Château de Laubade Bas-Armagnac 1998

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 (17/23), 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. My final ranking for these Château De Laubades is: 1998 1995 1979 1988 2000

Nose - grape must, plum, fig, grilled peach, salted caramel, vanilla, brown sugar, coconut, orange, lemon, apple, nutmeg, cinnamon, sweet floral notes, milk chocolate, walnut, mild ethanol burn. Taste - tart grape, apricot, fig, date, lemon, orange zest, pineapple, caramel, vanilla, cinnamon, nutmeg, brown sugar, sour apple, ginger, chili pepper, mint, bitter oak, light sulphur, mild to moderate alcohol bite, finishing medium short with tart grape, dark fruit, and bitter citrus and oak flavors. With the second Chateau de Laubade review, we add two years of age which makes this one around 21 years old. The nose is expectedly richer, with more dark fruits presenting and less bright sourness. The palate isn’t quite as sour as the 2000 vintage’s, but there’s still an unpleasant brightness and bitterness to the experience. And interestingly, a bit of sulphur sneaks into the mix as well. The nose is better than its younger sibling’s, but the palate is about equal for me. The finish is slightly better, and the profile is much fruitier and less citrusy. It still tastes underproofed, but not as obviously as the 2000 did. Also, I’m not sure if it’s actually sulphur I’m tasting or whether I’m interpreting another flavor incorrectly, but I find that it does detract from the overall experience. Another big thank you to @ContemplativeFox for providing the sample!

My first Armagnac, so I have nothing to compare this to. Smooth up front with hints of fruit and floral tones. A little fire in the tail.

Super soft and fluffy with hefty amounts of oak. Light spice. Earthy, clay pot flavor profile with a bit of a perfume/rose essence.