AND: Most critics have also called it the most underperforming.

Tasting Notes

Pauillac has long featured Lafite-Rothschild, Mouton Rothschild and Latour, plus Pichon Baron, Pichon Comtesse, Lynch-Bages and Grand Puy Lacoste. Saint Estephe’s cru bourgeois have long reinforced the famous trio Cos d’Estournel, Calon Segur and Montrose, while Saint Julien has long been known for Ducru Beaucaillou, Gruaud Larose and all three Leoville estates, not to mention Branaire Ducru and Beychevelle.

But in Margaux, too many once highly rated chateaux – from the famous 1855 classification of the Medoc and Sauternes – later fell into mediocrity. Wines such as Boyd Cantenac, Brane Cantenac, Cantenac Brown, Giscours, Issan, Kirwan, Lascombes, Malescot St. Exupéry and Rauzan-Gassies have all – until recently – been criticized by wine writers as not up to the level of their terroir. It seemed that only three chateaux benefited from steady consumer attention in the modern era: the ultra-famous Chateau Margaux, classified as a “first growth” from the 1855 classification, Chateau Palmer, and Chateau Rauzan-Ségla.

Happily, many of the above chateaux, with the exception perhaps of Chateau Rauzan Gassies, have recently found their old glory. Chateau Brane Cantenac wanted to drive that point home with an exceptional 21-vintage tasting in Paris this past September of its most recent wines: 1983 – 2003.

At the elegant Hotel Crillon at Place de la Concorde, on 8 September 2005, several famous wine writers and critics, including Clive Coates and Bernard Burtschy, editor of the French wine monthly La Revue du Vin de France gathered to taste the vintages. Indeed, the French magazine this past May “demoted” Chateau Brane Cantenac from second to third growth in its unofficial “update” of the famous 1855 ranking.

But ever since Henri Lurton took over Chateau Brane Cantenac’s direction in 1996, the wine has gained in body and richness. The tasting proved that some previous vintages suffer indeed from relative thinness, when compared to their peers – though some surprises happened! A qualified enologist, and one of the many Lurtons one finds in Bordeaux, Henri had undertaken a progressive overhauling of all aspects of wine production – from the vineyard to the vinification. Interestingly enough, many of his wines have a majority of Merlot in them – atypical for the Medoc.

“We had Cabernet vines planted in some places where they should not have been,” said Lurton, pictured below. And some of the Merlot vines are planted on the famous Brane hill – a gravel-filled elevation where most of the vines are used to make the wine.

Lurton has proven very selective in making his first wine: at most, 40 percent of the production is used to make Brane Cantenac, and most often it is less than 30 percent.

All in all, the tasting proved that Brane Cantenac is on the right track, currently worthy, in this taster’s opinion, of its second growth status.

COMPLETE TASTING NOTES Chateau Brane Cantenac Tasted at Hotel de Crillon in Paris on 8 September 2005

Wines in bold, I liked. In red and bold, I liked even more. When underlined, a wine to obtain for sure!

2003 barrel sample: First nose is blackberry and blackcurrant jam – a sign of the vintage, with second nose (following aeration) yielding some . Corinthian raisin. Rather heady on the palate with alcohol showing prominently. 88/100

2002: A fresh peppermint nose with some cedar and mahogany. Airy and elegant on the palate, with “focused” flavor and length (linear), if not particularly rich: it could evolve like the 1996 and a more balanced wine than the 2003. Probably a bargain, given the vintage (far better than en primeur) – one to look out for! 92+/100

2001: A somewhat muted cedar-like nose with some raspberry and black currant. Lacks the pureness of the 2002 – less intense both on the nose and on the palate – but is a pleasant wine. 90+/100. It has improved since this tasting.

2000: Very deeply rich cassis nose with some menthol and hints of tobacco. The palate is corpulent but also has the linear precision of the 2002. Happily avoids overripe notes found in the 2003: a wonderful wine that sadly probably costs quite a bit! 95/100

1999: Discrete mint aroma with freshness and lightly discernable red fruits. Very subtle nose! The palate is strawberry, cherry, spice and forest. Reminds me of the 2001, again lacking the precision of vintages like 2002 and 2000. 90/100

1998: Fresher and more focused nose than the 1999 but some hints of green pepper. Indeed the 1998 reminds me of the somewhat green 1994 though it is a tad more open in comparison, a tad better. 87/100

1997: A “young wine” aroma. Still some oak-derived aromas of toast but also some sweet cookie dough! Later nose develops fresh mint. Palate is nice, with toast flavors and forest strawberry. Medium- to full-bodied with a good finish. A surprisingly good 1997 Bordeaux! 91/100

1996: One of my favorite wines of the tasting. First nose is subtle red fruit with raspberry and some pepper. The palate starts a bit edgy, but then shows good depth and develops a silky texture. Indeed, edges smoothen and wine also turns very full-bodied. 92/100

1995: First nose is “warm” with strawberry jam; later reveals beefy scents. The palate is heftier than the 1996, slightly “hot” and certainly less elegant but with more chutzpah. A heady, fun wine (perhaps the 2003 will taste like this down the road?). 91/100

1994: At first, nose is green with some red fruit. Palate is austere, with some dark plum flavors though a tad watery. Time in glass brings forth more flavor, but remains somewhat hard in texture. 84/100

1993: First noticeably young robe of violet. Rather open, licorice nose with yummy notes of nougat, but the palate does not meet expectations: tight and austere. The 1994 has more character in comparison, but neither are particularly interesting. 84/100

1992: Nose is pleasing strawberry jam and licorice then turns cherry. Palate is medium- bodied with some cinnamon and pepper and a rather good finish! Another surprise for the vintage, and better than the next two years. 87/100

1991: Slightly leafy and dough-like but improves with spiciness and licorice. Medium body with some chocolate notes though slightly edgy. More focus than the 1992 however and improves with time in glass. Again, surprisingly fine wine for the vintage. 88+/100

1990: Cassis and pine forest aromas with some jammy strawberry. Palate is too austere for a vintage like this, indeed edgy and worn! The 1991 is softer and more accessible. Time in glass reveals a wine that turns flat. Major disappointment! 84/100

1989: One of the very top wines from this tasting. Jammy cassis then very tobacco and cigar box on the nose. A wonderful palate with menthol, hints of fruit veering pleasingly towards tertiary aromas. Indeed very cigar box! Looking ahead, perhaps lacks the intensity of the 2000, but a very balanced wine. Bravo! 93+/100

1988: Nose needs much coaxing. Some earthy and mahogany notes, later some mocha. A cool palate reveals candied strawberry but with an edgy even metallic feel which leaves an austere impression. Not green like the 1994 however, but tight and slightly hard. 87+/100

1987: Initial dead leaf nose with some pepper and mushroom but no strong aromas. Though somewhat diluted on the palate, shows more substance than the 1984 with some fruit still showing. A rather inoffensive wine that needs drinking now! 85/100

1986: Like the 1988, this wine’s nose needs coaxing! Shows – with time – hints of mint and leather. The palate is at first rustic, leafy but full bodied. Later shows espresso notes with more leather – and improves greatly with time. Perfect match for lamb or beef with mushrooms. A “hearty” Margaux! 88/100.

