Here is a perfect example of why you have to take the mainstrem wine press with a grain of salt. 

Wine Spectator reviewed this wine when it was released in 1998 and said "fresh and fruity with smooth tannins... drink upon release (1998) through 2003". 

Robert Parker reviewed the wine itwice n the Wine Advocate (1997 and 1999) and said the wine had "high aggressive tannins....and should be purchased only by those with the patience to let it develop...anticipated maturity 2004-2015".

There are a few problems here.  It's easy to see that the two reviews couldn't be more differing.  Someone thought it had smooth tannins and should be drunk immediately, and someone else thought it had harsh tannins and needed almost a decade of cellaring.  Both critics have refined palates, and are full time professional wine critics.  So if the experts can not agree, it just tells us that drinking wine, like judging beauty, is all a matter of personal preference.  The second problem is that the wine was reviewed when it was very young, and no one has bothered to review it since!  Yet these two reviews are still posted on the web sites of Robert Parker and Wine Spectator.  Is it possible that the wine has matured into something different than when those reviews were written almost a decade ago?  Is the wine past it's prime, or is it still too young?  The only way to find out is taste it!

Now 1996 was considered a mediocre year for the Southern Rhone region, but often times this means that good wines can be found at good prices.  It's another silly aspect of wine purchasing.  Why do consumers think that if there is a mediocre year, you can't have excellent wine?  Nothing could be further from  the truth.  It just means winemakers may not have as many high quality grapes to choose from, and therefore will need to cut back production that year and not make as many bottles of wine.  So in essence, you keep quality high, but volume lower than normal.  The unused grapes can be sold to someone else to make cheap bulk wine.  This is what good winemakers do in bad years.  Bad winemakers will use all their gapes, even if they are bad grapes, and the quality of the final product is poor.  Good winemakers also take steps to mitigate the effect of difficult growing conditions, whereas bad wineries do not.  So when the wine consumer thinks that good wine makers can not make good wine in a bad year, it translates to good wine going un-sold at the market place, and a wonderful buying opportunity for those "in the know".

So how did the unevenly reviewed Beaucastel from a mediocre vintage taste?  In a word, EXCELLENT.  A huge bouquet of smoked game, pepper, licorice, and rich spice followed by a tongue drenching lucious wine.  There is still plenty of fruit here, and the "harsh tannins" that may have been present in 1999 have melted away.  The tannin is now beautifully integrated.  The wine has a lovely peppery/spicy twist on the mid-palate.  The finish is smooth, and lasts for at least 30 seconds.  There is, however, enough tannin that I am sure the wine will last for another 5 years at least.  I have no doubt that the fruit will hold up as well.  For those who like robust Chateauneuf, this is a nice wine.  It has already matured, and is certainly ready to drink.   Because of the so-so vintage and the irregular reviews, the wine can be found selling at prices equal to or less than new, unaged vintages!  Now that's a good deal!  If you see it, buy it.  I give this wine 4 stars,

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion