better than this?&amp;nbsp;First a Calvet bottling that showed quite hard tannins and little of the sweetness of the other bottles.&amp;nbsp;Van-der-Meulen bottlings are the exception to other négociant bottlings as they are extremely good and often equal to the château bottlings in its ability to amaze. The bottle here was absolutely lovely.&amp;nbsp;The third bottle was château bottled with the stamp of Nicolas on the label - possibly recorked. Again a fantastic bottle.&amp;nbsp;The fourth bottle was also château bottled but with its original cork. This was the favourite of mine - perfection and spellbinding!&amp;nbsp;This was rounded off with a magnum in great condition. Very, very good but not quite as excuberant as the wine before. 
 &amp;nbsp;By the time we arrived to the Sauternes I was not really able to concentrate and make legible notes any more. It was just not possible to spit or leave empty glasses of these amazing wines. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 &amp;nbsp; 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2025-11-17T11:15:00+01:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">1961 Bordeaux </title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/1961-bordeaux</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/1961-bordeaux"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            1961 Bordeaux 
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                  1961 - the greatest Bordeaux vintage ever?  
 On a Saturday in November 2016 I was a guest at one of the greatest wine dinners I have had the pleasure to enjoy for the last thirtyfive years or so.&amp;nbsp;I have for a long time voiced the opinion that 1961 is the most outstanding vintage ever for the wines of Bordeaux and am now absolutely sure that it is so. 
 During the 19th century there were a number of vintages with a great reputation made from pre-phylloxera vines. These include the legendary &quot;Comet vintage&quot; 1811, 1864, 1865, 1870, 1893, 1895 and 1899. Most are too old for anyone now alive to have tasted them at their peak.&amp;nbsp;During the 20th century claims have been raised for the vintages 1900, 1921, 1928, 1929, 1945, 1947, 1949, 1959, 1961, 1982, 1989 and 1990.&amp;nbsp;In the present century already five out the fifteen vintages produced have been mentioned by an overexcited wine press as candidate for the title - 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009 and 2010. 
 What is the definition of a great wine? 
 It is a wine that has an extra dimension giving you an unforgettable drinking experience - in other words, a &quot;WOW!! effect&quot;.&amp;nbsp;It is a wine that has a long drinking span. It shall be good to drink young but also be able to age for a long time without losing its attractiveness.&amp;nbsp;A „good vintage“ produces wines fulfilling these requirements.&amp;nbsp;A „great vintage“ however, is equally good in all major regions of Bordeaux, both on the left and right bank. It is also a vintage where something special was produced throughout the different rankings, from the lowest Cru Bourgeois to the mightiest Premier Cru. 
 1961 fullfills these requirements best of all.&amp;nbsp;It was the vintage where the most incompetent winemaker couldn&#039;t make a poor wine and the wines were drinking very well at an early stage and in most cases still do so to this very day. 
 Some extremely impressive wines were produced in 1945, but mainly on the left bank and a large number of wines had too high tannin levels making the wines more and more dry with age. 1947 produced the most stunning wines on the right bank but many wines on the left bank had problems with volatile acidity. 1959 produced a number of wines that are at the same level and sometimes even a bit higher than the corresponding &#039;61s (Lafite comes to mind). But 1959 doesn&#039;t have the same constant quality throughout all levels.&amp;nbsp;1982 undoubtedly produced many impressive wines but I feel that the wines from the right bank lack structure and have not aged very well and only very few wines from Margaux and Médoc were a great success. The twin vintages of 1989 and 1990 may come closest in overall quality but it is too early to judge their ageing abilities yet. The same obviously goes for the wines from this young century. 
 What made 1961 so special? 
 It was a very small crop, the smallest since the war. This was partly due to coulure (cold weather at the time of flowering) and in some parts because of frost on the night between 30th and 31st of May, together reducing the yield per vine to about a third of the usual size at the time (which at todays harvests look miniscule). This concentrated the flavours and power of the few remaining grapes.&amp;nbsp;August and September were both hot and extremely dry. This drought caused the maturity to take longer than the usual 100 day rule and the harvest started on September 22nd and was finished under perfect conditions.&amp;nbsp;Because of better cellar techniques the wine-makers avoided the hard tannins of 1945 and the volatility of the 1947s.&amp;nbsp;The wines have a very deep colour, a seductive nose and fullbodied, concentrated mature fruit with enough tannin and acidity to give the wines structure and freshness. 
 I arranged a major tasting of more than sixty 1961s in 1989 and all wines were very good, even from minor châteaux or from more famous properties that had not produced anything worthwhile for a very long time and some that have not done it to this day.&amp;nbsp;I also arranged a tasting, together with Dr. Peter Baumann, of fifty wines in November 2001. I had expected a large number of these to now be over their zenith but was amazed to see that many had not seemed to age at all during these intervening 12 years. With very few exceptions they were still very much alive. 
 How had the wines fared in the last 15 years? 
 The wines served for the dinner at Hotel Königshof in Munich showed much better than I could have hoped for. The host of the Dinner, Robert Langer, had spent many years in California where he has a temperature controlled cellar and most of the wines had been bought in USA over a long time. This was proof that wines with a US import label doesn’t necessarily mean a badly stored wine. European collectors automatically shies away from these bottles – the fact is that serious american collectors make sure that their most valuable wines are travelling and being stored under ideal conditions 
 The wines of the tasting and some notes on other wines: 
 It is quite rare that I award a wine with a full 20 (or 100) points but I gave this perfect note to ten wines on this occasions. 
 Margaux and Médoc:&amp;nbsp;We had both of the stars of Margaux – Château Margaux and Palmer.&amp;nbsp;Château Palmer first reached fame in 1978 as it won the famous Dr. Taam tasting in Holland. It was a precocious wine that was drinkable before most premier crus had softened and many tasters have underestimated its longevity. I remember arranging a tasting for Château Palmer in 1995 where I decanted the wine just before the tasting, believing it being past its best. It did not show very well so Peter Sichel, the co-owner of Château Palmer, suggested that we decant the bottles planned for dinner five hours before serving them. It had then fully opened up showing all its softness and warmth coupled with power and strength for a long life. This bottle was full of charm with soft attractive fruit but is starting to show some age (19 pts).&amp;nbsp;One of the best wines after Palmer and Château Margaux, which will be covered in the group of the premier crus, is Malescot St. Exupéry. 
 Graves:&amp;nbsp;La Mission Haut Brion out of a magnum was a fantastic wine, powerful and concentrated with a long future ahead (20 pts). The Pape Clément was also showing very well with a classic Graves cigarbox nose (18 pts).&amp;nbsp;Also very good in 1961 are La Tour Haut Brion, Domaine de Chevalier and Haut Bailly. 
 St. Estéphe:&amp;nbsp;Cos d&#039;Estournel is very good, I have had this three times in the last month and this was the best bottle – still fresh with a touch of eucalyptus on the nose (18,5 pts).&amp;nbsp;Montrose is now shedding its tannins whereas Calon Ségur needs drinking after having given much joy over the years. 
 St. Emilion:&amp;nbsp;1961 is one vintage where I sometimes prefer Figeac to Cheval Blanc, both are very good but Figeac often shows more complexity and elegance. 
 Cheval Blanc (18,5 pts) had a wonderful bouquet but the palate did not show the concentration of the impressive Figeac (19 pts) – both wonderful wines. The star of the flight was a stunning bottle of Ausone &amp;nbsp;- a perfect, youthful wine with concentration and class (20 pts).&amp;nbsp;Canon is a lovely, elegant wine but not having the concentration of a top &#039;61. Two very underrated wines are L&#039;Arrosée and La Gaffelière - both are very impressive and still bargains if you are lucky enough to find them. 