1985: What the 1995 is to the 1996, the 1985 is to the 1986. Namely: more open-ended and meatier. Nose shows cherry liqueur with a round and smooth palate. At first veers too much to (dead) earthy flavors, but then becomes very coffee-like! Tastes better now than the 1986, but I suspect that the 1986 will outlast the 1985. 89+/100

1984: A sweet dough nose with some raspberry fruit. A diluted palate and somewhat mushroom like and . flat! Half an hour in glass improved it, slightly, but remained thin. 83/100.

1983: Earthy mushroom like nose with some rust, but like a summer house that has not been visited in years, the nose needs airing out! Indeed developed nice truffle and jus de viande aromas. The attack was slightly angular with what seemed to be a hint of volatile acidity. Gained stuffing in glass, smoothened out and became very tasty and full- bodied after 90 minutes. A fine wine in a successful vintage for the appellation. 91/100.

Text and photos by Panos Kakaviatos

Complete tasting notes HERE.

Over dinner many tasters enjoyed the Figeac 2000 along with the 1998 and 1982 Figeac…

And two related videos:

Philippe Dhalluin on the 2010 harvest, albeit just before pickings…

A unique – and blind – tasting of some great wines for which he is responsible including Opus One, Mouton Rothschild of course, Almaviva and others…

Three winemakers dinners in three top German restaurants in Berlin, Frankfurt and Baden Baden are scheduled on 11, 12 and 13 November, where I will co-host with the Châteaux representatives.

Gildas d’Ollone, general director of the famous Pichon Comtesse estate in Pauillac and Jean-Bernard Grenié, co-owner of the famous St Emilion estate, Château Angélus, will be on hand with vintages ranging from 1995 to 2005.

The tasting dinners, with full four to five course menus, will held in three great German restaurants:

Thursday, 11 November: Restaurant Sankt Moritz in Berlin, an “insider’s wine location” with Anton Stefanov

Friday, 12 November: Restaurant Français at the elegant Steigenberger Frankfurter Hof in downtown Frankfurt Am Main

Saturday, 13 November: The Park Restaurant at the luxurious Brenner Park Hotel in Baden Baden, known for its thermal spas and boutiques.

Vintages: Angelus and Pichon Comtesse 2005; Pichon Comtesse 2002; Angélus 2001; Angélus 1998; Pichon Comtesse 1996; Angélus and Pichon Comtesse 1995. In Berlin, we shall also enjoy Pichon Comtesse 1988 and Angélus 1989!

More information can be obtained for each winemakers’ dinner at the following:

Sommelier Anton Stefanov in Berlin at (+49) 030 / 23 62 44 70

Franck Mouzon (Sommelier) or Nils Blümke (Maître) in Frankfurt at (+49) 069 215138

Jürgen Blödt, F&B Manager oder Karl-Heinz Schopf, Sommelier in Baden Baden (+49) 07221 9000.

I will be co-hosting each event, so would be great to see you there!

Visit to Chateau Figeac in St Emilion

My early September 2010 Bordeaux tour continues in early September with a morning visit to Chateau Figeac, one of my favorite wines of St Emilion, and a very unique wine because – unlike most St Emilion wines – it has up to 70% Cabernet! And the way the weather is developing for 2010 – dry and hot – this may be (yet another) vintage that will favor Cabernet driven wines…

It was a bit sad this time because Eric’s father-in-law, the owner and famous winemaker Thierry Manoncourt had recently passed away, but Eric and his wife Laure were as gracious as ever to welcome me to the estate. Well, Eric was miffed at me for criticizing his 2009 pricing, but I reassured him in the sense that as much as I thought the pricing in 2009 was too high, I continue to praise his wines because they are among the best in the region for their elegance, subtlety and class. For some odd reason, the overpowerful critic Robert Parker downgraded his impression of Chateau Figeac 2000, so I wanted to try three Figeacs blind, with one being the 2000, just to see how it would taste among other vintages. So here are my reflections before the vintages are revealed.

Wine A. Orange rim. A bit of truffle. A bit of meatiness to it. Very elegant. Smooth. And an exotic spiciness to it that reminds me a bit of the 1982. Very nice wine! Exotic… It turned out to be the 2003! Wow, this is one of my favorite 2003s.

Wine B A bit more matiere. A bit younger? A bit more tannic. A bit more tight. A bit more evolved on the nose compared to Wine C.Wine? These wines were popped and poured so we went back to the glasses 20 minutes later. And voila parfum au nez. Pipe tobacco with cinnamon.  Beautiful wine, lovely. Very balanced. Is it better than the Wine C? Wine C has more stuffing, yes, but for now, this one is drinking better. 2001.

Wine C. OK, I did get an initial green pepper aspect here, reminding me somewhat of the 1995 I have had several times and which has not turned out to be one of the better Figeacs in my opinion. Very Cabernet. But that aspect is not nearly as evident in this wine, whose nose improves rather quickly with time in glass. And the palate is rich and thick, certainly more substantial than the two previous wines. It develops very nicely in glass with more harmony and flavor both on the nose and especially on the palate. I just think it needs more time and can still remember loving this back in January 2005 for three verticals in Germany I had organised. The 2000 impressed most tasters, and that was over a four hour period. Interestingly, the 2000 is not Eric’s favorite. He finds it almost too rich for his own taste and prefers the 2001.

Chateau Raymond Lafon

What a pleasure to return to this great estate in Sauternes. Marie Francoise Meslier has two lovely twins, each almost four years old: Gabriel and Michel. The house has taken a glow with the two sons. Brother and winemaker Charles Henri is the winemaking director and seems very happy, as does brother Jean Pierre who was once based in the US but now stays at the chateau to help with visits and sales. Retired, father Pierre Meslier is very content, having just celebrated his 80th birthday with an evening at Yquem with Pierre Lurton. They enjoyed 1989 and also a 1929 (since no 1930 was made).

Since I did not get a chance to taste the 2009 en primeur, it was a pleasure to try it here at the estate, and I can say that it easily rivals the highest classed growths and a fraction of the price. Take Fargues, for example, which was introduced en primeur at about 100 euros. Raymond Lafon is under 30 euros. A steal.

