1989 Montrose from an old(er) timer

The 3rd of 6 bought on release. Purchased when I was still buying Cabernet based wines. This bottle was fantastic, but still needs more time. (More so than the first two bottles. Perfect cork saturated less than 1/8 of the way up). Still dark purple with some bricking around the edges. Fantastic nose on opening but a little tight initially on the palate. After a few hours it started to open . There was beautiful cases fruit, floral, earthy, tobacco, tar, and spice aromas. There were still tannins that needed to be resolved. A fantastic palate of dark fruit, earthy secondary flavors, and great fruit, acid , tannin balance. The tannins mellowed after a few hours. A very special bottle of wine!

After starting my wine journey with Heitz, Stags Leap, and BV in the early 70’s, then 82, 86, 89, and some 90’s Bordeaux I stopped purchasing Cabernet almost completely. Still have plenty stocked away and these can be spectacular with age. And again as an old(er) timer it’s fun to see the original price tag on the bottle. $34.95.

7 Likes

Thanks for the note, Daniel,
I’ve enjoyed the '89 more than once as well–and somehow I feel that I can always count on Montrose. But I am curious: after you stopped buying Cabernet based wines, where did you go, Pinot, Burgundy, like so many of us? (I myself still buy all sorts, though mostly the latter, including much more white Burgundy of late–seems to be the last stop on that train.)

At its best, I think the 1990 Montrose is a better wine than the 1989, but the Bret in the 1990 can make it undrinkable. I have it had around ten times, and four or so have had problems. I have never had any bad bottles of the 1989, which I agree is a lovely wine.

Aaah, that old debate, Mark!
I like the '90 also. I just find them different wines, with maybe the St. Estephe character, blood and iron, showing through a bit more in the '89, but the '90 prettier and in some respects more profound, still classical in its own way. Or do you have a different read on the difference between them?

For me, the ‘90 is Jekyll and Hyde. Somehow there are great bottles (the best ones I have had were from European cellars) but the bad ones are flawed from Brett. I could and have picked it several times blind, it is distinctive and unpleasant. I sold all my bottles (the remaining case and a half) because I hated the suspense when I opened a bottle. Within the same case, there were superb and horrid bottles.

The 1989s never hit the heights of the great 1990s, but I have yet to experience a bad bottle. So with such a large percentage of flawed bottles, if I were offered to choose an unopened bottle of the two vintages, I would opt for 1989.

Both the 89 and 90 are wonderful. Have had the 90 only two times. One was very very good and seemed to be fully mature. The other was not quite as good, and it seemed a bid out of wack compared to a 90 Haut Brion it was paired with. The 89s have always been reliably good.
Joshua,
Yes Burgundy came next. Both red and white, and also some Barolo and Barbaresco. With some bad premature oxidized white burgundys champagne took hold. So now it’s predominantly red burgundy and champagne. Both great food wines. Sushi and rose champagne. Yum