The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

WTN: Rausan Segla 1985 - 2001

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

Bill Spohn

Rank

He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'

Posts

9578

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:31 pm

Location

Vancouver BC

WTN: Rausan Segla 1985 - 2001

by Bill Spohn » Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:29 pm

Rausan Segla vertical notes from the Commanderie de Bordeaux, Vancouver chapter.

Founded in 1662 by the owner ofd both of the Pichons at the time, this property, variously spelled ‘Rausan’ and Rauzan’ – both appear on labels in different vintages – was a second growth in the 1855 system. It dropped out of the spotlight with a poor showing in the 1960s and 1970s when they planted high yield low quality merlot and went for volume rather than quality, but it became of interest to serious claret fanciers again starting with the 1983 vintage.

1996 Fleury Brut – we’d been scheduled for the 96 Veuve, but it had gone to ground in the cellar somewhere (glad this happens to other people too) and so we substituted this wine. nice mousse, decent lemony nose, long acidic finish – worked with poached prawns with wasabi caviar and crab salad on a taro chip.

With pasta stuffed with smoked duck:

2002 – nice toasty nose with good fruit, surprisingly soft tannins, well framed wine forward and drinkable now.

2001 – less expressive in the nose, less fruit and much more and harder tannins – an ungenerous wine right now and I wonder where it is going.

1999 – a more perfumed nose, starting to show a maturing plumminess, medium length, medium body, medium interest. The precocious 2002 was best of flight.

With roast pheasant with blueberry and Bordeaux reduction:

1996 – plummy nose with a waft of vanilla smooth on palate narrowing at the end a bit and I thought it a tad low on fruit considering the quite significant levels of tannin. Uncertain future.

1995 – darker than the 96, the nose a vanilla shake with some anise, but on palate the wine does not pass ‘Go’, it goes straight to gnarly tannin, which I found had an astringent character, and it finished a bit short. As always, a bit hard to read where these wines are going as the high tannins tend to impair an accurate determination of just how much fruit is present. I find a couple of bottles of this in my cellar which I shall note to leave alone for another decade.

With beef tenderloin in wine demi glace:

1990 – OK, now we are talking! Edges getting paler, a lovely spiciness in the nose, sweet entry, medium weight, good length, nicely calculated acidity that gives a freshness to the wine and soft tannins at the end with some anise on palate. This should age well and is very well balanced, surprising when the vintage had the highest merlot component which usually results in higher acidity.

1989 – slightly darker than the 1990, and a more monolithic, less differentiated nose, a bit sweeter perhaps. Still has a fair bit of tannin and well balanced, a more classic vintage, but I give the nod to the 1990, the best wine yet so far.

With rack of lamb with mustard and rosemary:

1986 – this is the one Parker made a fuss about, and it was this vintage, rather than the 1983, which was also good but got less press, that revived interest in this house. A very good nose indeed with obvious cabernet (they used 77% CS as opposed to 56% in 1990), and currant with a hint of that anise again. This wine is still big and tannic, but there is no doubt at all about the lavish presence of fruit and it is just a case of when it will all come into focus. I’d give it 56 years, but then I value smooth complex maturity in my wines; the pedophiles may want to tuck right in to this one.

1985 – a much more modest wine with a green cabernet nose with a hint of spice(the chateau was unable to give us blending data on this vintage), essentially no remaining tannin, lots of acidity, drinks OK, but should definitely be drunk up.

With dessert:

1997 Ch. Rieussec – lovely orange spice scented nose with modicum of botrytis, medium colour, not too sweet in the mouth, nor too heavy, gets more spicy in the finish. So good now that I wonder if it will ever offer more pleasure than it does now, though it will certainly last. I am usually the voice of moderation, urging people to leave wine in the cellar rather than slaughtering the infants, but his time I am saying to try a bottle and see – you may well find that this passes your personal Paul Masson/Orson Wells test (I will drink no wine before it’s time – and the time is NOW!)

My preferences: 1986, 1990, 1989 in that order.

My conclusions – after a brief period of renaissance in the 80s, this property has again become something in which I lack enough interest to buy and cellar – there are too many other options out there.
no avatar
User

Matt Richman

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

623

Joined

Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:16 pm

Location

Brooklyn, NY

Re: WTN: Rausan Segla 1985 - 2001

by Matt Richman » Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:54 pm

Thanks for the interesting notes. I have been lucky enough to have the 1986 on a few occasions and find it a beautiful wine. One of those instances where a chateau hits a home run almost out of nowhere.