With Jean Pierre we went through a vertical:

2009: Lovely tea aroma, bergamot, fresh pineapple with mineral aspects. Very good viscosity, rich. Some exotic elements including mango. Really lovely wine, recalling perhaps a mix of the 2005 and 2003. 95 points.

2008: Butterscotch nose. Not as exuberant as the 2009. Small harvest because of frost. Shows some orange rind flavors. Just not as focused or as powerful as the 2009, but a nice Sauternes. 90 points.

2007: Tobacco, pear, ginger. Very refined with sneaky persistence. Perhaps it lacks the ‘wow’ factor of the 2009, but it makes up for that in subtlety. Really a lovely perfumed Sauternes which I prefer overall. Indeed, Charles Henri later told me that it was not even showing at its best, since it is about to be bottled… So I suspect that it will be even better than the note. 93/94

2006: A bit more closed on the nose. Then it opens up in glass, displaying yellow apricot. They had to harvest late for some logistical reasons, Jean-Pierre said, not really by choice. But they were lucky it did not rain, resulting in extra concentration and some raisin like grapes. Did I detect a hint of raisin when he mentioned this? An agreeable style of Raymond Lafon, but somehow just a bit muted at this stage. It seems to have more stuffing than the 2008. 92

2005: An elegant mineral and tobacco nose, not unlike the 2007, precedes a rich palate with pear, white apricot and lovely grapefruit. Could this be my favorite of the vertical? There is a spherical grace about this wine that is also opulent; more so than the 2007, but somehow mirroring the 2007s elegance as well. A wonderful wine, which I would like to own in half bottles to enjoy. 95+

2001: Jean-Pierre believes that the chateau has since made better wines, and I may be inclined to agree. While the 2001 is very good, it may not have the same concentration as the 2005, 2007 or 2009. We did not taste the 2003, but I wonder if the 2003 may also eclipse the 2001 at Raymond Lafon. The nose was very elegant, showing some crème brulee, tobacco and real spice on the nose. The palate is subtle and medium bodied. Could it just be a closed phase? I recall tasting this in other years and liking it more. 92+/93

Over dinner we enjoyed a 2005 with liver pate to start things off and then ended the meal with the 2005 and Roquefort. For the main course of steak, we enjoyed a superb Haut Bailly 2006, which was meaty yet refined, as one would expect from this great Pessac-Leognan!

Lunch with Ferdinand Mahler Besse at an excellent Bordeaux restaurant, Gravelier, where the daughter of three star Michelin chef Michel Troisgros works. Did not meet the daughter but enjoyed the cuisine with a bottle of Alter Ego of Palmer 2004. The 2004 was all bright red fruit with some floral aspects. A delicious and drinkable second wine, one of the few second wines in Bordeaux that is worth buying. Too many are not as interesting and not as good as the first wines from cru bourgeois terroirs. But I digress. Mahler Besse repeated his claim (for an article I wrote in Wine Business International) that the 2009 en primeur campaign is ‘the most dangerous’ he has seen. With a real threat of a bubble burst. ‘I know we have been crying wolf [over vertiginous pricing] for the past 10 years, but it just may happen this time.’

Visit to Kirwan and blind tasting

Kirwan has turned things around since the departure of Michel Rolland. As much as Rolland put the wine on the map in recent years. it became the valid object of criticism for lacking some Margaux grace, and being a bit too concentrated and merlot-like. Proof because we tried a 2001 over lunch at the chateau with winemaking director Philippe Delfaut. Over a fabulous lunch of lamb, the 2001 Kirwan was certainly smooth and tasty but almost too fluid for my taste and more plum notes for a Medoc wine than I would have expected. I caught myself indeed thinking ‘a Pomerol in the Medoc?’ But as you can see in the wine notes below for the last three vintages – indeed the first three for Delfaut – things have changed for the better at Kirwan.

Wine A: Some violet floral elements. Hint of licorice. Mineral. Palate is substantial. Freshness on the finish. Not heavy. Quite a bit of petit verdot that lends a certain spice. Very fine. 2008

Wine B: A bit of green pepper on the initial nose [these wines were popped and poured]. But then nose gets floral, actually more like smelling a rose bud. A bit mentholated. Softer on the palate than the preceding wine. More suave. Rather long on the finish, or rather lingering. I like it, although it lacks the substance of the above while being more elegant. 2007.

Wine C: Immediately guessed by the color that this was the 2009. A hint of oak on the nose – in its 10th month of aging – but just very floral and fresh and fruit-driven. It has much elegance and weight, nicely balanced. I could not believe it when general manager Philippe Delfaut said it was 14 degrees alcohol. This is very nice wine. Tasted better here than it did en primeur, and I would seek out the Kirwan 2009 if the price is still rather low. Proposed for only about 29 euros as futures.

Interesting side note: I have always reported that the difference between 2008 and 2007 was July. Indeed July was a better month for 2008. Delfaut explained to me why. The light of July generally diminishes the amount of metoxy perazyn in the grapes. This substance brings forth green pepper aromas, he explained. So the 2007 July, not as luminous, did not break that substance down as much (at least at Kirwan) as it did in 2008.

Blind tasting at Branaire Ducru

It was great to see Patrick Maroteaux and his wife Evelyn again. I had met Patrick during a Heart’s Delight tasting in Washington D.C. back in 2003. And have always enjoyed his wines – never too expensive and always well made.

Wine A: Nice violet/red color. I should have recognized its primary aspect! Sweet nose with very floral aspects. Some licorice and vanilla. The palate is rich and full and returns to a fresh rose stem like flavor. Beautiful yet almost light. I was wondering at first if it were the 2007 or even the second wine from a super vintage. Wrong! It was the … 2009!

Wine B: At first an aluminum and beef blood note. Then blackberry and plum. Compared to Wine A, this has more evident tannic presence but not as refined. Not sure. 2007

Wine C: A serious wine. Licorice, spice, cassis. A bit closed. But brooding and one can get the substance. I was thinking perhaps 2006? It was 2006.

Wine D: This was the most complete of all the wines, with clear cassis and cherry notes followed by a very mouth filling palate that showed tannic edge, richness and flavor. Certainly needs time to mellow just a bit, but I was thinking that this has the concentration and presence of a great young vintage like 2005. It was the 2005.

So how did I miss the 2009? What is amazing about the 2009 here at Branaire is that it does not overpower you but rather charms you with subtle floral notes. And yet, going back to the barrel sample, it showed underlying power that was indeed subtle. A very promising barrel sample.

