I have a confession to make: I’m getting tired of Bordeaux. While I’m enjoying each of the wines as I drink them, writing these posts is becoming a chore. While I know there are distinct differences in terroir, history, etc. within each of the 10 regions I’m sampling, they’re simply too small for me to distinguish. Especially considering that I’m not tasting the wines side by side, but rather drinking them no closer than a week or two apart. I’m probably still not really doing myself justice in this wine education. Try as I might! I’ll likely have to reevaluate my approach and strategy when I move onto Burgundy. At least it has fewer appellations!

There are however, some things to learn about . It is the northern most commune in the Haut Médoc, separated from Pauillac by a stream. It has heavier soil, more clay, and thus doesn’t drain as well. This allows grapes to withstand hotter summers and have higher acidity, but often results in wines with a weaker nose (which I did notice in the wine I tried).

What St. Estèphe is really known for are the Cru Bourgeois wines, which the wine I tried, the 2005 Cháteau De Pez, is. So what exactly does Cru Bourgeois mean? Well, since the classified growths were established in the 19th century and haven’t changed since, it was determined that there was considerable overlap in quality between some of the classified growths and other wines made on the Left Bank. So, in 1932 444 estates were chosen to be classified as Cru Bourgeois. In 2003 is was revamped so that it included 247 wines in three tiers: Cru Bourgeois Exceptionnel (9 wines), Cru Bourgeois Supérieur (87 wines), and plain old Cru Bourgeois for the remaining 151. The 2005 Cháteau De Pez is a Cru Bourgeois Exceptionnel.

Of course, in 2007 the 2003 classification was annulled, making Cru Burgeois illegal. In 2010 the term was reintroduced but there was only one tier, and it applied to the 2008 vintage. However, six out of the original nine Exceptionnel estates elected not to participate at all and formed their own group: Les Exceptionnels. Just to keep things interesting. And impossible to remember, I suppose.

At any rate: this was an interesting wine. It was mahogany red, not as bright as I would have expected for a relatively young wine. As I discovered is somewhat characteristic, it had very little nose, only a slight spice with a hint of fruit. The wine had no distinctive fruit, but was a bit herbaceous (not in a bad way) and also tasted of tobacco. The tannins were soft and it had a pleasing medium body and acidity to it. I did not aerate this wine, it didn’t need it. As Myles had I cold, I drank the whole bottle on my own over the course of three nights. It was good the first night, excellent the second and fair the third.

The Score: ★★★½