CHÂTEAU DE LAUBADE BAS-ARMAGNAC 1995

'22: I drink a half ounce of this on my bday every year as I was born in 95'. Nose is grape, prune, oak, and a little dance of cinammon. Palate is more grape and oak, smooth butterscotch, black pepper, and dry red wine. It's a great tradition and glad I received this bottle as a birthday gift. '23: nose I get a bit more marshmellow, but otherwise similar. Palate is very much the same. Cheers to being 28 years old and having tried so many incredible beverages '24: great every year, love how long the finish is. Year 29 loading!

Rating: 18/23 This tasting marks the halfway point on my tasting count-down to my 2000th booze reviewed. I started at number 1991 and am going up to 1999 before celebrating with a special dram for number 2000. N: Spicy with sorry of a vegetal fruitiness. I get definite raisin notes. Plump raisins, coated in sugar. Some interesting hints of prune and quince though too. The spices bring in a bit of barrel presence, but this is mostly about the fruit. It's sweet and fun, but not super complex. It's also oddly lacking a lot of wood for its age. P: OK, this really delivers a more cohesive experience than the nose does. Barrel rolls in with some bitter, tart tannins that scream french oak before sweet, floral, candied fruitiness joins the mix. Spices come out early on, along with hints of wood polish, but those fade as the palate progresses. The spices are bitter and peppery. I get the raisins and quince from the nose from the fruit, especially. The fruit balances the wood nicely at the end. The alcohol flavor does show a little bit more than I'd like here, but it's limited to a slightly oily bitterness. F: Floral fruitiness, with a mellow bitter woodiness offsetting it, but not at all overpowering it. I wish that the wood had more nuance, but it's fine as it is. - Conclusion - This is a very nice dram that's easy to sip and boasts some real depth. This is definitely a bit better than Château De Laubade 1988 (/23), though the difference is not tremendous. Rémy Martin 1738 is sweeter and richer, but doesn't taste as mature as this does. The Rémy is more approachable, but that doesn't on its own make it better. Dudognon Vielle Reserve (16/23) also shows more alcohol than this and tastes more youthful. It has some nice oily, nutty, apricot decadence to it, but I'm inclined to say that this is better. Considering that, I'm putting this at a 17. Like Château De Laubade 1988, I'm getting some extra añejo tequila vibes in comparison to the cognacs, but they're nuanced and I dig them. As a sanity check, I pulled out A De Fussigny XO (18/23). The A De Fussigny has more fruity sweetness, but similar amounts of fullness and nuance. I think I like the A De Fussigny a little bit better, so I'm settling on a 17 for this. Coming back for a final tasting here, I get a bold richness of polished wood, chocolate, and raisins. There is maturity and complexity alongside those flavors, but they stand out the most. It's decadent and delicious. It's still better than Château De Laubade 1988. It's actually quite competitive with A De Fussigny XO, having a similar richness, but focusing on a more regal flavor profile. I could go either way here. Delord 25 strikes me as maybe a bit less mature (ironic since it's actually a year older), but with better chocolate and leather flavors, whereas this is a bit lacking in distinction. I don't think that this is quite as good as the Delord, but it's right up there with the A De Fussigny and it beats the Château De Laubade 1988. It's either a high 17 or lowish 18. The Delord is definitely a high 18. I'm inclined to believe that I might have even underrated the Delord, so I'm going with an 18.

Pita wersja 1994, ale brak w distiller

Nose - grape must, apricot, toffee, vanilla, fig, orange, plum, coffee, ginger, jalapeño, anise, earthy floral notes, almond, mint, clay, brown sugar, nutmeg, clove, milk chocolate, mild to moderate ethanol burn. Taste - tart grape, apricot, pineapple skin, orange, lemon pith, ginger, white pepper, clove, nutmeg, caramel, mint, anise, tannic oak, vanilla, fig, plum, chocolate, mild to moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium length with dark fruit, bitter citrus, spicy pepper, tannic oak flavors. We’re adding three years of age on top of the 1998 vintage I reviewed yesterday, which makes this one around 24 years old. Right off the bat, the nose is richer and more interesting than its younger counterparts’. The grape and dried dark fruit aromas are very present, and there’s something earthy and herbal I can’t quite identify as well. Although not unpleasant, it starts to head in that direction. The palate is darkly fruity with some bitter, peppery citrus and drying oak alongside hints of tropical fruit and baking spices. I like this better than the 1998 and 2000 vintages, but it’s not a revelation. There’s more complexity in both the nose and palate, and the finish is slightly longer and spicier as well. The mouthfeel is still on the watery side, making me wish it weren’t diluted down to 40%. Although flawed, this is good Armagnac and deserves the higher score over the others. Many thanks to @ContemplativeFox for the generous sample!