Over dinner at the restaurant St Julien, we enjoyed a superb 2001 which I thought was a 1996. It had a fine Cabernet Sauvignon driven backbone and yet a richness that was very subtle, married well with an unctuous sea bass grilled over a red wine reduction sauce. We also had a mellowed 1998, which proved to go well with the cow milk based cheeses. 1998 is not such a great vintage in the Medoc, but it did well at Branaire Ducru. Did not take copious notes over dinner…

It was refreshing to read about smaller winemakers, more modest, who make ‘natural’ wines, with ‘no manipulation, no chemicals,’ he quoted Jean-Francois Fillastre of the 1.3-hectare Domaine du Jaugaret in Beychevelle-St Julien.

I am in Bordeaux to get a sense of the 2010 vintage just before harvest – where rain is sorely needed because grapes are too dry (indeed the famous consultant Jacques Boissenot told me in his lab at Lamarque, just south of St Julien, that the merlot grapes are 30% lighter than last year, with very thick skins and little juice).

In any case, I have also criticized the Bordelais for high prices. I have criticized the glitz and glamor as well, being fairly turned off by a visit to Chateau Latour during en primeur week, full of fawning writers and people in the business hungry for a rare allocation amidst an arrogant Fort Knox like ambiance. The wine is fantastic but costs a fortune and I like wines to drink… It is true that in 2009 many chateaux went haywire with prices. One of my favorite wines of Bordeaux, Chateau Figeac, for example, I found to be sold at far too high a price in 2009 compared to previous vintages (not nearly as crazy as Latour of course), and owner Eric d’Aramon was not very happy with my critique when I visited his chateau last week to taste some wines. In any case, Figeac, not modern in style by the way and yet one of those ‘luxury goods’ that Asimov describes negatively – is damn good wine.

Which is not something I can say about Domaine du Jaugaret. What Asimov strangely did not mention in his romantic description of the cobwebbed lamps and mushroom like mold of the cellars is a distinct vinegar smell as well. And why did he not mention the fact that Fillastre’s wine was not authorized to bear the St Julien label? Mr Fillastre spoke vaguely to me about ‘the authorities giving me trouble’ but when I spoke to locals in St Julien, people who sell wine in modest shops for example and who did not wish to be named, the reason is that there is a problem with his wines. A problem I could detect distinctly from the 2008 barrel sample which had acetic acid aromas. Now, the welcome in his modest domain was charming. It did remind me of visits to small domains in Burgundy. And we went to see some of his vines, 18 rows, between Ducru Beaucaillou (actually formerly Terry Gros Caillou recently bought by the 2nd growth) and Branaire Ducru, located not far from the inland Chateau Gruaud Larose. And I liked the 2007, which was frank and fresh, but nothing particularly amazing as Asimov would have you believe. Certainly not haunting. Still, Mr. Fillastre is indeed authentic, in the way he does things a ‘l’ancien’ as they say in France. But he also admits to not being able to control temperatures during fermentations. Something pretty basic. His agenda against ‘adding chemicals’ and ‘making natural wines’ is nice, but not everything a l’ancien is necessarily good. And if it is true that his wine sells for at least $60 a bottle in the US, and even up to $100, well I find that absurd.

Asimov would have done better to have tried a wine like Domaine Castaing also in St Julien and just near the vineyards of Jaugaret. The wines there are cleaner and cheaper. In fact, this domain, which has no problem obtaining a St Julien appellation authorization, has the same area of vines – about one hectare – and is also far more modest in terms of price: about 13 euros a bottle. Now that is more like it. It is hardly as good as a wine like the aforementioned Branaire Ducru for example, where there is much soul in making great wine. Same goes for Leoville Barton. Are these wines more expensive? Of course.

Like it or not, many of the ‘brand-name products’ Asimov criticizes take much more care in the vineyard and in the vat room, and they are not overripe or modern. The result is excellent wine that is – well, yes – more expensive.

There is a very well known American adage that Asimov’s ‘soulful article’ (actually simplistic article) seems to ignore: You get what you pay for. Or at least you should…

For over 10 years now, I have been visiting Bordeaux at least twice a year, and I have come to like certain wines more than others. One of my favorites in the appellation of Pessac-Leognan, located in the southern Leognan part, is Haut Bailly. Chateau director Veronique Sanders and winemaking director Gabriel Vialard welcomed me to re-taste the 2009 along with the 2008 and 2007 blind, before a lunch at the chateau.

During the en primeur tastings I must have had a slightly off sample, tasted blind among other Graves 2009s, because the 2009 Haut Bailly was excellent in this tasting at the chateau. Gabriel poured the wines, masked by a cover.

Wine A showed good sap on the nose, rich with hints of charcoal. The palate was more austere, with a slightly short finish. I was thinking 2007. Coming back to it over time, it opened up in glass, showing good flavors, but just not quite as interesting as the other two wines. It was indeed the 2007.

Wine B showed a cooler, more discrete nose, which I liked more, even though it was not quite as flamboyant – the nose – as Wine A. It was like smelling blueberry for me, and the palate was more elegant and polished, somehow more complex. It turned out to be the 2008, something one could guess when coming to Wine C, which displayed an impressive nose of licorice and blackberry and a creamy palate that was not overbearing, in spite of the 13.7 alcohol.

Overall, Wine C was exciting wine, opulent yet precise.
Will it reach the heights of the 2005 (13.2 or 13.3)? I wonder if the 2005 – from memory – was perhaps more balanced, but the suave nose and unctuous texture of the 2009 please the palate, and there is much tannin and structure underneath, so it will be great to taste this once again from bottle. Although Gabriel said that, by 2009, work in the vat room had improved, that there was more precision, the 2009 had to be fermented at slightly lower temperatures, to prevent too much extraction, since alcohol levels were higher. The 2005 needed no such allowance, because the alcohol levels were not as high. Still, Gabriel feels that the 2009 is the smoother, less evidently tannic wine. It will be interesting to try both side by side in 10 years.

2010 so far (as of 1 September!)

After some initial problems during the flowering period, where Merlot was mostly affected, there has been very dry and warm if not always very hot weather throughout July and August. Some problems mainly for Merlot during the flowering period from late May and into June were due to millerandange or “shot berries” in which grape bunches contained berries of greatly different size and, most important, different levels of maturity. This seemed to have been set off by coulure, which was triggered by periods of cold nights in late May, when the Merlot was flowering, and sudden rains in June. Some Merlot flowers stayed closed, the caps did not come off, as Gabriel explained. Thus they were not pollinated and the grapes failed to develop. Because the Cabernets flowered later, and because they were not as sensitive to the coulure or millerandange, they were not as fragile to the weather conditions and are thus in far better shape.

Could this be a 1984, where almost no Merlot was used? Gabriel replied that the 2010 will almost certainly have less Merlot than usual. Veronique reminded me of the fine 1986 which was if I recall correctly almost all Cabernet Sauvignon. Flowering for Merlot was at the end of May; for Cabernet it was 10 June. The cap was not easily discharged for the Merlot during flowering…

Later in the day, at Domaine de Chevalier, owner Olivier Bernard spoke of a long, if not very cold, winter, with bits of frost in the later spring, followed by extremely dry if not very hot July and August. Rains fell in June, but in bursts, on two separate occasions. Since late June, it has been very dry: just 40mm of water for both July and August, which was confirmed later at Domaine de Chevalier. There was more rain in 2009 during the same period, said Olivier Bernard.

Every winemaker I have met said that a little rain would be welcome. Some heat stress was showing for younger vines, everywhere, with yellowing leaves. But many of the older vines or vines where the soil has been well worked – at Haut Bailly and at Domaine de Chevalier where I noticed the vines more carefully – the grapes look small andhealthy, with thickening skins, and this is a good sign.

Lunch at Haut Bailly was prepared by Tanguy Laviale, a chef who had worked in Michelin rated restaurants and who wants to learn more about winemaking, so he has been employed by Haut Bailly over the last year. He prepared an exquisite ravioli with freshly picked cepe mushrooms from the Dordogne region, with a savory parmesan crème, followed by a roasted rack of lamb perfectly cooked, just a bit pink, with subtly sweet potatoes with two somewhat incongruous if quirky coconut slices! The sauces and flavorings for both were subtle yet tasty, a perfect reflection of the wines: Haut Bailly 2001 and 2000. The 2001 showed very well, with some tertiary aromas as Gabriel pointed out, rather smoky and tobacco like, very Graves… It was a smooth wine, with good body and substance but never overstated, hardly ‘modern’ and I liked it a lot. But I have to tip my hat to the 2000 which seemed slightly closed in comparison, and at first misleadingly monotone. Time in glass showed a wine with lurking substance and a lovely richness, underscored by a pleasing charcoal like aspect. It was like you took the 2001 and put in through an amplifier. Both show the class of this wine, but the 2000 is just a bit more pronounced, and likely on a slower evolutionary track.

Domaine de Chevalier

At Domaine de Chevalier, I had very much liked both the white and the red 2009 during the en primeur tastings. In fact, the red was one of their best ever for me. Tasted again, it was just a confirmation. Top- of-the-line Pessac Leognan and the price is not as high as many others in its class. For those of you on budgets, but still tempted by Bordeaux 2009, go for Domaine de Chevalier… I also tasted some back vintages, starting with the 2006 this time. Technical manager Thomas Stonestreet – he is French but his family originally came from the UK – was on hand to guide me through the tasting, as was Xavier Planty of Chateau Guiraud in Sauternes.

We started with the reds. The 2006 is very fresh on the nose and shows fine richness on the palate, but not overdone. This is a wine like Haut Bailly: classy and rich but not big. The 2006 is one I would look for: if you can get a good price, do not hesitate. It is like a mini 2009.

The 2007 is pretty but just a tad angular. Going back to it later, I liked it and suppose it would be a good dinner wine for the next few years.

The 2008 was slightly more refined than the 2007 but not as much better as I was expecting. It was a bit closed actually, so it was slightly difficult to judge.

When we got to the 2009, I was met with a minor explosion of black fruits and perfume. There was a real purity to the nose and the palate that really transcended the other wines tasted before: here we have a very special wine. At 13.8 alcohol, I thought I caught just a bit of warmth, but it was ephemeral. Once again, it will be very interesting to compare the 2005 with the 2009 in 10 or 15 years. As much as I am charmed by the 2009, I wonder if the 2005 will prove more balanced… And let’s not forget the lovely 2000s, the initial ‘vintage of the century’ of this last decade!

The whites of Domaine de Chevalier can rival those of Haut Brion. And they cost much less. One finds a real precision and purity in almost every vintage. The 2006 seems almost ready to drink because it has a more evident richness that is beguiling, displaying what Xavier Planty noted as the telltale Domaine de Chevalier ‘laurel leaf’ aroma. I was getting just slight beeswax but ever so subtle! Certainly some grapefruit freshness. An artful combination of richness and verve.

The 2007 is tighter and more closed in on itself, but as I noted back in January this year and again in March, when previously tasted, that this is a wine that will be great in a few years. Seems to have more potential and on a slower evolutionary track than 2006.

The 2008 has even more acidity. Thomas says that it will outlast the 2007 but I am wondering if perhaps it is a bit too tight for its own good? Certainly this wine will shine, and I like its razor focus, but I wonder if 2007 shows more balance, more ‘comforting’ richness.

The 2009 was hard to taste, a bit yeasty, but quite rich and yet very disciplined. Some candied grapefruit and orange rind. Well on its way!

Malartic Lagraviere

I have more recently begun tasting the wines of this estate and the Bonnie family is ever so welcoming, too. Michel Rolland advises them in the winemaking. So, yes, there is a more “modern” aspect here compared to the previous estates, but they are all very well made and the price point for the quality is excellent as well: very important to consider. I recall enjoying both the white and the red in 2009, and in 2005 but also in other vintages, this estate does well.

As at Haut Bailly, I tasted these wines blind and owner Jean Jacques Bonnie had prepared the corks under different tissue papers so he would know which was which. I did not know that he had done so, and, taking a photo of the masked bottles, I cleared away the tissues! So when he came back, he said this will be blind for both of us… And we did figure it out. All three wines had a certain fullness to them that made them more similar than different, but the vintages were discernible.

Wine A was thickly laid out on the palate, showing good sap and yet freshness on the finish, also marked by some notable tannin that gave it more gravitas than Wine B. It turned out to be the 2008.

Wine B seemed to show more oak influence, but a somewhat metallic aspect on the nose and just slightly short finish made me think it was the 2007, but I was not too sure. Like Wine A, there was a kind of thick aspect to it, with oak, although time in glass revealed some pleasing floral notes. It was indeed the 2007.

Wine C I thought was the 2009, with a far more pronounced nose and greater substance and weight on the palate. It was certainly fuller in body than either of the previous wines. It was indeed the 2009, which I had graded highly en primeur, and like today as well.

As for the whites, also blind, the first wine – 2008 – was very lemon pie like on the nose. A lip smacking palate, too. Very pleasing, with good acidity.

The next wine was the 2009, which fooled me, because it was so light colored and also showed fine acidity with a tea-like aspect. The fruit was a bit muzzled, as the wine is still aging in barrel. But this shows fine promise.

Finally, the 2007 was noticeably darker in color. It showed pleasing notes hints of mahogany and tobacco on the nose, a fulsome palate, both pleasing and pleasurable, with finesse.

Many thanks to all three estates for having me over to taste their wines.

More notes coming… photos, too!

Once again, I take stock of and give thanks for the existence of Château Langoa Barton – and the vineyards of the more famous Chateau Léoville Barton.

The actual estate, a beautiful chateau located in the northern part of St Julien and belonging to the Barton family for centuries, is called Langoa, a very good third growth with some 25 hectares of vines. The better second growth of Léoville, with about 47 hectares of vines on better plots, some closer to the Gironde, is also vinified at Langoa. Both wines are justifiably known for their high quality at affordable prices.

No, the Barton family has not invested in optic sorting machines, nor do they have three thousand sorting tables or individual de-stemmers, but since Anthony Barton took over from his Uncle Ronald in the 1980s, the estates have seen later picking and greater sorting in the vineyard – and smoother wines as a result.

But the wines are not modern. No pigeages here, never ultra ripe pickings. Taste Léoville Poyferre and Léoville Barton, and you can see a difference in style. I like both Poyferre and Barton, but generally prefer the Barton freshness.

One thing is certain, the critical result! The Barton wines obtain high scores from both Robert Parker and Jancis Robinson. From La Revue de Vin de France to Vinum Magazine. In short : all around – and well deserved – acclaim.

Sure, you do not find the same level of intensity and concentration – or Pauillac style power – that you find at Léoville Las Cases, where selection may be stricter and the terroir is arguably better.

But Las Cases costs a lot more, too. And in this day and age of super high-priced Bordeaux, this is an increasingly important factor. And for the price, what you typically obtain is a prototype of St Julien: elegance combined with structure, the proverbial mix of Pauillac firmness with Margaux silk. One of my favorite Leoville Bartons to drink now is the 1999,for example, which I enjoyed last year at the estate just as they finished the harvest.

I love Léoville Barton also for the people who make it. Anthony Barton is a true gentleman and has a great sense of disarming and witty humor. He is also very serious about making the best possible wine he can while also making it as affordable as possible. Consultants Jacques and Eric Boissenot (Jacques actually worked WITH and not under Emile Peynaud, he has stressed to me) assure quality. Daughter Lilian works with the same passion and sense of humor as her father. The estate was one of the first I ever visited in the Medoc, and I make it a point to visit any chance I get.

So, it was great to taste again a series of wines from both Langoa (third growth) and Leoville during ProWein in Germany:

Opening taster

Chateau Léoville Barton 2005: Impressive and foreboding, although decanted three hours before the dinner. Rather dark color, the nose only grudgingly evokes cedar and cassis, Cabernet hallmarks, with a floral lift that was much more in evidence when tasted in January 2008 in New York. Certainly the wine has closed down. The palate is voluminous without being heavy, with foreboding tannins but not as beastly as the tannins in the 2000, when I tasted the 2000 in May 2006. Perhaps the 2005 is just slightly more refined, with slightly finer tannins than the 2000? Lilian Barton believes so, but she also said that she was ‘pleasantly surprised’ with the 2000. The 2005 is certainly NOT to open now. I would say not even from half bottle formats. Certainly a wine for many, many years in the cellar; anyone who bought this should be very happy. Probably 96-97 points for the future but do not bother today!

With duck breast in orange reduction sauce

Chateau Léoville Barton 2000: More effusive on the nose, with lead pencil and ripe cassis as well as light hints of charcoal, the wine has lost just a bit of the beastly tannic edge when I tried it in Berlin in May 2006. Four years later, it is still somewhat unruly, with powerful tannins, but there is a layered richness and harmony on the mid palate and onto the finish that make it a top-tier Medoc from the 2000 vintage. I especially like its mid-palate substance and persistant ripe red/black fruit finish. Its tannic power was a nice foil however for the rich duck. Still not ready, 93+ now, but 95 points in 5-10 years no doubt. For reference, just try the beguiling 1982!

Chateau Léoville Barton 2004: Very charming and cedar like, with more evident black cherry and cassis fruit on the nose and palate; this is on a faster evolutionary track than the 2000, but not too dissimilar. I like the balance on the palate between freshness and richness and a smooth lingering finish. With time, the wine picked up more weight, a good sign for further aging of course (the 02s are perhaps more focused, if slightly less rich). A poor-man’s 2000? Well, anyone would be well off with a bunch of Barton 04s. Also a good pairing with the duck, but the 2000 is more powerful. 92+

With Rossini Beef served with foie gras and Perigord Truffle

Chateau Langoa Barton 2001: Lovely mineral on the nose coupled with chocolate and licorice. Lovely nose. The palate is voluminous without heaviness, but just a tad hard coming after the series of Léovilles. It went very well with the beef. 89

Chateau Langoa Barton 1998: I was pleasantly surprised by the 1998, thinking it would be more austere than it turned out to be. A red fruit nose, followed through on the blackcurrant like palate, mingling – appropriate for the meal here – with beef blood. The finish is marked by mild notes of leather yet also fresh lift. It lacks perhaps the concentration one would get from a better vintage, but overall, I think it is drinking better than the 2001! 90+

Cheese plate

Chateau Léoville Barton 1996: A very nice surprise and, of all the wines, probably the most pleasure to drink now, even more than the 2000. I liked its cassis and licorice-infused nose, preceding a suave, medium to full bodied palate, with currant fruit and some leather aspects with some fresh earthiness. All very smooth on the palate, yet substantial and tannic, but not beastly. Will it get better? Not sure. It will certainly get more tertiary and will certainly stay on a (slightly rising) plateau for a while, given its structure. Very nice! 94+ for now.

Chateau Léoville Barton 1990: A rather fresh bouquet of rhubarb mingling with cherry, cassis and leather. The palate was fine, smooth, with melted tannins, but somehow showing less energy than that of the 1996 and certainly less foreboding power than the Leoville 2000 or 2005 and the finish was just a tad shorter than I would have expected. I recall liking the 1989 much more when tasted back in 2006, but have not tried that vintage since then. For the 1990 in March 2010, a slight disappointment, given the vintage’s reputation. 90

All in all, a lovely evening!