I have also enjoyed the 1983, and I own but have not tried the 1990. The 2005 had enough good reviews that I bought a few on futures.
no avatar
User

wrcstl

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

881

Joined

Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:20 pm

Location

St. Louis

Re: WTN: Rausan Segla 1985 - 2001

by wrcstl » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:19 am

Bill,
Good notes and I have to agree with you, this is a property I do not buy. The only thing in my cellar is a vintage you did not have, '88. My last note when tried in 4/07 is "very tight, needs time". I think this wine may be OK in a few more years but have never had a Rausan Segla that really impressed.
Walt
no avatar
User

Dale Williams

Rank

Compassionate Connoisseur

Posts

11182

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:32 pm

Location

Dobbs Ferry, NY (NYC metro)

Re: WTN: Rausan Segla 1985 - 2001

by Dale Williams » Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:26 pm

I haven't been very impressed with R-S in general, but I've quite liked the '83 & '86 (probably at some of the same dinners as Matt!). I liked both enough to buy single bottles in last couple years. I've also heard good things re the 2000.
no avatar
User

Bill Spohn

Rank

He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'

Posts

9578

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:31 pm

Location

Vancouver BC

Re: WTN: Rausan Segla 1985 - 2001

by Bill Spohn » Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:31 pm

Yeah, I find that I only have the 1986 and a couple of the 1995, and I am not sorry that this exhausts my stores of RS.

Nonetheless, an interesting tasting and about the only way one can determine of they like the house style of a particular wine or not.
no avatar
User

Jenise

Rank

FLDG Dishwasher

Posts

42747

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:45 pm

Location

The Pacific Northest Westest

Re: WTN: Rausan Segla 1985 - 2001

by Jenise » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:52 pm

Long, long ago I read an article--or perhaps an advertisement, I'm not sure--that suggested that whoever had just acquired this house acquired it because it was the most under-valued of the classed growth Bordeauxs. I immediately set out to find/buy/taste a bottle as part of my BDX education, and went 'yuck'! I can't recall what vintage that was, and I after several years (and since I moved into this house) I bought another vintage just in case the first bottle had been aberrant, and went 'yuck' again. I took no notes, but I remember that both tasted of horse corrals, both what's on the hoof and on the ground which I almost hesitate to mention since your notes don't really go in that direction, but that is what I recall about them and it's why I've never been tempted again. Anyway, it's not a name that comes up often so it's interesting to read that other Bordeaux lovers I look up to like you, Dale and Walt were generally no more impressed.
no avatar
User

Bill Spohn

Rank

He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'

Posts

9578

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:31 pm

Location

Vancouver BC

Re: WTN: Rausan Segla 1985 - 2001

by Bill Spohn » Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:50 pm

Jenise wrote: I took no notes, but I remember that both tasted of horse corrals, both what's on the hoof and on the ground which I almost hesitate to mention since your notes don't really go in that direction.


Actually, wide as my tasting experience has been, I will readily admit that unlike your good self, I have never tasted horse corrals, hooves, or paddocks!

I will accordingly defer to your greater experience in that regard, but can state that none of the wines I tasted had anything that one could conceivably associate with the horsey set.

I don't doubt your experience (or the intrepid nature of your investigations), as this Parker note on the 1975 indicates similar experiences:

1975 Rausan-Segla Margaux (55)

Very light in color, with a suspicious brownish cast, the 1975 Rauzan-Segla has a burnt, cooked-fruit aroma, shallow, very tannic and astringent flavors, and a short, nasty finish. This is a pitiful effort in such a fine vintage.
no avatar
User

Jenise

Rank

FLDG Dishwasher

Posts

42747

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:45 pm

Location

The Pacific Northest Westest

Re: WTN: Rausan Segla 1985 - 2001

by Jenise » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:00 pm

Bill Spohn wrote:Actually, wide as my tasting experience has been, I will readily admit that unlike your good self, I have never tasted horse corrals, hooves, or paddocks!


This denial is preposterous, knowing as I do Chez Spohn's sordid past. :o

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot, ByteSpider, ClaudeBot and 3 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign