2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru.
 

2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru. *****

Deep dark red, with hints of amber. Blackcurrant nose. Some sediment. Dark black fruits, earthy, cedar, nice rough tannins. Very good for a french wine, like an overpriced Quantum with some more age.

Had it with 2 h decant, before during and after a good steak from the butcher with oven baked taters redwine sauce (using the Morgon I disliked) and butter sauteed asparagus.

I think it can stand a few more years (cellartracker suggests "Drink by 2014").

2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru.
 

Michael Nielsen > wrote in
:

> 2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru. *****
>
> Deep dark red, with hints of amber. Blackcurrant nose. Some sediment.
> Dark black fruits, earthy, cedar, nice rough tannins. Very good for a
> french wine, like an overpriced Quantum with some more age.
>
> Had it with 2 h decant, before during and after a good steak from the
> butcher with oven baked taters redwine sauce (using the Morgon I
> disliked) and butter sauteed asparagus.
>
> I think it can stand a few more years (cellartracker suggests "Drink
> by 2014").


Michael... that's a Bordeaux Blend with Merlot as the dominant grape on the
blend.

Seems you may like Merlot after all <pun intended>

Nice wine from a very modern producer (group) and a very hot vintage.

If you like that wine you may also like: Fombrauge, Les Grands Chenes (same
group), and also Poujeaux and probably most of the wines from Michel
Rolland or Stéphane Derenoncourt.

2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru.
 

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 4:42:01 PM UTC+1, santiago wrote:
> Michael... that's a Bordeaux Blend with Merlot as the dominant grape on the
> blend.
>


Nope. it is cab driven (like my beloved napa meritages hehe). 53% Cabernet Sauvignon, 33% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Franc and 4% Petit Verdot.


> If you like that wine you may also like: Fombrauge, Les Grands Chenes (same
> group), and also Poujeaux and probably most of the wines from Michel
> Rolland or Stéphane Derenoncourt.

They do not ring a bell. Ill keep an eye out.

2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru.
 

Michael Nielsen > wrote in
:
>
>
> Nope. it is cab driven (like my beloved napa meritages hehe). 53%
> Cabernet Sauvignon, 33% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Franc and 4% Petit
> Verdot.

Michael, La Tour Carnet, the property, is more than 60% Merlot. It is
possible that in 2003, which was a very hot year, they decided to keep
Merlot down since it is the grape that ripens the first and maybe some lots
were too high in alcohol before arriving to physiological ripeness. Not
that high alcohol is typically a problem for M. Magrez.

s.

2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru.
 

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 9:38:25 PM UTC+1, santiago wrote:
> Michael, La Tour Carnet, the property, is more than 60% Merlot. It is
> possible that in 2003, which was a very hot year, they decided to keep
> Merlot down since it is the grape that ripens the first and maybe some lots
> were too high in alcohol before arriving to physiological ripeness. Not
> that high alcohol is typically a problem for M. Magrez.

The property has 50% merlot, but that means nothing regarding how much gets into the wine. Seems it changes a lot by vintage:


2003: 53% Cabernet Sauvignon, 33% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Franc and 4% Petit Verdot"
2005: 58% Cabernet Sauvignon,42% Merlot
2006: 50% Merlot, 40% Cabernet Sauvignon
2010: 53% Merlot and the rest Cabernet Sauvignon and small quantities of Cabernet Franc and Petit Verdot.
2011: 57% Merlot, 39% Cabernet Sauvignon and the rest Cabernet Franc and Petit Verdot
2012: Merlot 66% with the rest mostly Cabernet Sauvignon

Im surprised that the blend changes that much form year to year. how can it be considered the same wine.

2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru.
 

In message >
Michael Nielsen > wrote:

> On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 9:38:25 PM UTC+1, santiago wrote:
>> Michael, La Tour Carnet, the property, is more than 60% Merlot. It is
>> possible that in 2003, which was a very hot year, they decided to keep
>> Merlot down since it is the grape that ripens the first and maybe some lots
>> were too high in alcohol before arriving to physiological ripeness. Not
>> that high alcohol is typically a problem for M. Magrez.

> The property has 50% merlot, but that means nothing regarding how much
> gets into the wine. Seems it changes a lot by vintage:


> 2003: 53% Cabernet Sauvignon, 33% Merlot, 10% Cabernet Franc and 4%
> Petit Verdot"
> 2005: 58% Cabernet Sauvignon,42% Merlot
> 2006: 50% Merlot, 40% Cabernet Sauvignon
> 2010: 53% Merlot and the rest Cabernet Sauvignon and small quantities
> of Cabernet Franc and Petit Verdot.
> 2011: 57% Merlot, 39% Cabernet Sauvignon and the rest Cabernet Franc
> and Petit Verdot
> 2012: Merlot 66% with the rest mostly Cabernet Sauvignon

> Im surprised that the blend changes that much form year to year. how
> can it be considered the same wine.



