1990 Guigal Cotes du Rhone

Mahmoud Ali · Post by **Mahmoud Ali** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:26 am

Guigal's Cotes du Rhone has always had a very good reputation. It's available in Australia and New Zealand but usually more expensive than in Canada. This particular vintage was bought many years ago, perhaps in '93 or '94. Decanter magazine gave it 4 Stars and featured it as a wine to cellar. Back then the wine was firm, well structured and quite tannic.

I don't think I ever intended to cellar it this long but the other day I opened a bottle. It had a brick orange centre, paling towards the rim. It was sweet and oaky, with a gamey, meaty nose, and just a hint of smoke/tar. The nose was reflected in the palate with a sweet, tomato/cherry skin fruit, leather, a certain minerality and a nice lingering finish. There were little if any tannins but still some fresh acidity that went well with the beef ribs (salt, pepper, garlic, and a touch of basil, rosemary and oregano). At the tail end of it's plateau I reckon.

Not all vintages will last 18 years but its fun when they do. I will be drinking the other three bottles soon enough.

Cheers......Mahmoud

Rawshack · Post by **Rawshack** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:37 pm

As far as I'm aware, most Cote Du Rhone is meant to be drunk young. I'm surprised that it's lasted as well as it apparently did.

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:08 pm

I recently had a couple of bottles of the 1995 Guigal Cotes du Rhone, which were absolutely magnificent.

I find that a lot of wines are recommended to drink younger than necessary, and I can only speculate on the reasons;
- First I think it is something of an insurance policy ie if you think a wine will only last ten years you'd probably recommend seven as the peak just in case (particularly when cellaring conditions are taken in to account).
- Second most wine is drunk young regardless of how long it can age, so with the market in mind I imagine that makers (or their accountants) recommend wine be drunk while there is still plenty of primary fruit characteristic
- Finally the wines aging ability is probably measured on a rolling average, whereas 1990 (and 95) must have been good years that lent itself to longer lived wines.

I tend to find that aging can throw up some real surprises, and I've recently had some 10 to 15 yo pinot's that have been marvellous, despite label and Jeremy Oliver (and others) recommendations that they be drunk many years previous.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:18 am

Jules wrote:I recently had a couple of bottles of the 1995 Guigal Cotes du Rhone, which were absolutely magnificent.

Good to know, thanks Jules, I have a 95 at home and am going to open it along with the 05. I had thought the 95 may be well past it but it looks as if I could be in for a treat.

bacchaebabe · Post by **bacchaebabe** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:13 pm

Yeah, come to mention it, I think I've got a couple hiding somewhere too. Better check em out.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:03 pm

Ageing is a lottery with generic CÃƒÂ´tes du RhÃƒÂ´ne and Villages. Most, I think, are at their best in one or two years from the vintage when their peppery fruit is at their most exuberant but that does not mean that they cannot hold and some people may prefer the way they show after three or four more years. Development of interesting secondary characteristics like with these Guigals from fine vintages after 10+ years is, I guess, quite rare.

Some more up-market cuvÃƒÂ©es, like CDR Coudoulet de Beaucastel, and CDRV Cairanne Haut-Coustias from Oratoire Saint-Martin age more like CndP.

Ratcatcher · Post by **Ratcatcher** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:14 pm

I seem to recall Halliday reviewing the 2004 and saying there was an early 90's vintage that had cellared very well and he thought the 2004 was very similar. I'm sure the review would be on the Web somewhere if you searched.