WTN: 2003 Iris du Gayon Pauillac

2003 Domaine Iris du Gayon Pauillac 13.0%
This comes from one hec. of an estate. Or, rather, a one hectare estate. But a heck of a hectare, right next to Mouton Rothschild. The neighbor who gave it to us said that a director of Mouton, on retiring, was given this plot (found no evidence of this provenance through google), that was later sold to Pierre Siri (Iris = Siri backwards), the current owner, whose first vintage was 1995. Hand harvested, biodynamic, 3.600 bottles, 12 months in oak. 70% Cabernet Sauvignon, 20% Petit Verdot e 10% Merlot. Unusually high petit verdot.

Classic bordeaux deep garnet. Decanted for an hour, shows intense plums and blackberries over some alcohol heat and a touch of rubber. Tannins are very fine and quite mouth-puckering. Surprisingly decent acidity for the vintage, but also disappointing midpalate weight (though the finish is long enough). Rich fruit, but somewhat monochordic (says Marcia). No cedar, no cigarbox, few of the usual suspects. Once I stopped analysing and started drinking, it was quite a pleasure and ended quickly. If expectations were not so much higher, this would make one hell of a quaffer. Given the location, and the fact that it appears to be lovingly and carefully made, I wonder what, exactly, makes this so much less complex than (I presume) a 2003 Mouton would be today.

Isn't Mouton a rather large estate? Or at least 'large' enough to have significant terroir variation both within their property and for the adjoining properties?

Merely adjoining Mouton doesn't strike me as an automatic reason for high expectations. (Although admittedly you did mention some other indications of potential quality, hard working winemaker, etc)

Isn't Mouton a rather large estate? Or at least 'large' enough to have significant terroir variation both within their property and for the adjoining properties?

Your question brings up my (no doubt erroneous) notion that there is something homogeneous about the quality of the terroirs and vines of the greatest Bdx estates.

While every square foot of La Tache or Romanee Conti is presumably as good as every other square foot (otherwise the monks would have differentiated them), perhaps the same cannot be said of every square foot of Mouton or Margaux, etc.

Even if the terroir were homogeneous, they would respond differently to each varietal...

While every square foot of La Tache or Romanee Conti is presumably as good as every other square foot (otherwise the monks would have differentiated them), perhaps the same cannot be said of every square foot of Mouton or Margaux, etc..

I can't speak to La Tache or Romanee Conti (although even there I suspect there is signficant variation in exposure/expression if not in 'quality') the existence of second and third wines with the Bordeaux crowd would seem to underscore the extent of their terroir variation, no? (Or is that supposedly just young vs. old vines and vintage variation in plots).