 Pomerol:&amp;nbsp;The three rarest and most expensive wines from &#039;61 come from Pomerol - Pétrus, Lafleur and Latour-á-Pomerol. &amp;nbsp;The Latour-á-Pomerol is a wine with overpowering sweetness and richness. I have had the rare experience of drinking the original château bottling three times from the cellar of the late John Avery and it is amazing. I have also drunk badly faked versions of this wine. This was a belgian bottling from Lafitte and very good (19 pts). The Lafleur is a more structured wine with more concentration and tannins (20 pts). These are among the most faked bottles around and I was happy to report that both were correct. The négociant bottled Pétrus we had was sweet and attractive but seemed to me to lack some of the complexity that Pétrus usually shows. No points .The star Pomerol this evening, for me, was Trotanoy that somehow combined the structure of Lafleur with the sweet fruit of Latour-á-Pomerol (20 pts).&amp;nbsp;Both Evangile and Vieux Château Certan are wonderful, mature wines needing drinking over the next decade or so - both 18,5 pts.&amp;nbsp;A wine I also have found very good over the years is Château Gazin. It did then included grapes from a parcel of the best part of Pomerol, now belonging to Pétrus. 
 St. Julien:&amp;nbsp;My personal favourite here is Ducru Beaucaillou, possibly the most elegant of all wines - it didn&#039;t disappoint this time either (19,5 pts) with lovely soft fruit and a disarming nose of coffee. The Gruaud Larose was slightly tainted but is usually a solid and reliable &#039;61.&amp;nbsp;Léoville Poyferré (18 pts) showed charming sweet fruit but not the elegance of the Ducru. Léoville Las Cases is normally impressive. Léoville and Langoa Barton did not have a very good period then and are disappointing for the vintage. Talbot and Branaire Ducru are good but need drinking soon. 
 Pauillac:&amp;nbsp;We had a charming Pichon Lalande out of a magnum (18 pts). I often prefer Pichon Baron as it has more structure and concentration than the slightly overripe Pichon Lalande. Lynch Bages is usually very good, but this bottle was slightly tainted and not quite clean. Pontet Canet was bottled by several négociants and the one to drink is the Cruse-bottling which was the unofficial château bottling at the time. This is also the version we had and it showed very classical Pauillac structure (18,5 pts). 
 The Premier Crus:&amp;nbsp;Château Margaux made its finest wine since the legendary 1900 (and maybe 1947) and it is still wonderful to drink (20 pts). Mouton is a luscious wine with so much fruit that it overbowls ones senses (20 pts). Haut Brion is totally different to Mouton and La Mission with its soft and complex fruit (20 pts). Lafite shows big bottle variation as it was still bottled from cask to cask at the time and over a long period. At its best it is very fine and delicate with little power but great elegance, at its worst it is a tired wine with no body or fruit left. We had it out of a magnum where it showed itself at its very best (19 pts).&amp;nbsp;The Latour is usually a giant of a wine with great backbone, fruit and length which for a long time gave you the impression that it still needed time to soften completely. It has now opened up and is one oft he most iconic wines of all time – enormously impressive 
 Unfortunately great quality coupled with small quantity always lead to high prices and this is particularly the case for 1961 Bordeaux. However every true winelover should have at least once in his lifetime have drunk a good &#039;61 to know what a perfect Claret can taste like. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2025-11-17T11:00:00+01:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">1970 Bordeaux </title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/1970-bordeaux</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/1970-bordeaux"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            1970 Bordeaux 
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                  1970 Bordeaux – eine Probe  
 &amp;nbsp; 
 1970 is for me the best vintage in Bordeaux between 1961 and 1982. The vintage was equally succesful on both sides of the river, making it an over all more consistent vintage than 1964 and 1966. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 The weather was perfect with hot temperatures in August and September. 
 This led to a large amount of healthy grapes – a record harvest at the time. 
 The wines show great fruit and balance which have made them age gracefully over half a century. I remember drinking Ducru Beaucaillou and Latour in the early 1980s and regularly since then and they hardly seem to have changed at all. The vintage was enjoyable quite early on which made some think that it wouldn’t age well. 
 However, good ageing potential depend more on a good balance of all parts rather than power and high alcohol – something we can see in vintages such as 1953, 1959 and 1961 – none needing decades to open up. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 Some comments on the wines I had at a dinner in October 2021. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 From the right bank: La Conseillante and Cheval Blanc both being quite mature and charming. I preferred the Ausone to Cheval Blanc this time – younger and with more concentrated fruit and structure. 
 Two weeks before this tasting I was invited to a good friend where we had Pétrus and Lafleur next to each other. 
 Both equally very great wines with a long future ahead. The Pétrus with sweet and lovely fruit, totally decadent. Lafleur is quite a different wine – great concentration of spicy fruit and a big backbone structure. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 From the left bank we had some of my personal favourites. 
 Montrose with good fruit and structure. I can see why this is called „the poor mans Latour“. 
 Palmer has lots of sweet soft fruit and outclasses ist neighbour Margaux in this vintage. 
 Ducru Beaucaillou has long been one of my all-time favourites in 1970. It is a fantastic, elegant wine with no signs of ageing. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 The Premier Crus: Margaux and Lafite are both quite disappointing and were not drunk this time. 
 Haut Brion is a spicy and charming wine but won’t improve further. 
 Mouton has been somewhat inconsistent over the years but this bottle was very, very good with great fruit and long finish – the best bottle I had of this wine. 
 Latour is a giant of a wine, not just in the sense of power but with great concentration of fruit and perfect balance. Long finish. Still young but not unapproachable. It is a mystery to me why the price of this wine is on par of recently vintages en-primeur. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 Some other 1970s that I have good memories of are La Mission Haut Brion, Lynch Bages, Trotanoy, La Fleur Pétrus and Giscours. 
 All in all a very good vintage still alive and kicking at over 50 years of age. 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2025-11-11T13:00:00+01:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">Château Margaux - meine Erfahrungen</title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chateau-margaux-meine-erfahrungen</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chateau-margaux-meine-erfahrungen"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            Château Margaux
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                  Château Margaux  
 &amp;nbsp; 
 Château Margaux is probably the most known wine in the world. 
 It pictures the essence of style and elegance in ones mind on hearing its name. 
 This has not always been the case as it has shown more ups and downs than most other premier crus. It was performing under ist potential for most of the 1960s and 70s (as did Lafite and Mouton). The main reason was lack of money to invest in cellars and selection of only the best wines. 
 This changed dramatically as André Mentzelopoulos bought the property from the Ginestet family in 1977. With the help of Emile Peynaud as consultant and regisseur Pilippe Barre (soon to be followed by the very talented Paul Pontallier) Château Margaux has since the 1978 vintage shown impressive consistency and always been producing one of the top wines in every vintage since. 
 Here are some notes from older to quite recent tastings. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 1890 – still some sweet fruit but showing age in 1993. 
 1893 – pale colour. Lovely nose with a touch of melted butter. Lovely sweet fruit. Fabulous. 
 1899 –a magnum with a back sticker noting it came from the restaurant in Hamburgs railway station. Still some fruit but showing age. A doublemagnum at a Rodenstock tasting - very sweet, alcoholic and portlike. Fake? 
 1900 – I have had this three times – once out of a magnum. Sadly all fakes. 
 1921 – good sweet and dense. Bit herbal finish. 
 1924 – still alive 12 years ago. Some fruit but acidity starting to dominate. 
 1925 – tawny rim, mushroomy nose, some elegance. Drying out. 
 1926&amp;nbsp; - mature colour. Some sweetnes, drinking well but showing some acidity on the finish. 
 1928 – very youthful and concentrated wine. Great finish. Very good. 
 1929 – a lovely sweet nose. Sweet fruit typical of the vintage. Not the concentation of the -28 but with more charm. 
 1934 – some sweet fruit but showing its age. 
 1937 – high acidity. Past it. 
 1940 – porty sweetness. Bitter finish. Spirity. Bit tarty and unpleasant. 
 1943 – stinky. Sweet and sour. Dead. 
 1945 – closed nose. Quite restrained. Some sweet fruit. Bit dry finish. Very, very good out of a magnum. 
 1947 – one of the greatest vintages of Château Margaux – both in the château bottling and the van-der-Meulen bottling. A beautiful wine ageing at a snails pace. 
 1948 – surprisingly good. 
 1949 – good nose. Good, sweet and delicious. Classic Medoc style but showing some acidity now. Drink up. 
 1952 – lightweight but charming wine. Should drink soon. 
 1953 – mature colour. Sweet lovely and delicate. Drink soon. 
 1955 – light colour. A delicate, still beautiful and elegant old lady. Drink soon. 
 1957 – I remember it being quite good for the vintage. The acidity had conserved the fruit. 
 20 years ago it showed very well – I called it the ugly duckling, turning out better than originally thought. 
 1958 – tawny and old. 
 1959 – I have had this wine on numerous occasions and it has never disappointed. A gorgeous wine! 
 1960 – spicy nose of coffee, sweet but getting old. 
 1961 – a wonderful wine from a magic vintage still drinking very well. 
 1962 – good sweet fruit. Probably past ist best by now. 
 1963 – sour and horrible. 
 1964 – much better than ist reputation. Several notes – all good. Good fruit, minty, long. Paul Pontallier once told me that he also found this much better than ist reputation. 
 Non vintage – a cuvée of 1963, -64 and -65 if I remember right. An attempt to make something good out two miserable vintages and a fairly good one. Not successful. 
 1966 – good and stylish. 1966 backbone and fruit to balance it. More structure than charm. 
 1967 – some fruit left 20 years ago. Should be pretty dead now. 
 1968 – rosé colour. Lacking everything. 
 1969 – tannic and unpleasant. 
 1970 – quite short and lean. Reasonably good in a magnum. Poor for the vintage. 
 1971 – some charm and sweet fruit. Ageing now. 
 1972 – some sweet fruit, thin, short. 
 1973 – stinky and unpleasant. 
 1974 – very tannic. No fruit. Horrible. 
 1975 – typical for the vintage in Medoc. Too little fruit to balance the hard tannins. 
 1976 – dry tannins. Some fruit. Not good. 
 1977 – green tanninns. Was never good. 
 1978 – very good. One of the top 1978s. Should be drunk. 
 1979 – a good wine. Drink soon. 
 1980 – quite good 20 years ago. Good for the vintage. Probably past it now. 
 1981 – similar to 1979 but a bit fresher. A good wine. 
 1982 – great concentration. Lovely, but not the balance of the 1983. 
 1983 – a lovely wine with great concentration of fruit. For me: The Wine of the Vintage. 
 1984 – lean with dry tannins. No joy. 
 1985 – a fabulous wine. Elegant – a younger version of ist 1953. Lovely. 
 1986 – good fruit and concentration but with &amp;nbsp;quite dry tannins. I’m not sure that it will ever soften. 
 1987 – similar to 1984 but a bit fresher. 
 1988 – a good classic Bordeaux vintage that has taken its time to come around. I think this will develope much better than the 1986. 
 1989 – ready to drink now. Soft tannins. Almost Napa in style. Lacking something to be amongst the top 1989s. 
 1990 – a very good wine. Soft tannins and sweet fruit. Ready now. 
 1991 – a bit lightweight. Still good for this difficult frost vintage. 
 1992 – similar to 1991. 
 1993 – Fresh fruit. A bit tannic finish. Drink up. 
 1994 – similar to the 1993 but a bit fresher. 
 1995 – good fruit and none of the dry tannins of many 1995s. Very good. 
 1996 – very good concentrated fruit. Good cabernet nose with a touch of eucalyptus. Soft tannins. Will age very well. Wonderful wine. 
 1997 – good for the vintage. A bit green tannins. Should be drunk. 
 1998 – good sweet fruit. Very nice. 
 1999 – very good now. 
 2000 – great concentration of fruit. Soft tannins. Long finish. Good to drink already. 
 2003 – good concentration of fruit. I’m not sure how it will age. 
 2006 – young – needs time. 
 2010 – a giant. Big and tannic with concentrated fruit. Will become a legendary Margaux. 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2025-11-11T11:30:00+01:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">Château Pichon Longueville Baron - meine Erfahrungen</title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chateau-pichon-longueville-baron-meine-erfahrungen</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chateau-pichon-longueville-baron-meine-erfahrungen"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            Château Pichon Longueville Baron 
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                 Château Pichon Longueville Baron 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 My tasting notes are partly from a tasting I organised together with Dr. Peter Baumann in Austria in 1998. We tasted 40 vintages and Jean-Michel Cazes was the guest of honour. Other more recent notes have been added to these. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 I had a bottle of 1864 a few years ago – the handwritten label stated just Pichon. It was, as far as I know, the last vintage bottled together with Lalande as one wine even though ownership was separate. Light in colour and with sweet delicate fruit. Still charming and alive. 
 The 1926 is a lovely wine in perfect balance with sweet concentrated fruit and a long finish. 
 The 1928 was also very much alive but lacking the charm of the &#039;26. Our bottle of 1929 was not in a very good shape but I expect well-stored bottles to still drink well. 
 The 1930s was a difficult decade and the bottles from 1934 and 1937 were both past their best. 
 The 1940s and 1950s were the high point of the wines of Pichon Longueville until the late 1980s. 
 The great trio 1945, 1947 and 1949 are all very impressive wines. The &#039;47 being the sweetest with very good fruit, the &#039;45 quite tannic, concentrated and structured and the &#039;49 showing wonderful fruit and balance - for me the best wine of the three. The &#039;48 was still quite good but the &#039;43 was ageing badly. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 The 1950, 1957 and 1958 were all still drinking quite well but start to get a bit dry and need to be drunk soon. 
 1952 is a very impressive wine, lots of sweet fruit and none of the hardness sometimes found in the left-bank &#039;52s. 
 1953 is a classic Médoc with all the lovely charm and elegance of the vintage. It has such a great balance that well-stored bottles should drink well for years to come. 
 The 1955 can still be a delicate and good wine, though a bit dry on the finish - I expect it needs drinking soon. 
 I have had the pleasure to drink the 1959 on several occasions from château and négociant bottlings. It shows the classic &quot;lead pencil&quot; and eucalyptus nose and concentrated cassis fruit and structure of a great Pauillac. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 It is a close call which is the better wine - the 1959 or the 1961. I would probably go for the 1961 because of the even greater concentration of fruit. A fantastic wine! 
 The 1962 is still drinking reasonably well as is the 1964 – both needing drinking. The 1966 is typical of the vintage with cool, elegant fruit and fresh acidity. 
 The wines of the early 1970s were too hard and only with the 1978 and 1979 did one notice an improvement in the wines. Both are quite good, particularly the 1979. 
 1981 and 1983 are both light in style and need drinking. 
 I have always been a fan of the 1982 Pichon Baron finding it one of the most underrated of the &#039;82s. 
 The 1985 has the charm and lovely fruit of the vintage but maybe not the Pauillac power and is drinking very well now. 
 1986 was a more tannic vintage and it will likely last longer than the &#039;85 when and if the tannins will shed and could become a very good drinking experience. This was the last harvest under the Bouteillier regime but the élevage was made by the new team. 
 1987 should have been drunk by now. 
 1988 is a very good wine that to me seems to get better every time I drink it. It has now shed most of its tannins and show lovely sweet fruit. This is very good and fabulous value for your money. 
 1989 and 1990 were the two vintages that finally propelled Pichon Longueville into the status of a &quot;Super-second&quot;. 
 Both are very concentrated in a more modern style with soft fruit and tannins. These are wonderful wines with ripe but not overripe fruit. I prefer the 1989 slightly at this moment but it may well change next time I get to compare them. 
 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1997 are all good considering the difficulties of the vintages. 
 1995 is a good wine and 1996 is even better. This is more typical classic Pauillac with power and elegance at the same time. 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2025-11-11T11:30:00+01:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">Château Pichon Comtesse de Lalande - meine Erfahrungen</title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chateau-pichon-comtesse-de-lalande-meine-erfahrungen</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chateau-pichon-comtesse-de-lalande-meine-erfahrungen"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            Château Pichon Comtesse de Lalande - meine Erfahrungen
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                 &amp;nbsp; 
  Château Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande  
 Pichon Comtesse de Lalande, or Pichon Lalande in ist shorter form, 
 produces one of the most popular wines of Bordeaux. 
 One reason is its very consistent quality but most of all its charm and drinkability. 
 Compared to its brother across the road it is softer and approachable earlier. This doesn’t mean that it doesn’t age well. On the contrary, because of its balance it is able to drink well over several decades. Lying on the border to Saint-Julien it shows some character of these wines, you may still find some bottles with Saint-Julien instead of Pauillac on the label. 
 This is one wine that I have had the fortune to taste in a large number of tastings and dinners over the years (though I was surprised to see that I had notes on 61 vintages). Most of these notes come from a tasting of 40 vintages that I organised together with the château in 1997, a splendid lunch at Restaurant Taillevent in Paris to celebrate May-Eliane Lenquesaings 80th birthday, a tasting of both Pichons in 2017 and a tasting of 25 vintages 2022 at the Rheingau Gourmet and Wine Festival as well as other smaller occasions. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 1864 The oldest Pichon I have tasted was a 1864 Pichon. This was apparently the last vintage vinified together with the wine of Pichon Baron by Raoul Pichon. The property having been divided up a few years earlier. It was light coloured wine with a delicate sweet fruit - a moving experience. 
 1914 was very old and past it – if it ever was good. 
 1920 similar to above. 
 1922 tawny colour with some fruit left but getting old. 
 1926 was a very small harvest of top quality wines, the Pichon lovely and sweet, almost burgundian. Showing some age but still very good. 
 1928 was a massive and tannic vintage. The only note I have is from a bottle still alive but only just so. 
 1929 shows the typical sweetness of the vintage paired with some volatility keeping it fresh and attractive to drink. 
 1930 Herbal nose, some sweetnes. Short. Old. 
 1934 show a lovely sweetness, with some volatility but still enjoyable. 
 1937 showed some fruit but the tannins are likely to have overtaken this by now. 
 1940 is pretty nasty with hard acidity. 
 1942 a touch better but should most likely be very tired by now.&amp;nbsp; 
 1945 was a year of great concentration of fruit with wonderful structure and backbone and the Pichon Lalande is no exception. It is still a great wine. 
 1947 was a difficult vintage to vinify many wines showing volatile acidity. Still some sweet fruit but quite tannic finish. 
 1949 was a wonderful vintage and Lalande is no exception. Sweet and elegant fruit now but starting to show some age. 
 1950 one bottle sweet and sour. Probably well past it. 
 1952 had some elegance and fruit but starting to show some age. 1953 much better. 
 1953 is one of the loveliest and most &quot;classic&quot; of all Bordeaux vintages and Pichon Lalande made one of their best wines ever. Still quite dark in colour with perfect balance and class. 
 1955 is a wonderful vintage – it was the last vintage before the crippling frost of 1956 and has a great structure and good fruit left. 
 1957 always too high in acidity. 
 The comparison between 1959 and 1961 is always a fascinating one. Both truly great vintages and so too for Pichon Lalande. I prefer the 1959 slightly being fresher with sweet lovely soft fruit even after 60 years of age. The 1961 is still a gorgeous wine but showing some age. 
 1962 is now showing its age. 
 1964 is for me the most underrated of all Bordeaux vintages – the charming Pichon is still drinking well though it won&#039;t improve by keeping. 
 1966 is a classic left bank vintage and Pichon Lalande still drinking well. More structure than charm. 
 1970 a good wine but not one of the top Pauillacs. Should be drunk. 
 1975 was not an easy vintage on the left bank, most wines were simply too tannic and have long since dried out. Pichon Lalande is an exception and probably the best wine from Médoc next to Latour in this vintage. There is none of the hard tannins and it is still very good to drink. Interestingly, the wine was made by May-Elaine de Lencquesaing&#039;s old school friend and neighbour, the late Michel Delon of Château Léoville Las Cases (as were the following two vintages). 
 1976 was a vintage ruined by rain at the harvest and not a good wine. 
 1978 was Mme. de Lencquesaing&#039;s first vintage – just about everything that could go wrong during the growing season did so and the bordelais were expecting a disaster when the weather changed and a glorious autumn brought some very good wines. The 1978 Pichon is still a stylish wine with some tobacco flavours but starting to show its age, so I would suggest that it needs drinking now. 
 1979 is one of the better wines in this vintage. 
 1980&amp;nbsp; is a forgettable wine. 
 1981 is very good for the vintage. 
 1982 was the vintage which propelled Pichon Lalande to &quot;Supersecond&quot; status. This has always been a total charmer and a great success for the château. A very soft, attractive wine with great concentration of fruit without the massive tannins present in some 1982s. 
 1983 is very good with fresh spicy fruit. Ist only problem was to have to follow the great 1982. 
 1984 goodish but past it now. 
 1985 is to me the &quot;modern&quot; version of the 1953 as a vintage. A beautiful vintage that lives on impeccable balance and charm rather than power. I more and more start to prefer 1985s to 1986s on the whole. And similarly to the 1953s it will age better than most people are aware of, balance being much more important than alcohol, concentration and power. 
 1986 Pichon is very nice now. It shows softer tannins and better friut than most wines this year. 
 1987 similar to 1984. 
 I like the 1988 vintage very much – it is now shedding ist tannins and improve from year to year, The Lalande is very good and will drink well for many years to come. 
 The 1989 Pichon Lalande is one of the many stars of the vintage, very exotic with spicy fruit and a joy to drink. 
 1990 is a good wine but nowhere near its potential. Rather a disappointment considering the vintage. 
 1991 was a difficult vintage mostly ruined by spring frost. Drink up. 
 1992 only goodish with some green tannins. 
 1993 and 1994 were both affected by rain. Not bad but needs drinking. 
 The 1995 and 1996 are quite different in style, the 1995 sweet and charming, but on the lighter side with some dry tannins on the finish whereas the 1996 will turn out to become a classic for the future. Very good concentrated fruit and long finish. For me the greater of the two wines. 
 1997 shows classic 1970s style wine. Quite elegant. 
 1998 touch herbal nose. 
 1999 good, stylish fruit. 
 2000 is a massive wine. Very impressive. 
 2001 is a charmer from a very good classic vintage&amp;nbsp; 
 2002 goodish but with some unripe tannins. 
 2003 is one of the best in this complicated vintage. Good fruit and not too alcoholic and jammy. 
 2004 a good wine&amp;nbsp; 
 2005 shows very good soft sweet fruit. A total charmer. Will age well. 
 2007 good for the vintage. 
 2009 with massive tannins but very good fruit. Good future. 
 2010 very good, spicy nose with a touch eucalyptus. Good soft fruit and softer tannins than the 2009. A very, very good wine&amp;nbsp; 
 2012 good soft fruit. 
 2014 good fruit. A good wine. 
 2016 touch closed Good concentrated fruit. 
 2018 soft tannins. Quite long. 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2025-11-03T08:45:00+01:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">Château Pétrus - Meine Erfahrungen</title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chateau-petrus-meine-erfahrungen</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chateau-petrus-meine-erfahrungen"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            Château Pétrus - meine Erfahrungen
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                 Château Pétrus 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 During many years of taking part in &quot;blind horizontal&quot; tastings (tasting several wines from the same vintage without knowing which wine is which) of most major vintages I have given Pétrus my highest points of all Pomerols in most tastings – not because it is the most powerful wine but because it is the most complex and fascinating of them all. 
 No doubt about it, Pétrus is deep coloured, powerful and concentrated, but it also has the complexity, balance and ability to age to make it a truly great wine. 
