CHÂTEAU DE LAUBADE BAS-ARMAGNAC 1988

Rating: 17/23 This is item 1993 on my journey to review my 2000th alcoholic beverage. What 1988 vintage has to do with 1993? Not much, really. This is one of five Château De Laubade armagnacs I plan to review as a group. Since I recently reviewed a 1993 Tullibardine from Cadenhead's, I feel covered for the 1993 vintage. Nose: A pleasant, full richness here. Toffee, orange, wood polish, hints of chocolate, spices, and something vaguely vegetal-herbal – likely partly from the white pepper in the spices. The spices are quite mellow, with white pepper being the most prominent. Palate: Whoa, spices! Black pepper first, actually. Ginger, cloves, and some white pepper follow. There's a clean, floral water taste suggesting a lack of body. It's akin to sugared flower petals steeped in pure water. Some nice tangerine emerges, bringing in some oakiness. The tangerine also shifts to mild toffee notes. The wood has some depth, but it quickly settles into a tannic layer. Wood polish appears from the tannic layer, but there's also just some tartness and bitterness I'd rather not have. Overall, the palate is nice, with a fair amount happening, but it's not remarkably rich or intriguing. Finish: Bitter wood polish and tannins, with faint, sweet floral notes. - Conclusion - This isn't bad, but it gives the impression that a distillate that was too mild was aged in overly bitter oak for too long. It's quite enjoyable, but it doesn't achieve its full potential. That said, there's a pleasing weight of restrained maturity. Château Laubade 2000 (13/23) is more entertaining and bold in comparison, but it certainly tastes younger. This strikes me as clearly superior overall, though it sacrifices boldness and vibrancy. Comparing side-by-side, this is giving me some surprising hints of extra añejo tequila. Moving on to Rémy Martin 1738 (16/23), this is more mature and interesting, but the Rémy is sweeter and more engaging. They seem quite similar, though if forced to choose, I might lean toward this. I'm considering a 16 or 17 for this. Dudognon Vielle Reserve (16/23) offers some nice richness in comparison, but it's less complex and its alcohol is more apparent. This appears slightly better, but not by much. Considering how the Rémy compares, I believe a 16 is the most fitting score. It's not far from reaching a 17, however. Revisiting this with a less sensitive palate, my main impression is its mature taste. It's not overly assertive, but it possesses pleasant aged character with very good nuance that is initially elusive but eventually surfaces. This now seems superior to both the Dudognon and the Rémy, with its flavors better integrated and less alcohol showing. It now seems significantly closer in quality to Delord 25 (18/23). I'm not entirely convinced it's quite there yet. A De Fussigny XO (18/23) also seems within reach now. This tastes more mature, but the A De Fussigny displays a wider array of complex flavors. In light of this development, I'm upgrading this to a 17.

Smell features grape must, toffee, brown sugar, nutmeg, clove, bitter herbal notes, coffee, black cherry, plum, lemon, vanilla, polished oak, fig, mint, anise, dark chocolate, hazelnut, with a mild to moderate ethanol burn. Flavor presents as tart grape, black cherry, plum, fig, ginger, white pepper, toffee, orange, allspice, nutmeg, vanilla, floral notes, mint, anise, walnut, sweet oak, chocolate, brown sugar, with a mild to moderate alcohol bite. The finish is medium length with toffee, musty grape, nut, and chocolate characteristics. On day four of my Laubade experience, I'm sampling this 1988 vintage, which was bottled after aging for 31 years. This is now starting to resemble the truly excellent, aged Armagnacs I've encountered before. It possesses a very dark appearance. Notes of dark fruits, dark chocolate, oak, and toffee are prominent. It's decadent, demonstrating that superior Armagnacs can easily rival top-tier whiskeys in their aromatic profiles. As anticipated, the taste doesn't quite reach the heights of the aroma, but it's considerably better than its younger counterparts. Pleasingly, the bitterness and sourness are well-controlled. This is a fantastic Armagnac, further underscoring that around 30 years appears to be the turning point for outstanding examples in this category, at least according to my preferences. Some imperfections remain, and as expected, I wish it were less diluted, but I would gladly enjoy it anytime. Tomorrow, I will conclude the series with a 40-year-old expression from the brand. Once again, a huge thanks to a friend for the sample!