Wine Advocate
byRobert Parkerthe4/30/1996
Given Montrose's exceptional performance in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1994, I was surprised the 1995 did not "ring my chime" on the three occasions I tasted it. I kept wondering whether the wine was simply not showing well during the time I was in Bordeaux, or if I was missing something in Montrose that I was seeing in the vintage's finest wines! Make no mistake about it, it is an excellent wine, but it does not look to be as strong and as successful as the 1994. The wine exhibits a deep ruby/purple color, and an open-knit nose of jammy black fruits with underlying notes of new wood and minerals. Although full-framed and muscular, the wine's slightly flat middle, as well as its lack of the texture and depth found in the 1994, left me wondering if something would emerge with further barrel aging. Certainly the wine will fatten up, but I do not see it as one of the stars of the 1995 vintage. The wine's low acidity and thick, oozing fruitiness suggest it will have, deservedly, many fans. I may have underrated it, but for now I will stick to my position that the 1994 is the superior wine, and that the 1995, while excellent, may not be outstanding. It promises to drink well young and last for 15+ years. Wines such as this can often appear to be somewhat disjointed when very young (how well I remember the 1982 Pichon-Lalande), but take on more precision with age. I look forward to retasting Montrose later this year.