 I am personally not a great fan of wines made predominately from the Merlot grape, they often tend to be flabby, alcoholic and boring, lacking the backbone and complexity of a Cabernet Sauvignon based wine. The secret of Pétrus being so different is, apart from the perfection in the care in the vineyards and the cellar, in its unique soil. It is lying on a &quot;buttonhole&quot; of clay almost exclusive to Pétrus in Pomerol. Underneath this is a layer of hard iron rich soil. This brings an elegance that with age reminds me of a top Pauillac in character coupled with the soft fruit and voluptiousness of a Cheval Blanc. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 Drinking Pétrus can be an unforgetable experience and I have been fortunate to taste most of its great vintages. I often gets asked by winelovers who would like to taste Pétrus about my advice. The first advice is to always pick a good or, if financially possible, a great vintage. If tasting a poor vintage the wine will be better than most others from this vintage but will not show you what Pétrus really is about. My second advice is to get a wine that is at least 10 to 15 years old as a very young wine is often unapproachable and its taste dominated by oak and tannins. Pétrus may be impressive when young but it ages fantastically well and will need longer to reach its optimum than any other right bank wine. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 Vintages: 
 Pre-war vintages are very rare and variable in quality. 
 Up to 1961 it was common for Pétrus to sell part of its harvest to a number of négociants who would bottle the wines themselves. As a rule these bottlings can be very good, often as good as the château bottlings – in particular the bottlings from van-der-Meulen. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 1924 – deep colour, very good nose and jammy fruit with some tannin on the palate. From a doublemagnum at a Rodenstock event. 
 1928 – A magnum from Hardy Rodenstock was amazing with sweet fruit. Another bottle with a pale colour and very lightweight was ageing badly. Reading Penning-Rowsells and Peppercorns description of the 1928 being very pale and weak already decades ago leading me to have doubts about the magnum. 
 1929 – deep colour, very sweet – almost sickly sweet. Fake? 
 1934 – very good with concentrated fruit. Touch of eucalyptus on the nose. Very good and youthful. Out of an imperial at a Rodenstock event. 
 1943 – an oxidised and tired bottle. 
 1945 - a very impressive deep coloured wine, very concentrated and powerful. A Cuvelier bottling getting a bit old and lacking the class oft he château bottling. 
 1947 - one of the greatest legends of Bordeaux. I have had the great fortune to drink this a large number of times and it has always been extremely impressive. The van der Meulen bottling is as good as the château bottling. Great concentration of fruit with a distinct sweetness on the palate. Later tastings have shown less power and an almost burgundian sweetness and elegance. Beware of a large number of fakes. 
 1948 – one bottle ageing and tannic. Another very, very good. An unknown negociant bottling was too sweet and tarty. 
 1949 – the château bottling is a marvellous and lovely wine. A curious 1949 in a burgundy bottle was ageing badly. Another in 2004 was fantastic. A van-der-Meulen bottling was quite closed. 
 1950 – very good, tar and truffles on the nose, soft tannins. A brilliant van-den-Hove bottling. 
 1952 – a beautiful, sweet charming wine. 
 1953 – sweet and delicate. Ageing a bit now. 
 1955 – one corked bottle. 
 1959 – is spectacularly good and I have drunk it more than a dozen times over the last couple of years. Very good bottlings from the château as well as from van-der-Velde and Lafitte of Bruxelles. Still reserves for another 20 years. 
 1961 - another legendary Pétrus vintage. Very rare and extremely good. Beware of a large number of fakes. 
 1962 – elegant and quite young out of a jeroboam in 1992. 
 1964 – a great wine showing how good the 1964 vintage was on the right bank. Tasted several times – always fantastic. 
 1966 - good and elegant, if not as opulent as other vintages. 
 1967 - still very good. The wine of the vintage. 
 1970 – a wine with good concentration of lovely sweet fruit. Very good. 
 1971 – this is my personal favourite Pétrus. Not the most powerful one but with such class and style! 
 1973 - lacking charm. Drink up. Good in a magnum. 
 1975 – wonderful nose. Great concentration and a bit exotic. None of the hard 1975 tanninns. 
 1978 – a bit dull. 
 1979 – very good for the vintage. Quite tannic finish. 
 1980 - surprisingly good for the vintage. 
 1981 - quite good, but not really spectacular. 
 1982 - has a great reputation and is one of the most expensive vintages of &amp;nbsp;Pétrus. I have never been that impressed – certainly very good but not great. Lacking a bit of backbone and class for me. 
 1983 - quite good but not really a great wine. Plummy. Mature. 
 1985 - a beautiful, sweet and elegant wine. 
 1986 – sweet fruit, charming and quite long. Good for the challenging vintage. 
 1988 – a very good wine. It has taken longer to open up than the’89 and’90 but is very impressive now. 
 1989 and 1990 are stunningly spectacular wines and millionaires will have fun comparing them over the next decades. Tasting them blind at ten years of age I gave them both 19,5 points out of 20 and now wonder why I was so mean. 
 1989 – a very great wine, slightly roasted in character. Wonderful now but will last for ages. 
 1990 – similar to the 1989. Maybe a bit softer. Perfection. 
 1993 - soft fruit. Very good now. 
 1994 – very good. More Médoc than Pomerol in style. Bit tannic. 
 1995 - a very good Pétrus and one of the wines of the vintage. 
 1996 – quite closed and powerful. 
 1997 – spicy fruit. Charming. Tannins a touch unripe. 
 1998 - a great wine. Very good now but will need time to reach ist potential. 
 1999 – deep colour, touch cedary and licquerice. Soft tannins. Long. Very good. 
 2000 - &amp;nbsp;a brooding giant. Great concentration and soft tannins. Long. Fabulous future. 
 2001 – a very good wine. Sweet fruit and good balance. Good now. 
 2002 – good to drink now. Quite charming. None of the green tannins so typical oft he vintage. 
 2005 – very good and with soft tannins. Can be enjoyed already. 
 2007 – sweet and lovely to drink now. 
 2010 – similar to the 2000. Gigantic and long. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 &amp;nbsp; 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2025-11-03T08:45:00+01:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">Château Cheval Blanc - meine Erfahrungen</title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chateau-cheval-blanc-meine-erfahrungen</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chateau-cheval-blanc-meine-erfahrungen"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            Château Cheval Blanc - meine Erfahrungen
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                 Cheval Blanc 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 If I was allowed to only drink wine from one producer for the rest of my life Cheval Blanc would be one of the three I would chose from (the other two being Haut Brion and Dom Perignon). It is a wine that gives so much joy and pleasure even when quite young but also has the ability to age over several decades. 
 I once compared the wine to Sophia Loren in the 1950s and ‘60s. Round and sexy with no hard edges. You just have to love it. If I would have to convert a non-wine drinker to the glory of wine I would serve Cheval Blanc. 
 Looking through close to 300 tasting notes I had written the words “sweet fruit” almost every time but is also a wine with complexity and style in most vintages. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 Notes: 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 1920 - oxidised nose. Sweetness - not too madeirised. Négociant bottling. 
 1921 – out of a jeroboam. Lovely very sweet nose - perfumed. Cherries. And once out of a Dame Jeanne. concentrated fruity nose, very good concentrated fruit. Long. Both at Rodenstock tastings. 
 1926 - very sweet. Touch acidic. Some age. Still very nice. 
 1928 – van-der-Meulen bottling. Deep colour, sweet concentrated fruit, touch malty, bit oxidised, sweet finish. Another bottle - mature col, sweet fruit, some old age acidity, still quite good. I think this is now quite risky. 
 1929 – very good colour. Very good concentrated fruit. Long. A lovely bottle. 
 Also a suspicious Jeroboam at a Rodenstock tasting. Sweet, toffee, port, cherries. Bit one-dimensional. 
 1934 - lovely elegant nose of dried roses. Very sweet, elegant. Tannic finish. Always a wonderful wine. 
 1943 – Magnum. Sweet charming fruit. Not very complex. 
 1945 – varied bottles. Some good ones but with some dry tannins and some with unpleasant volatile acidity. 
 1947 – This is wine that could not be produced today. A wine that is technically faulty with residual sugar and volatile acidity. And still without a doubt one of the true wine legends. Instantly recognisable with its explosive nose of coffee and port. Great sweetness and power without being simple or clumsy. All 30+ bottles I have been fortunate to drink, except a few fakes, have been spectacular and memorable. A lot of this wine was bottled by wine merchants and particularly the van-der-Meulen bottling is as good as the château bottling. Also good were Justerini &amp;amp; Brooks as well as Hedges &amp;amp; Butler bottlings. This has remained fresh longer than the Pétrus and is, for me, the greatest ’47 of all (except maybe for the ultra-rare Lafleur). 
 1948 – also very, very good. Similar to the ’47 in style but without its exceptional concentration. 
 1949 – varied notes. At its best a wonderful wine. More elegant than the ’47. 
 1950 - great concentration and structure. Long. Fresh. I don’t think there is a better series of wines over four consecutive years as Cheval Blanc from 1947 to 1950. 
 1952 - lovely sweet nose. Gorgeous sweet fruit - complex. Black cherries. Long, touch tannic finish. 
 1953 - Sweet and charming. Lovely and stylish. My last note just read: “F-ing brilliant!!!” 
 1955 - deep colour, good nose-exotic - almost californian. Sweet fruit. Very good. 
 1958 - quite good nose. Good fruit. Surprisingly good. Cold tea. Soft fruit. 
 1959 – very good nose. Smoky, spicy delicate fruit. Lovely. The most memorable occasion was opening a half bottle only two thirds full that I had picked up in a mixed lot. Not having any expectations I was stunned how good it still was. Some good bottlings from Grafé-Lecocq and from Dolamore. 
 1960 - quite powerful. Touch madeira, plummy. Not very complex. 
 1961 - wonderful nose - eucalyptus. Great concentration of soft fruit - very sweet. Some tannins. Seductive but a bit too obvious to be truly great. 
 1962 - at best: good nose-sweet roses, lovely sweet wine. This is now living dangerously. 
 1964 - seductive. Lovely complex fruit. Great balance. A very sexy wine. One of the best wines in this underrated vintage. 
 1966 - great style, soft tannins, very long finish. Some bottles have shown some Médoc character. 
 1967 - delicate, some herbal elements. Good for the vintage. 
 1970 - varied notes. At best: lovely sweet, touch smoky nose. Charming. Very good but a bit simple. 
 1971 - good fruit – tea leaves. Stylish and elegant. Quite good. 
 1973 - sweet, bit tarty. Drink up. 
 1974 - goodish. Bit green. 
 1975 - almost Médoc-lead pencil nose. Good structure. Sweet fruit, softer tannins than most ‘75s. 
 1976 - maturing. Goodish. Drink up. 
 1977 - not quite as bad as expected. Green with short finish. 
 1978 - sweet fruit, charming. Drink up. 
 1979 - quite good, bit lightweight, slightly bitter finish. Drink up. 
 1980 - Not too bad for the vintage. 
 1981 - good but needs drinking. 
 1982 - I have many almost identical notes. Maturing colour, lovely explosive nose, very soft mature sweet fruit. Very good and seductive but, for me, lacking the backbone and structure to be as great as its reputation. 
 1983 - very good soft, decadent fruit. Fresher than the ’82. 
 1984 - herbal. Not very good. 
 1985 - sweet, charming, lovely. Ready now. 
 1986 - many bottles have shown a goodish spicy nose, quite lean fruit, tannic dry finish. Some with sweet fruit and some charm. 
 1988 - spicy nose - leather, very good sweet fruit, soft tannins. Long. Slightly more backward than the ‘89 and ‘90 but now hitting its stride. Underrated. 
 1989 - almost overripe fruit on the nose. Roasted soft fruit. Very nice now. 
 1990 - the greatest Cheval Blanc since 1947. Many identical notes. A wonderful nose of melted butter, sexy and delicious, lovely sweet fruit. Lomg. I bought a case of 24 ½ bottles en-primeur and usually wait 10 years before I start drinking a good Bordeaux. Being curious I opened one on arrival in 1992 and it was so seductive that I kept opening bottles whenever I felt that I deserved a reward. I must have been very good since I finished the case more than ten years ago. 
 1994 - good sweet fruit, goodish concentration, bit simple. 
 1995 – not many notes – merely goodish with a touch dry green finish. 
 1996 - as above but with better fruit. 
 1998 – a classic very good wine with structure and sweet fruit. Great future. 
 2000 - big, bombastic. Soft, concentrated fruit. Can drink now though quite tannic. 
 2001 - soft and charming. Long, attractive. Good now. 
 2003 - soft, sweet, fat. Not very complex. 
 2005 - spicy, complex, long. Some tannins. Good now but will improve with age. 
 2008 – very good. 
 2010 – deep colour, good fruit, big wine needing time. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 &amp;nbsp; 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2025-11-03T08:45:00+01:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">Rheingau Gourmet &amp; Wein Festival 2023</title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/rheingau-gourmet-wein-festival-2023</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/rheingau-gourmet-wein-festival-2023"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            26th Festival - Château Margaux in 25 vintages
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                 I just realised how long it was since I added something to the Blog. Shame on me. 
 2023 was the 26th Festival and I have taken part in all of them. A fantastic series of tastings, dinners and lunches. Here are some notes from some of the events: 
 25 vintages of Château Margaux: 
 Flight 1: 
 1978 - Very good. Start of the Margaux revival.&amp;nbsp; 
 1979 - Quite similar to 1978 and 1981. Drink soon. 
 1981 - Bit fresher than the 1979. 
 1982 - Soft sweet fruit. Very attractive. 
 1983 - Very good fruit and structure. Long finish. My favourite 
 Flight 2: 
 1991 - Bit lightweight - still quite good and elegant.&amp;nbsp; 
 1993 - Good. Fresh fruit. Tannic finish. 
 1994 - Good fruit. I prefer this to the 1993. 
 1995 - Good fresh fruit. None of the dry tannins of many 1995s. 
 1996 - Very good concentrated fruit. Great Cabernet nose with a hint of eucalyptus. Still soft tannins. Will age well. My favourite. 
 Flight 3: 
 1955 - One bottle was oxidised. The second fine but needs drinking. 
 1959 - Very good. Still a joy to drink. My favourite this time. 
 1961 - Usually a touch better than the 1959 but this time just beaten. Normally, for me, one of the very greatest wines from Château Margaux. 
 1966 - Unfortunately oxidised. Can be quite good but needs drinking. 
 1970 - Not bad but very disappointing for the vintage. 
 1975 - Quite typical for the vintage. Some fruit and lots of dry tannins. 
 Flight 4: 
 1999 - Very good now. Good fruit. 
 2000 - Great concentration. Long with soft tannins. More approachable than I thought. My favourite. 
 2003 - Good with concentrated fruit. Enough acidity for ageing? 
 2006 - Young, soft. Needs time. 90% Cabernet. 
 2010 - A giant. Big, concentrated fruit. Tannic. Needs time. 
 Flight 5: 
 1984 - Lean. Dry tannins. 
 1986 - Concentration of fruit but also dry tannins. Will it ever come around? 
 1988 - Similar to 1986 but with softer tannins. 
 1989 - Good with soft tannins. Ready. 
 1990 - Very good ripe fruit. Soft tannins - ready now. My favourite. 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 &amp;nbsp; 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2023-06-08T18:00:00+02:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">Weingut Dr. Loosen</title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/weingut-dr.-loosen</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/weingut-dr.-loosen"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            Informationen über das Weingut Dr. Loosen
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                  Ernst Loosen  
 Als Ernst Loosen das Weingut seiner Familie übernahm, hatte er bereits zahlreiche Reisen zu den weltweit angesehensten Weingütern hinter sich. Er wollte das Geheimnis wahrhaft großer Weine ergründen, um dann selbst Weltklasse-Weine zu machen. Diese Entdeckungsreisen inspirierten Ernst Loosen zu seiner eigenen Wein Philosophie: Große Weine sind der perfekte Ausdruck des Bodens, des Klimas und der Rebsorte. 