This is not untypical of the year to year variation of many, though by
no means all, Bordeaux blends — with perhaps the exception of 2012
where the variation does seem great given that — according to its
website — the vineyard is planted to 40% Cabernet Sauvignon, 50%
Merlot, 7% Cabernet Franc and 3% Petit Verdot. The growers seek to
make what they regard as the best wine possible from the vintage so
that in a hot year the proportion of Cabernet is likely to increase
to bring freshness to the wine which would otherwise be lacking in
that year. In a lighter or cooler year the proportion of Merlot is
likely to be higher to give the extra fruit and fullness to the wine.
Those growers who are particularly concerned to express terroir rather
than make a very modern wine which could be from anywhere will try to
achieve a wine which does just that and which will be recognisable as
their estate‘s wine from year to year even if it varies somewhat in
blend.

Tim Hartley

2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru.
 

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 1:11:17 PM UTC+1, Timothy Hartley wrote:
>
> This is not untypical of the year to year variation of many, though by
> no means all, Bordeaux blends -- with perhaps the exception of 2012
> where the variation does seem great given that -- according to its
> website -- the vineyard is planted to 40% Cabernet Sauvignon, 50%
> Merlot, 7% Cabernet Franc and 3% Petit Verdot. The growers seek to
> make what they regard as the best wine possible from the vintage so
> that in a hot year the proportion of Cabernet is likely to increase
> to bring freshness to the wine which would otherwise be lacking in
> that year. In a lighter or cooler year the proportion of Merlot is
> likely to be higher to give the extra fruit and fullness to the wine.
> Those growers who are particularly concerned to express terroir rather
> than make a very modern wine which could be from anywhere will try to
> achieve a wine which does just that and which will be recognisable as
> their estate's wine from year to year even if it varies somewhat in
> blend.
>

Aha. I thought the goal of tweaking the blend was to make as uniform a wine as possible from year to year - changing the blend being "tweaking" - subtle changes in the blend, not tipping over the balance completely. So when noting that I like a wine, I have to note the name and vintage.
Wine ={Name, Vintage} is the correct identifier for that wine I tasted and like. {Name,Vintage+1} can be a completely different wine.
Maybe that's why I feel safer with Californian wines as they are more equal between vintages.

2003 La Tour Carnet, Haut-Medoc Grand Cru Classe 4.cru.
 

In message >
Michael Nielsen > wrote:

> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 1:11:17 PM UTC+1, Timothy Hartley wrote:
>>
>> This is not untypical of the year to year variation of many, though by
>> no means all, Bordeaux blends -- with perhaps the exception of 2012
>> where the variation does seem great given that -- according to its
>> website -- the vineyard is planted to 40% Cabernet Sauvignon, 50%
>> Merlot, 7% Cabernet Franc and 3% Petit Verdot. The growers seek to
>> make what they regard as the best wine possible from the vintage so
>> that in a hot year the proportion of Cabernet is likely to increase
>> to bring freshness to the wine which would otherwise be lacking in
>> that year. In a lighter or cooler year the proportion of Merlot is
>> likely to be higher to give the extra fruit and fullness to the wine.
>> Those growers who are particularly concerned to express terroir rather
>> than make a very modern wine which could be from anywhere will try to
>> achieve a wine which does just that and which will be recognisable as
>> their estate's wine from year to year even if it varies somewhat in
>> blend.
>>

> Aha. I thought the goal of tweaking the blend was to make as uniform a
> wine as possible from year to year - changing the blend being
> "tweaking" - subtle changes in the blend, not tipping over the balance
> completely. So when noting that I like a wine, I have to note the name
> and vintage.
> Wine ={Name, Vintage} is the correct identifier for that wine I tasted
> and like. {Name,Vintage+1} can be a completely different wine.
> Maybe that's why I feel safer with Californian wines as they are more
> equal between vintages.

The best growers know that they cannot make the same wine as last
year. They do not have — or very rarely have - the same weather notr
do they pick at the same time. Equally they do not have many acres
of ground from which to blend, helping to iron out the combined
effects of terroir and weather which big New World estates have. It
is that which make European wines both special and difficult. Their
aim, as I say unless they have fallen prey to the idea of a two
dimensional,fruit jam confection, is to make wine which they believe
truly represents in their style the best of what nature has given them
in the year in question on the soil in question. However as I say,
whilst uniformity is not possible if they stay true to terroir, that
does not mean in any way that the wines are completely different in
their essentials or will not be recognisable as a particular estate's
wine from year to year even if they vary somewhat in blend. I find if
you like a wine from one vintage you are very likely to like it in
other vintages too — especially those of similar quality to the one
you first admired. But, yes, I agree you do need to remember name +
vintage in a way you do not with New World wines.

You will find the same thing with many of the smaller Champagne
growers too — they are making a wine which is true to terroir rather
than a bland same as last year stereotype such as the big Champagne
houses make at the bottom to mid end of their ranges.


Tim Hartley