ctbeck11
CHÂTEAU DE LAUBADE BAS-ARMAGNAC 1995
Armagnac — Bas-Armagnac, France
Reviewed
November 17, 2021 (edited November 26, 2021)
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!
Create Account
or
Sign in
to comment on this review
@Ctrexman I’m no expert. Today’s marks only my 12th Armagnac review. But I feel like this series has given me some good insight into the category, at least enough to draw some general conclusions about my preferences.
@Anthology Wow, that’s an oldie. Unfortunately, this week of reviews represents my total experience with Laubade. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the 1971. It’s probably good stuff.
@Ctrexman Yep, I agree with @ContemplativeFox’s assessment. I’ve had Armagnacs that easily compete with great whiskies. And their noses are among some of the best I’ve experienced across all categories. Unfortunately, it takes decades of aging to reach that point for me. In contrast, I’ve had whiskies under five years old that are better than the best experience I’ve had with Armagnac.
@Ctrexman I've found that Armagnac has a lot more of that woodiness and some tart and fusel characters that makes it appealing to bourbon fans. A bit more floral flavor is still to be expected though. I haven't found an Armagnac with amazing complexity, but I've found a couple in the range of old Fitz - big hedonism with decent complexity. On the cognac side, it's usually much fruitier, sweeter and more floral than Armagnac, with less wood, so I can see it being unappealing to bourbon and rye fans in particular. Hennessy is especially fruity, whereas Remy Martin is spicier. I haven't tried Martell Blue Swift, but Remy 1738 is really solid. It has a good balance of spice, fruit, and complexity that seems like a good profile for bourbon drinkers. It actually kind of makes me think of eagle rare. A de fussigny XO is probably the most complex cognac I've found, though I can see how its profile is challenging with its lightness and burniness.
@Ctrexman I poured the Laubade XO (decent amount of oak, maple, jam) and Pierrre Ferrand Reserve (orange chocolate, minimal wood) for a bourbon buddy and he wasn’t impressed - they would fit into the slightly-more-complex-than-Buffalo-Trace tier as far as the few “gnacs” I’ve tried and the older bottles that @ContemplativeFox has generously shared clock in closer to an Eagle Rare store pick or good McKenna BiB… ie. I’ve not found the same depth and complexity yet and profile is different but worth exploring
@ContemplativeFox ok you seem experienced with this stuff what say you. Is a bottle of say Martell Blue Swift worth the effort trying for a whiskey drinker
@Ctrexman haha I started typing @ctbeck11 but your handle popped up since you both share same first two letters and I didn’t realize the inadvertent mishap. Your whiskey takes are 🔥 tho 😊
@ctbeck11 does this stuff really compare to a good whiskey, Ive always found the genre overly floral and perfumey then again Ive probably only had low end stuff
@Anthology Actually, @ctbeck11is the first one to try my laubades 😂. I recall trying some of the younger ones (the XO or some such) and not being terribly impressed. The oldest laubade I have is from 1979, which I suspect we will see a take from @ctbeck11 on soon ;) I'd wager that laubade past 30 years will be pretty good, but that the correlation of quality with age will disappear somewhere between 30 and 40 and it'll all be about particular barrels past there.
This is ctbecks area of expertise Ive only had a couple cognacs never an Armagnac
Wondering whether these vintage Laubades get progressively better with older vintages. Have an unopened 1971 and eyeing a 1970, 1968 & 1964 but not sure if I should pull the trigger. Have either of you @ContemplativeFox or @Ctrexman tried older Laubade vintages or know if the older ones are better tasting?
@ContemplativeFox Yep, none that I could detect. Hoping this more positive experience continues through the remaining two.
No more sulphur at least, it seems :)