With a double magnum of 1962

Souvenir bottle: signed 1918 magnum

1986, 1983 and 1975 in Hamburg at Le Haerlin Restaurant

Gruaud Larose, the wine of kings and the king of wines! In the cru classé concentrated appellation of St. Julien, the Medoc’s smallest, Gruaud Larose makes up almost 10 percent of all the vineyards. General manager David Launay jokes ‘we are the Pomerol of the left bank.’ Perhaps not. But the appellation does feature some of the greatest names of Bordeaux, with a slew of super seconds including the Leovilles (Barton, Las Cases and Poyferre) and Ducru Beaucaillou as well as Gruaud

Larose. Its deep gravel soil is excellent for Cabernet Sauvignon, so we have here a classic Left Bank wine dominated by Cabernet, but it also has significant amounts of Petit Verdot, sometimes lending the wine a certain exoticism. The style over many years has been slightly “meaty”. This is not a wine that boasts the delicacy of a Ducru Beaucaillou or the Pauillac-life power of Leoville Las Cases. It is a unique St. Julien that since 2007 is starting to gain in elegance with the arrival of Eric Boissenot, the son of the famous Bordeaux enologist and consultant Jacques Boissenot. Since 2007, Eric has officially replaced Georges Pauli as winemaking director and changes include the use of a vertical press as well as greater selection of vats before blending to favor finesse. Below, a video of the tastings held in various German cities and back at the chateau where we enjoyed a 1962 and a 1918!

More bottles from Gruaud Larose before the dinner in Hamburg

Full tasting notes HERE

On 13 January 2010, 17 of the Château’s wines, ranging from 1978 to 2005 vintages, were presented to professionals in Washington D.C. The event was hosted by Palmer’s winemaking director Thomas Duroux, who summed up the Palmer style as standing for ‘purity, delicacy and femininity’. The wines were double decanted two hours before tasting, and were presented in five flights.

First the video I produced from that wonderful dinner, followed by my tasting notes!

Here is a link to my tasting notes as published in Decanter Magazine.

You can also read here for a slightly different version – photos coming.

Count me as a wine lover who does like to compare wine to art, when appropriate. Wednesday night was a masterpiece. A top performance by Thelonius Monk if you like jazz, or a great neo-classical painting by Jacques Louis David. And I am not just talking about the wines. We gathered about 6 pm with Delamotte Blanc de Blanc 1999 Champagne, which was very refreshing and toasty and nicely wound together, tasting more youthful than its years. A fresh richness, and smooth character complimented our initial surroundings: the Book Room. Named after Thomas Jefferson’s library at Monticello, the space had a 19th century Gentleman’s Lounge feel: books along the wooden walls, plush seating, a lit fire, dim lights. Could have been perfect with cigars after the dinner…

When all participants arrived, we moved into the Cellar, the so named private dining room at Plume, and it was beautiful: lined with glass enclosures featuring the restaurant cellar, from great Bordeaux such as Petrus and Latour, by way of DRC in Burgundy and excellent Cote Roties and Hermitages in the northern Rhone, to multiple vintages of Krug Champagne and cult California wines. They also have a few vintages of Chateau Palmer, but enormous thanks indeed to Chateau Palmer’s Bernard de Laage de Meux and Thomas and Jean Louis for the delivery of the 17 wines (and the Champagne)… which we had double decanted and tasted at 5 p.m. that day – see photos below (Thomas and Jean-Louis in the image).

Frank and his waiter crew orchestrated impeccable service, catering to our every need at the table in a professional and courteous manner that moved like clockwork. The wines were served perfectly so that we all had enough from the single bottles. Not since I dined at La Mirande in Avignon have I encountered such seamless service.

A long wooden table impeccably set by a professional and courteous staff. The room temperature was 65 F, perfect for the wine service and because we were 15 in the room.

Terroir and methodology

Chateau Palmer may officially be a 3rd Growth, but it is justifiably considered perhaps a ‘super’ 2nd in quality, if not a 1st … Certainly the terroir is there: some 45 hectares just south of Chateau Margaux. It “sees the river”, as Thomas said, noting the nearby river’s positive influence in extreme weather conditions, such as in 1991. We had an interesting discussion about the amount of Merlot planted – due to historical planting more than anything else, Thomas explained. According to the vintage, of course, the proportion of Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon (and Petit Verdot) vary, but what struck me about the wine – as it did Darryl – was its consistently suave and elegant aspect, in a vintage like 1978 and found again in a vintage like 2000. Polished, but with substance. And although the exceptional 2005 (exceptional in every sense of the word) seems to overshadow the 2000 with a larger scaled profile (rather atypical largeness), it was not a modern über concentrated blockbuster, thank goodness.

Thomas spent a lot of time explaining the estate and the philosophy of the wine. He said – to take but one example – that press wines are always used in both the Palmer and Alter Ego blends. The press wines are of course more concentrated than the free run wines, so they are used to perfect concentration in final blending. Other estates eschew press wines and prefer to extract more from the free run wines, which can sometimes result in an over extracted aspect, or even ‘huge concentration’, but that is one aspect happily missing from all the Palmers tasted, including the 2005.

The nuance here, Thomas explained to me later, is that if extraction is pushed to the limit, the press wines will not be of very good quality because the majority of the tannins will already be in the free run wine. But if the extraction is softer, one can obtain excellent press wines which could then be used judiciously for the final blend. The latter method has always been advocated by the father of modern French winemaking Emile Peynaud, and its benefit allows for greater precision: in the case of a full blown extraction, there would be no possibility for later adjustment to perfect final blending because the press wine would be of no interest.

Choice of vintages

To answer a question Jeff raised earlier about the choice of the vintages, I had spoken to Bernard de Laage de Meux in Bordeaux and we made a plan for such a tasting, especially since Thomas was going to be in the US anyway this month. The bottles were already in the US, so not flown over from Bordeaux. The idea was not only to mix older with more recent vintages but also less celebrated vintages (1991, 1981) with stars (1983, 2005) and more or less everything in between. With the possible exception of the 2003 and the odd man out XIXth Century blend, all the wines, spanning some 30 years, conveyed elegance, freshness, perfume and palate substance: the mark of great Bordeaux. After the tasting, I am hard pressed to imagine a better and more consistent mix of Cabernet and Merlot, often in almost equal measure. The word masterpiece does come to mind.

FLIGHT 1

Alter Ego 2006: A lovely, fresh red-fruit driven (raspberry, cassis and fresh plum), and ‘disciplined’ nose with a relatively tight and youthful palate that felt more Cabernet than Merlot, although the blend was roughly equal parts of both with about 8-10 percent Petit Verdot, which supposedly adds more spice, but I got more structure. I have the feeling that the 2006 will develop more slowly than the 2004…

Alter Ego 2004: Warmer, more giving plum and blackberry aromas, somewhat more Merlot-driven and somewhat deeper as well both on the nose and palate – with soft yet present tannin. Very likely peaking, as Faryan wrote.

The roasted squab, set atop a large ravioli, filled with foie gras, braised lentils and green cabbage, was utterly delicious and probably paired best with the 2004.

FLIGHT 2 (1998 WOTF)

Palmer 2004: Well what do you know? There is indeed a fine continuity between the second and first wines here, but a more focused profile with greater perfume of blackberry and floral aromas (violets). The palate is fresh and displays a tonic finish that keeps you coming back for more.