  DAS MIKROKLIMA  
 Die nach Süden ausgerichteten Steillagen und ihre Nähe zur Mosel erzeugen ein perfektes Mikroklima für unseren Riesling. Der Südhang garantiert Sonnenlicht von morgens bis abends; der Steilhang lässt den Boden durch wenig Schattenwurf ideal erwärmen. Zusätzlich reflektiert die Mosel tagsüber die Sonnenstrahlen in den Weinberg, während sie nachts die gespeicherte Wärme abgibt und so für ein ausgeglichenes Mikroklima sorgt. Eine lange Vegetationsperiode erlaubt es den Trauben, langsam zu reifen und dabei ihre erfrischende Säure zu bewahren. 
  DER SCHIEFERBODEN  
 Der steinige Schieferboden, der an der Oberfläche des Weinbergs zu sehen ist, reflektiert während des Tages das Sonnenlicht zu den Trauben und speichert gleichzeitig einen Großteil der Wärme. Diese wird langsam an die unteren Bodenschichten abgegeben, wodurch auch in den kühleren Nächten ein sehr ausgeglichener Wärmehaushalt für die Rebstöcke erzeugt wird. Der Schiefer ist sehr kaliumhaltig und somit eine reichhaltige, natürliche Mineralienquelle. Er verleiht dem Moselriesling seinen unverwechselbaren mineralischen und lebendigen Charakter. 
  ALTE, WURZELECHTE REBSTÖCKE  
 Aufgrund der sehr steinhaltigen und skelettreichen Böden ist ein großer Teil der Mosel noch reblausfrei. Alle sich im Eigentum von Dr. Loosen befindlichen Weinbergsparzellen sind noch mit wurzelechten Reben bepflanzt. Teilweise sind diese Rebstöcke bis zu 100 Jahre alt. 
  RIESLING  
 Dr. Loosen konzentriert sich auf Riesling. Keine andere Rebsorte ist so erstaunlich vielseitig. Nicht nur, dass Riesling in einzigartiger Weise das Terroir eines Weinbergs widerspiegelt, diese Rebsorte ermöglicht auch eindrucksvolle Weine unterschiedlichster Art – von knochentrocken bis edelsüß. 
 Der Schlüssel zur Top-Qualität eines Weines liegt in der strengen Trauben-Selektion. So entscheiden wir während der Lese täglich neu, welche Trauben wir lesen und haben dabei den aktuellen Reifegrad und die Wetterverhältnisse stets fest im Blick. 
 Unzählige Trauben-Partien werden so einzeln vinifiziert. Aber nur die besten Weine einer Einzellage kommen auf die Flasche. 
 Je nach Reifegrad unterscheiden wir bei den Prädikatsweinen ohne Botrytis drei Qualitätsstufen: 
  KABINETT:  
 Zart, frisch und fein soll der typische Mosel-Kabinett schmecken. Er entsteht aus gesunden, normal gereiften Trauben, die zu Beginn der Lese gepflückt werden. 
  SPÄTLESE:  
 Diese Weine sind körperreicher, tiefer und komplexer. Die Trauben sind noch reifer und werden später gelesen als beim Kabinett. 
  AUSLESE:  
 Spät gelesene hochreife selektierte Trauben ergeben sehr langlebige traumhaft konzentrierte, vor Frucht und Mineralität strotzende Weine. 
  BOTRITIS  
 Der Schimmelpilz Botrytis Cinera zählt zu den wunderbarsten Gaben der Natur. Wenn er in den herbstlich-nebelverhangenen Morgenstunden die Reben befällt, können wir einige der atemberaubendsten Dessertweine der Welt herstellen. Der Botrytis-Pilz entzieht nämlich den Trauben Wasser und hinterlässt einen hochkonzentrierten Nektar. Diese edelfaulen Trauben selektieren wir akribisch und erzeugen damit Weine in drei Qualitätsstufen: 
  AUSLESE-GOLDKAPSEL:  
 Die tiefe Frucht hochreifer Trauben gewinnt durch die begonnene Schrumpfung eine neue Dimension an Konzentration und Komplexität. 
  BEERENAUSLESE:  
 Ein reichhaltiger, dichter Dessertwein aus Trauben, die vollständig von Bortytis befallen sind und um die Hälfte geschrumpft sind. 
  TROCKENBEERENAUSLESE:  
 Die Königin aller Dessertweine, überwältigend dicht und komplex. Wird aus Trauben gewonnen, die vollständig zu Rosinen geschrumpft sind. 
 Junge Botrytis-Weine betören – je nach Qualitätsstufe – mit intensiven Aromen von Feigen, Datteln und getrockneten Aprikosen. Die mitunter enorme Süße wird von einer kräftigen Säure balanciert. Je reifer die Weine, desto feiner und nuancenreicher werden sie, wobei Sü-ße, Säure und Mineralität immer besser harmonieren. 
 Wer je das Glück hatte, eine 30 jährige Trockenbeerenauslese von der Mosel zu probieren, ist überwältigt von der Finesse und Komplexität des Weins – ein unvergesslicher Genuss! 
 Solche edelsüßen Meisterwerke können nicht in jedem Jahr erzeugt werden. Wenn aber das Wetter stimmt, werden die Beeren einzeln von Hand selektiert und mit einer speziellen Presse gekeltert. Ein teures, arbeitsintensives Unterfangen, aber die Mühe lohnt sich angesichts dieser wundervollen Gabe der Natur. 
  Kurzinfo zum Weingut:  
 Gesamte Rebfläche: 22 ha 
 Jährliche Produktion: 180.000 Flaschen 
 Rebsortenspiegel: 98 %Riesling, 2% Weißburgunder 
 Große Lagen: Bernkasteler Lay, Erdener Prälat, Erdener Treppchen, Graacher Himmelreich, Ürziger Würzgarten, Wehlener Sonnenuhr 
 &amp;nbsp; 
 *Quelle Dr.Loosen 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2017-08-23T23:00:00+02:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">Chartogne-Taillet</title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chartogne-taillet</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/chartogne-taillet"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            Chartogne-Taillet
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                  Die Familie  
 1485 war Fiacre Taillet, der erste einer langen Reihe von Winzern in der Familie.&amp;nbsp; 
 Ein weiterer Fiacre Taillet, geb. 1700, war ein erfolgreicher Winzer im frühen 18. Jahrhundert, der umfangreiche Memoiren über sein Leben und seine Arbeit, sowie das wirtschaftliche, kulturelle und politische Umfeld der Region schrieb. Diese Arbeit führten im Anschluss Laurent und später Antoine Taillet fort. Diese Protokolle dieser Familientradition wurden von Generation zu Generation und von Vater zu Sohn weitergegeben. Dieses Wissen wurde ebenso von Philippe und Elisabeth an ihren Sohn Alexandre weitergereicht. 
 Seit 2006 widmet sich Alexandre mit Hingabe und Leidenschaft dieser Arbeit. 
  Das Dorf Merfy  
 Die Weingüter von Merfy befinden sich in der Montage de Reims, 8 Kilometer von Reims entfernt an der Südspitze des Massif de Saint-Thierry, einem Gebiet, das ein lange Weinbau-Tradition genießt. 
 Diese süd- südöstlich gelegenen Hänge sind seit der Ankunft der Römer mit Reben bepflanzt und wurden im 7. Jahrhundert von Mönchen aus der Abtei von Saint-Thierry stetig weiterentwickelt. 
 Schon im 9. Jahrhundert repräsentierten die Weinberge, die diese Abtei umgaben, die höchste Konzentration des Weinbergs in der Champagne. Das Dorf Merfy ist seit langem für die Qualität seiner Weine bekannt. Merfys Weine wurden an den Tischen der Könige serviert und bereits im 12. Jahrhundert exportiert. 
