Having just done an in depth tasting of Magdelaine the week before, it was interesting to compare and contrast the two chateaux.
While Magdelaine operated within a 93-98 point spread, VCC is certainly capable of 100 point scores, and the 1949 and 1953 were both examples. Utterly profound wines from the Golden Age of VCC before the frosts of 1956 required some serious replanting.
I did not write detailed notes, in fact wrote no notes at all, so this all from memory.
Let’s get the failures out of the way.
The 1975 Margaux served blind at the end of the tasting was dying when opened, but completed the process within a minute or two.
1989 was a spoiled bottle. Recently tasted a fabulous magnum; this was heat damaged and unpleasant.
2009 was also not a success but not as bad as the others, but I have had much better examples, but don’t think it is one of the great VCCs
Now to the good stuff.
2014 is one of my favorite wines. Showed young and very well in a fairly austere style. 94
- Alcohol well integrated. Large scale but nicely balanced. More open than 2005. 94
2005
Very backward. Like Magdelaine, needs decades, but much as I liked the Magdelaine, this will be better. 97
2000
Interesting how this was rich and pleasant again, the vintage defined the wine as with Magdelaine. 94
1998
An excellent wine but prior to the tasting I had opened another bottle, and both bottles seemed to be fairly closed. A bottle from last year was clearly much more open, and really profound. 93?
1990
A fine wine in early maturity. Still more fruit than tertiary stuff, but evolving beautifully. 94
1985
This was gorgeous and well worth seeking out. I am finding the vintage has evolved extremely well producing wonderfully balanced wines. The VCC had that balance with some lovely notes floral and cassis 96
1975
Pomerols in this vintage did pretty well, but there always seems to be a hard tannic edge to them. Still showing but plenty of fruit and the beginning of some interesting earthy notes. 92
1970
Although a perfectly nice wine, this was clearly less exciting than I expected. It was the only wine that showed it’s mortality, it wasn’t over the hill but you could see it’s path. Fruit still there but forest floor and mushroom. 91
1966
It seems this is where where the 1985 was heading. Balanced, beautifully made, old fashioned, lots of tertiary stuff with a beautiful gilding of fruit. At the height of its powers. 95
1964
Note to self, do not put the 1964 in a flight with 1961, 1953 and 1949. Everyone noted it was a very good wine, but compared to the other three it just seemed muted. Balanced, with some fruit and a touch of violets, earth and a medium finish. 92
1961
Concentrated and intense, the ‘61 would have run away with most tastings but then it would not have had to compete with 1949 and ‘53. This was a masculine wine, powerful, and uncompromising. No real hint of delicacy but waves of fruit, spices and floral elements. A superb layered finish 98
1953 and 1949
I am going to group these together as there was more similarity than difference. The frosts of 1956 which destroyed much of the vineyard, came after, so these were old vine bottles. It was hard to pick a winner, these were wines of balance and concentration with every one of the hallmarks of the chateau; the fruit, violets, licorice and leather and the slow appearance of earth and mushroom. Exquisite and long. The 1949 may have been slightly more tertiary but it would have reflected the slight difference in age. 100 and 100.