Wine Talk

Snooth User: panoskakaviatos

Figeac rules! With a marvelous 2000-1998-1982 trio

Posted by panoskakaviatos, Jan 23, 2011.

With some fellow Figeac fans in the nation's capital, we decided to organise a double vertical of Chateau Figeac and Chateau Leoville Las Cases. Both share aspirations to go higher in official rankings, with LLC coveting the premier cru label and Figeac the premier grand cru classé A in St Emilion. Also both seem a bit out of character within their respective appellations. LLC is often dubbed the Pauillac of St Juilen while Figeac is dubbed the Medoc of St Emilion, given its high Cabernet content. Anyway, we also enjoyed a superlative Latour 1979 and a still far too young Yquem 1996 and a marvelous Billecart Salmon Blanc de Blancs 1996. Tasting notes and photos:

http://www.connectionstowine.com/bo...

Replies

0
73
Reply by panoskakaviatos, Jan 23, 2011.

Woops, I erred in typing 1996 Yquem... it was a 1986 Yquem and still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too young!

27
1257
Reply by Stephen Harvey, Jan 23, 2011.

Panos

What a great night, I must try some Figeac [what vintages should I avoid]

We had a Jac 733 on sat night with a friend and it is a fabulous NV, it was followed by a Moet NV and there is just no comparison, the Jac is a significantly better drink

Of the other wines on your list I have had the 82LLC on two occasions in the last year and it is a very tight wine although I thought not quite as tight as the one you portrayed.  Whilst  the 86 d'Yquem is sill young it is a beautiful drink, although I had an 89 recently and I thought it was amazing and had more intensity than the 86 [mind you this is splitting hairs]

0
73
Reply by panoskakaviatos, Jan 24, 2011.

Hi Stephen,

I would agree that Jac is far better than Moet. Interesting thing about the LLC 1982... Is it tighter than the LLC 86?

Figeac? I like many vintages but the 1995 is not my favorite. I have had the 2001 which is great and 2003 and 2004 are both fine. The 2005 is superb but pricey. Not sure about 2002. Of the other 90s, certainly 98 and 90 are both excellent. I do not have as much experience with other 90s vintages. Avoid the 2009, not because it is bad - it is actually delicious - but because it is too expensive. Or rather, on a qualitative level, it "deserves" its outrageous price, given the outrageous prices other Bordeaux now fetch in that vintage, but for the sake of continuity, forget it. The 2008 was excellent from barrel. I am looking forward to tasting it in NYC on Friday.

20
6109
Reply by dmcker, Jan 25, 2011.

Had a couple bottles of the '64 Figeac, from the Thierry Manoncourt era, and before drinking one I passed the other off to a friend. After the orgasmic experience of drinking my bottle back at the end of 2008 (it was still quite young and well within its prime) I decided, after a lot of debate with myself, to contact my friend and see if he'd be willing to sell me the bottle back. Alas, he'd already drunk it.

TM knew how to make wines that took time to mature but turned into utterly ethereal experiences. Not the same in the wines I've tasted from the current winemaker, especially of the past decade.

The 2000 is well known for disappointing recently after showing well upon release, or even en primeur. I take it this was not the case for your bottle(s), Panos?

0
73
Reply by panoskakaviatos, Jan 25, 2011.

Thanks for your note! I enjoyed the 1964 Figeac at a dinner during Vinexpo in 2009, but was even more impressed by the 1959 and 1961. Indeed, TM made some great wines.

This was the second time I tried the Figeac 2000 since Robert Parker downgraded the wine. I think he erred. First of all, I tried it blind at the estate. asking owner Eric d'Aramon to have me taste three wines blind, one of which being the 2000. So the lineup was 2000, 2001 and 2003. All were very good, the 2003 in particular suprised me with a certain 1982 like quality (exotic). But the 2000 shined. As it did again for the video just before a dinner, where all the tasters liked it, too! In terms of points, it got at least 93 from everyone.

20
6109
Reply by dmcker, Jan 25, 2011.

I like the fact that a) '64 was so good though not a '61 and '59, which were the no-brainer great vintages of that era across the board, and b) someone gifted me those two bottles for a little help I provided. The Figeac was one of the better '64s I've had, while it tended to get lost in the crowd of so many greats in those other two vintages. I was also gifted some '64 Pavies for that same assistance, which wasn't a terrible thing, either....

0
73
Reply by panoskakaviatos, Jan 25, 2011.

Nice gifts indeed!


Back to Categories

Top Contributors This Month

125836 Snooth User: dmcker
125836dmcker
115 posts
1498622 Snooth User: Really Big Al
1498622Really Big Al
59 posts
324443 Snooth User: outthere
324443outthere
59 posts

Categories

View All





Snooth Media Network