Montrose 1990

This has always been a bit of a controversial wine in my mind, never living up to my expectations. I suppose I need to curl up with a bottle for five hours, as Mr. Squires insists, one of these days; my one Achilles' heel as a wine writer is that I tend to experience many wines at once and smaller samples. I enjoy the comparison and contrast of that format most; however, I do recognize that my impressions may be more snapshots than full length videos, but I doubt that I am alone in that regard when it comes to those in the business of publishing their notes. Back to the 1990&the nose had that greenish hue with the bean but also a sweet pinch of cinnamon, and there were much more pronounced aromas of barnyard and animal, which has always been one of my issues with this wine. There were a lot of horses racing around my glass, thoroughbreds perhaps, but horses nonetheless. A touch of morning mouth did not help, and I am talking about the wine and not me. The nose needed a lot of coaxing to shed its animal skin and don a mineral one. Once that skin was shed, I slowly started to become more infatuated with the wine and found more mocha, coffee and piercing minerals within. The horsy quality faded back in and out; it was a wine that almost needed to be swirled a few minutes before each sip and evaluation. The richness of fruit was clearly superior though, but its animal components kept distracting me. The plump, rich and fat fruit combined with its elegant and long acidity won me over a bit, but I still have my doubts about this 'modern-day legend'

A fascinating wine as it a controversial one. When released, I think Parker gave it 100, or certainly close to. Clive Coates utterly dismissed it. At the time, Parker seemed spot on and Coates out of whack. Coates later recanted, to a degree, though never to the extent that Parker loved it. And I’ll confess to buying a few bottles at the time. It does seem that the dreaded brett emerged and overtook many of the bottles (possibly not everything was bottled at the same time and there may be variation?). On the day, some liked this. Others did not. I did not (and as one or two of those bottles are still in the cellar, I really wanted to love this). For me, definitely some brett (and I work on the principle that if I can pick it, then it really must be rife). A little fruit remaining but dulled by the faults. What was really frustrating was that there was just enough fruit to reveal what might have been. It should have been glorious. There was, however, absolutely no length to it.

 Bacchus was shining on us today because 1990 is either murdered by brett, or if it's clean, the bottle can be majestic. This bottle was majestic and more. The wealth of palate-staining, perfectly ripe, sweet, regal fruit is something to behold. The finish hits the 60-second mark, crosses it with ease, and keeps right on going. However, it is imperative to keep in mind the wine is Jekyll or Hyde and there is no way to know without popping a cork. Drink from 2023-2055.

Ruby, garnet tim. Tight, slightly herbal, scented, nuanced, intense, refreshing, stunning nose, floral notes, gorgeous, nuanced and layered. Layers upon layers. Fresh acidity, ripe tannins, elegant, nuanced and refreshing, intense, mouthwatering, amazing, ads and ads and everything is so fresh. This was served blind and I spotted it on the nose, perfect, my best bottle of this so far. 100