 Merfy produziert weiterhin außergewöhnliche Champagner, Repräsentativ für seine unverwechselbaren Böden und Weinberge. Bei Chartogne-Taillet werden alle Champagner in den Weinbergen von Merfy angebaut. 
  Herstellung:  
 Die Champagner von Chartogne-Taillet werden in den Kellern unter dem Haus der Familie in Merfy, im Zentrum des Dorfes, vinifiziert und gealtert. Alle Winzerprozesse, vom Pressen bis zur Abfüllung bis zur Verschleierung, werden auf unserem Gelände durchgeführt und sorgen für die Qualität der einzelnen Cuvée.&amp;nbsp; 
 Im Mittelpunkt unserer Arbeit steht die Suche nach der individuellen Identität unserer Böden, die es unseren Weinen ermöglicht, einen authentischen und repräsentativen Charakter zu vermitteln, der für unser Dorf einzigartig ist.&amp;nbsp; 
 Jeder Wein wird nach seinem Charakter und seiner Alterungsfähigkeit überwacht und ausgewertet. Es wird dann mit minimalem Eingriff entblößt und auf einem Niveau dosiert, das von einem Wein zum nächsten variiert, bestimmt durch Verkostung. Das bewahrt die optimale Qualität und den individuellen Ausdruck jedes Champagner. 
  Die Vinifikation  
  • Pressen:  Die Trauben werden in einer von zwei pneumatischen Pressen gepresst, die jeweils unterschiedlich funktionieren. Die erste macht die Weine an die Luft, während die zweite mehr Schutz gegen Sauerstoff bietet. Das Pressen ist lang und sanft, um den feinsten und zartesten Saft aus den Trauben zu erhalten.&amp;nbsp; 
  • Fermentation:  Die Gärung ist der erste Schritt nach dem Pressen und wird mit Hefen durchgeführt, die dem Wein selbst nativ sind und alle ursprünglichen Eigenschaften des Weines bewahren. Die malolaktische Fermentation darf auch natürlich ohne Eingriff des Winzers erfolgen.&amp;nbsp; 
  • Ausbau:  Ob in Edelstahltanks, Eichenfässern oder Zementfässern, jeder Wein darf im Gefäß gedeihen, für den es am besten geeignet ist. Diese Wahl wird durch unsere Erfahrungen der Vorjahre sowie durch das Potenzial eines jeden unserer Weinbergpakete bestimmt.&amp;nbsp; 
  • Lagerung:  Die Weine verbringen zwischen 8 und 18 Monaten des Alterns in unserem Wannenraum, je nach der Entwicklung jedes einzelnen Weins. Danach werden sie ohne Filtration abgefüllt. Kaltstabilisierung erfolgt natürlich, unter Ausnutzung des kalten Winterwetters. 
  Das Weingut Chartogne-Taillet auf einen Blick  
 - 11 Hektar Rebfläche 
 - 2 Champagnerpressen (bis zu 4000 Kg) 
 - 13 einzelne Weinbergparzellen&amp;nbsp; 
 - 4 Rebsorten: Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Meunier und Arbanne 
 - Ausbau mit &amp;nbsp;Eichenfässern, Edelstahltanks, Amphoren und Zement Eiern 
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2017-08-17T09:30:00+02:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
    
        <entry>
            <title type="text">Weinlaubenhof KRACHER </title>
            <id>https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/weinlaubenhof-kracher</id>
            <link href="https://www.rare-wine.com/de/blog/weinlaubenhof-kracher"/>
            <summary type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                
                                            Der Weinlaubenhof KRACHER im Burgenland eines der bekanntesten Weingüter Österreichs.
                                        ]]>
            </summary>
            <content type="html">
                <![CDATA[
                  WEINGUT  
 Der Weinlaubenhof Kracher liegt im „Seewinkel“ im österreichischen Burgenland. Dort, wo durch die Verdunstung am See, die Abendnebel und das warme pannonische Klima ständig feucht-warme Witterungswechsel vorherrschen, entsteht die Botrytis cinerea, die Grundlage für phantastische Süßweine wie Beerenauslesen und Trockenbeerenauslesen. 
 Aus den Rebsorten Welschriesling, Chardonnay, Traminer, Scheurebe, Muskat-Ottonel und hin und wieder auch Zweigelt kreierte Alois Kracher jedes Jahr 10 bis 15 verschiedene Trockenbeerenauslesen in zwei verschiedenen Ausbaustilistiken. &amp;nbsp; 
 „Zwischen den Seen“ heissen jene Weine, die in großen Holzfässern oder Edelstahltanks ausgebaut werden und die klassische Stilistik der Region aufweisen. Die Weine der Linie „Nouvelle Vague“ werden in neuen Barriques vinifiziert. Sie zeichnen sich durch Tiefe, Würze und Nachhaltigkeit aus. 
 Gerhard Kracher führt nun das Weingut mit der gleichen Hingabe und derselben Dynamik wie sein Vater weiter. 
 Das Angebot des zweifellos bekanntesten österreichischen Weingutes umfasst neben den weltweit berühmten Trockenbeerenauslesen auch Beerenauslesen, Auslesen, Eiswein und kleine Mengen an trockenem Weiß- und Rotwein. 
  REGION &quot;DER SEEWINKEL&quot;  
 Der &quot;Seewinkel&quot; im Burgenland ist ein etwa 20 km breiter Landstreifen entlang des Ostufers des Neusiedlersees, dem größten Steppensee Europas. Im Seewinkel liegen die Dörfer Illmitz, Apetlon und Podersdorf. Es ist eine endlose Ebene, die von zahlreichen kleinen und großen Lacken durchsetzt ist. Die Weite der Landschaft wird durch den für die pannonische Tiefebene so typischen Dunstnebel noch unterstrichen, der endlose Himmel ist selten blitzblau, meist ein wenig diesig. 
  DAS KLIMA  
 Das pannonische, kontinentale Klima sorgt für heiße, trockene Sommer und sehr kalte Winter. Durch die weite Wasserfläche des Sees werden die Extreme der Witterung gemildert, und dadurch entsteht ein ganz spezifisches Kleinklima, das von großer Bedeutung für den Weinbau ist. Durch die Verdunstung am See, durch die zahllosen Lacken und die feuchten Wiesen entsteht im Herbst oft Abendnebel, der sich bis in den Vormittag des nächsten Tages hinein hält und dann von der kräftigen Herbstsonne aufgetrocknet wird. Dieser tägliche feucht-warme Witterungswechsel ist Voraussetzung für die wunderbare Botrytis cinerea, die hier am Neusiedlersee fast jährlich auftritt und für phantastische Süßweine wie Beerenauslesen und Trockenbeerenauslesen sorgt. 
  DIE WEINGÄRTEN  
 Die Weingärten vom Weinlaubenhof Kracher liegen zwischen Illmitz und dem Ufer des Neusiedlersees. Für das ungeschulte Auge präsentiert sich die Gegend völlig flach, doch Gerhard Kracher weist auf die „Berge“ hin: Geländewellen von ein bis eineinhalb Metern Höhe, die wesentlichen Einfluss auf die Entwicklung der Trauben und vor allem auf die Qualität der Botrytis haben. 
 Gerhard Kracher hat seine Rebanlagen in hoher Pflanzdichte bestockt, um die Rebstöcke zu „stressen“ und damit geringere Menge doch mehr Konzentration in den Trauben zu ernten. Traditionelle Rebsorten sind der Welschriesling, Chardonnay, Traminer, Weißburgunder sowie auch Sämling 88 (Scheurebe). 
 Zu unseren Kracher-Weinen folgen Sie bitte diesem  Link.  
 &amp;nbsp; 
  *Quelle www.kracher.at  
                ]]>
            </content>

                            <updated>2017-08-09T13:15:00+02:00</updated>
                    </entry>

    
</feed>
