Requested By
ctbeck11
CHÂTEAU DE LAUBADE BAS-ARMAGNAC 1988
-
ContemplativeFox
Reviewed June 16, 2022Rating: 17/23 This is item 1993 on my way to reviewing my 2000th alcoholic drink. What does a 1988 vintage have to do with 1993? Not much, actually. This is just one of 5 Château De Laubade armagnacs I have that I'd like to review as kind of a set. Seeing as I recently reviewed a 1993 Tullibardine released by Cadenhead's, I feel like I'm covered as far as 1993 vintage goes. N: There's a nice full decadence here. Toffee, orange, wood polish, hints of chocolate, spices, and something a bit in the vegetal-herbal range - probably in part the white pepper from the spices. The spices are pretty mellow, with the white pepper standing out the most. P: Whoa, spices! Black pepper first, actually. Ginger, cloves, and some white pepper follow. There's a sort of a floral, clean water flavor that indicates a lack of fullness. It's sort of like some sugared flower petals were steeped in clean water. Some nice tangerine flavor comes out, drawing in some oaky wood as well. The tangerine also transitions into some mild toffee notes. There's a bit of depth to the wood, but it doesn't take long for it to land on a tannic layer. Some wood polish comes out of the tannic layer, but there's also just some tartness and bitterness that I wish weren't there. This palate is nice overall, with a decent amount going on, but it isn't amazingly decadent or interesting. F: Bitter wood polish and tannins, with faint, sweet floral flavors. - Conclusion - This isn't bad, but it gives me the impression that too mild of a distillate was put into too bitter of an oak for too long. It's quite enjoyable, but it doesn't achieve what it wants to. That said, there is a weight of restrained maturity here that is nice. Château Laubade 2000 (13/23) is more fun and bold in comparison, but it definitely tastes more youthful. This strikes me as clearly better overall, but it does make sacrifices in boldness and vibrancy. Doing some side-by-siding, this is giving me some surprising extra añejo tequila vibes. Moving on to Rémy Martin 1738 (16/23), this is more mature and interesting, but the Rémy is sweeter and more fun. They seem pretty close to each other, though if I had to choose one, I might lean toward this. I'm thinking a 16 or 17 here. Dudognon Vielle Reserve (16/23) has some nice decadence in comparison with this, but it's less complex and shows its alcohol more. This seems a little better, but not much. Considering how the Rémy competes with this, I think that a 16 is the most appropriate score. This isn't that far from going up to a 17 though. Coming back to this with a slightly less sensitive palate, my biggest impression is that it tastes mature. It's not overly assertive, but it has some nice aged character with some very good nuance that's a bit of a struggle to pick out, but does eventually come forward. This now seems better than both the Dudognon and the Rémy, with its flavors being better integrated and its alcohol showing less. This now seems significantly closer in quality to Delord 25 (18/23). I'm not sure that it's all of the way there though. A De Fussigny XO (18/23) also seems within reach of this now. This tastes more mature, but the A De Fussigny expresses a wider variety of complex flavors. In light of this development, I'm upping this to a 17.165.0 USD per Bottle -
ctbeck11
Reviewed November 18, 2021 (edited November 26, 2021)Nose - grape must, toffee, brown sugar, nutmeg, clove, bitter herbal notes, coffee, black cherry, plum, lemon, vanilla, polished oak, fig, mint, anise, dark chocolate, hazelnut, mild to moderate ethanol burn. Taste - tart grape, black cherry, plum, fig, ginger, white pepper, toffee, orange, allspice, nutmeg vanilla, floral notes, mint, anise, walnut, sweet oak, chocolate, brown sugar, mild to moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium length with toffee, musty grape, nut, and chocolate flavors. Day four of my Laubade journey brings me to this 1988 vintage, bottled at the ripe old age of 31 years. Now this is starting to smell more like the really good, old Armagnacs I’ve tried previously. It’s super dark. Dark fruits, dark chocolate, oak, toffee. It’s decadent and highlights that great Armagnacs can easily hold their own against some of the best whiskey noses. As expected, the palate doesn’t quite match the nose, but it’s easily better than its younger counterparts’. And fortunately, the bitterness and sourness are kept in check. This is great Armagnac, further highlighting that 30 years seems to be inflection point between good and great examples of the category, at least to my preferences. There are still flaws here, and as expected I wish this were less diluted, but I’d happily drink it any day. Tomorrow, I’ll wrap up the series with a 40 Year version from the brand. And once again, a big thank you to @ContemplativeFox for the sample!
Results 1-2 of 2 Reviews