Palmer 2003: At first whiff, I was thinking ‘I have had worse 2003s’ but there it was. Pleasing perhaps, as Randy noted, but pushing the raisin-like-baked-fruit aroma envelope. It certainly had body and substance, not really morning marmalade, but it suffered in comparison to the others. Thomas jokingly referred to this as the ‘black sheep’ of the flight, and we got a laugh from that remark.

Palmer 2001: The later harvest of 2001 allowed the grapes to ripen slowly (the total opposite of 2003) so we have a wine that is fresh and pure in both its aromatics and on the palate. For me, very much mineral, with that lovely creosote aspect related to the cigar box; evolving of course, but not quite there. The palate also had excellent depth and fine grip, but not nearly as good as the 2000, IMHO.

Palmer 1999: The wine was, like the others, double decanted two hours before the dinner began. 1999 had a rainy September – a challenging vintage – and Palmer pulled off an excellent wine, showing off bright red berry aromas and a dense if tight palate. The finish is refined and certainly feminine, but there is underlying and even ‘coy’ power, on a seemingly slower development track than the 1998. The bottle Randy brought had been put in a carafe at about 6:30 and we drank this almost three hours later… it seemed more open knit because of the time in carafe. Thanks again Randy.

Palmer 1998: I had tried this in Germany in 2008 and got essentially the same Right Bank feel. Much more Merlot than Cabernet, given the vintage’s favoring the Right Bank variety. A lovely, spicy plum nose, with succulence and richness, but fine structure too. A lingering finish keeps that pleasure going. Most people would have chosen this wine to order from a menu among the five options in this flight, and I share Ben’s (and Thomas’) enthusiasm for it.

I loved the noisette of Berkshire pork and the confit pork belly and especially delectable boudin noir. The best pairing was indeed the rather opulent 1998.

FLIGHT 3 (1978 WOTF)

Palmer 1995: Like Faryan, I loved the nose of this wine, certainly getting the perfume. Thomas described it as the ‘Mediterranean Palmer’, setting aside of course the 2003, and it did have warmth – on the nose – but as Faryan correctly pointed out, the palate was more disciplined with structure. Add to this a certain brooding power, and you do get a long term wine here. As Kevin notes, a rather typical 1995, but certainly one of the most successful on the Left Bank.

Palmer 1991: Overall, I very much liked the nose which seemed at first to show just a hint of roasted bell pepper, at least to me. The April frosts challenged vintners but – as said – Palmer’s terroir handled that challenge very well. Small quantities of wine, but very good. It seemed to improve in the glass and displayed a real smoothness on the palate. Surprisingly good.

Palmer 1990: Evidently larger scaled than the 1991, and I found this wine to be more subtle and less exciting perhaps than some tasters, with complex aromas of spice, mineral, cedar bordering on tobacco and dark fruit. As it sat in the glass, it became more expressive and expansive on the palate, with, again, a compelling subtlety overall, perhaps in contrast to the 1989.

Palmer 1981: I was not as enthusiastic about the 1981 as some posters; comparisons to Burgundy escape me in this vintage as I sensed a bit more of dying leaf than aged Pinot. Solid on the palate and providing pleasure, it did indeed ‘draw me in’ as I sipped … and to its credit did not get thinner or weaken as it sat in the glass. Still, it was thoroughly overshadowed in vibrancy, and in presence, by the following wine…

Palmer 1978: I made a comment referring to this wine as ‘robust’ and Mark Wessels quickly said it was not so. Of course, but in comparison to the 1981… this was downright lively. Smooth, not cigar box, but mineral elegance with indeed a forest freshness that transcended its age. The word, yes, ‘suave’ comes to mind, with a lingering palate presence finishing with minty lift that makes you come back for more.

No question an almost spiritual dialogue was created between the 1978’s sheer elegance and the medallion of prime dry aged beef in a (lightly) licorice-infused sauce.

FLIGHT FOUR (1983 WOTF)

Palmer 1989: Totally with Faryan here. Almost roasted secondary notes on the nose combine with bright strawberry and cherry freshness, the palate showing both vibrancy and substance. Favorably compared to the 1990, which is perhaps more subtle at this stage but lacks the oomph of the 1989.

Palmer 1983: Has to be among my top three. It has the subtle refinement of the 1990, but with greater exuberance – as Ben pointed out – and underlying power. A complete wine, with tobacco and cedar notes giving way to an energetic orange rind like finish that beguiles your senses; at least it did mine.

Hard to choose which was better with the black truffle studded loin of lamb with seasonal mushrooms. The 1983 echoed the finesse of the food, while the 1989 matched its rich substance. If I had to choose, the 1983 would have probably been the better wine for this delicious serving.

FINAL FLIGHT (WOTF: Take your pick, 2000 or 2005!)

19th Century Blend (2006): Certainly dominated by the Syrah in spite of the 10 percent component. I got quite a bit of pepper and a Syrah like texture and sweetness. This wine was introduced in 2004 by the estate. On the palate, it is smooth and pleasurable, but perhaps not really reflective of Palmer elegance.

Palmer 2005: The nose is crystal clear, precise and very fresh and rather bursting with blackberries, blueberries and plums but with a literally enchanting floral lift. There is a buttery aspect, perhaps coming from the influence of the oak aging. Thomas said that he does not like too much new oak, and employs maximum 60% of it for the first wine. Very large scaled on the palate but not tiring or excessive. However, I understand where Ben is coming from – the wine certainly has plenty of tannin, and I even said at the gathering that this is not – today – all that feminine or elegantly perfumed… The thing is, we drank it two nights ago in 2010: it is a baby. Give this baby time. Will it turn out to be the modern version of the 1961, as Mark Golodetz referred to some people who had tasted the 1961 en primeur? I have not a clue, but something special is in the glass, for certain.

Palmer 2000: But also like Ben, and I think Ken Brown, when he submits his notes, I could easily call this my WOTN, although in rather close competition with the 1983 and 1978 (and 2005 no doubt). Ostentatious, but in a more feminine manner. Purring in its complexity and sneaky opulence. While the 2005 wows you with fireworks, the 2000 draws you in with genuine sex appeal. There is something about the 2000 that transcends the sum of its parts better than almost all the other wines from the dinner. Yes, you have the balance among fruit, acidity, tannin, but you do not notice them nearly as much as you do in, say, the 2005. Or in the 1989. What you have is a spherical wine that combines primary and secondary elements at a still very youthful phase in a manner that might be described as a ‘rock star’ (Ken was saying this) or, more literally: ‘A great wine in the making’, to quote Ben.

A splendid evening ends with a photo of Plume chef Damon Gordon (left) and Thomas Duroux. Many, many thanks to both!