28.10.2007: Ben gave me a bottle of the Musar Rouge 2000 when he was here. I've been itching to open it for several days but haven't had time to have a proper meal until today.
"Only" 13,5% abv on the label. Compared to the '99, this is a lighter, brighter style. Where the '99 was full of darker fruit tones, this is red and berried. Where the '99 was full of sweet fruit and warm aromatics, this comes across as savoury and cool. This is vegetal and slightly leafy. I don't usually like to play the game of saying that Musar tastes like this or that type of wine, but I'll do an exception here. The brightness and relative transparentness of the nose was almost Burgundian.
I usually find that Musar relies more on acidity to provide structure rather than tannins. The '00 is however surprisingly tannic for Musar - I really like the grip here! It also has fair acidity and lots of sweet, bright and red fruit. Long, satisfying aftertaste.
But now for some philosophical problems. It all reads like I should find this one of the best Musars made, and, indeed, I do like it very much. Yet I still found the '99 a better Musar. Why? I tend to prefer brighter, lighter wines to heavy, sweetly fruity ones. So why is it that with Musar, I find a sweet and heavy one works better? It seems illogical to me. Now I am all for drinking just what I like, and will continue to do so, but I can't help wondering about this and other paradoxes of my taste (like why do I like Port so much when that is thick, heavy, sweet and certainly not an acid forward wine).
Perhaps I shouldn't so concern myself with what seem like contradictions in taste, but should just enjoy what I enjoy. So yes, I like this wine and really hope that it becomes available in Finland.