Having said that, I think that this wine is more Cahors than “Malbec” and it bears little resemblance, except in its density, to typical “Malbec” coming out of Argentina, in particular. So I am putting this WTN into a separate thread.

C: Very dense deep red with no bricking at the rim. N: At first cedar and cigar box ( my goodness! another oak bomb!) but slowly notes of sour dark fruit, dry leather and some 90% bitter chocolate came up and integrated the wood which then provides an agreeable if still present element of complexity. P: Subdued at first but opening up. Considerable weight and density of fruit and body with a classically balanced shape on the palate (quiet entry building up towards the rear of the palate but with perhaps an over rapid diminuendo on the finish); firmly velvety with quite marked acidity and tannic structure, similar aromas to the nose but with the wood more in the background and some tar and mint notes on the finish.

This wine is not a crowd pleaser but I liked its distinguished complexity and upright austerity (a bit like the landscape in Quercy from where it comes). I guess that it would have been intolerably oaky, for me, in its youth. I have read in the French wine press that most Cahors from the mid-90s are ageing badly. Well, this one isn’t and, in my view, would benefit from a few more years.

Recent vintages of Prince Probus are reported to be derived 100% from 50 year old Malbec vines (called Auxerrois in the region). The estate as a whole is planted with 75% Malbec, 20% Merlot and 5% Tannat; the lesser cuvees must therefore be considerably dumbed down (softened) by Merlot. I do not know whether there was any Merlot or Tannat in the 1995 blend but I guess very little of the former.