While I enjoy the 2005 Figeac, there is still a sense of a potential great Saint Emilion falling short of what it could have been. Now with ten years on the clock, the nose is cool & focused, very Pauillac-like in style, the Cabernet Sauvignon driving it along. With time it begins to open up & loosen its tie, revealing a pleasing licorice scent. The palate is medium-bodied with a pleasurable, supple, fleshy entry. It seems to offer black rather than red fruit at the moment, the acidity well judged. So why the parsimonious score? Well it doesn’t build on this promise, as it runs out of ideas two thirds of the way through. It takes the easy option & decline to offer that tension & complexity on the finish that certainly the aromatics deserve. In fact, this might well be the only wine where I prefer the 2006 to the 2005. (Neal Martin, The Wine Advocate#226, Aug 2016, 90? pts)
This St.-Emilion offers attractive Christmas fruitcake notes, cedar wood, blackcurrants and spice in a medium-bodied, silky smooth, round and juicy style. It is up-front, tasty and well-made. Drink it over the next 10-12 years. Drink: 2015 – 2027 (Robert Parker, The Wine Advocate#219, Jun 2015, 89 Pts)
The finest Figeac since the 1990 and 1982, the restrained, but complex 2005 exhibits notes of black olives, new saddle leather, tobacco leaf, and sweet cherry and black currant fruit. The wine is medium-bodied with racy tannins as well as a streamlined style built on finesse and delicacy rather than on power and concentration. Consume it over the next 15-20 years. (Robert Parker, The Wine Advocate#176, Apr 2008, 90 Pts)
Tasted at the Château Figeac vertical at the property. While I enjoy the 2005 Figeac, there is still a sense of a potential great Saint Emilion falling short of what it could have been. Now with ten years on the clock, the nose is cool and focused, very Pauillac-like in style, the Cabernet Sauvignon driving it along. With time it begins to open up and loosen its tie, revealing a pleasing licorice scent. The palate is medium-bodied with a pleasurable, supple, fleshy entry. It seems to offer black rather than red fruit at the moment, the acidity well judged. So why the parsimonious score? Well, it doesn't build on this promise, as if it runs out of ideas two-thirds of the way through. It takes the easy option and declines to offer that tension and complexity on the finish that certainly the aromatics deserve. In fact, this might well be the only wine where I prefer the 2006 to the 2005. (Neal Martin, The Wine Advocate#226, Aug 2016, 90 Pts)
