Wines like Poujeaux and Chasse Spleen from Moulis, Pibran from Pauillac, La Bernadotte and Sociando Mallet from Haut Medoc are all very fine. There are some wines that are a bit jammy and hot, others where maturity seemed blocked or somehow managed to get some unripe flavors, but these are – for the most part – rather rare. The Pomerols I tried were also successful, although I was less inclined to grant gold medals. I feel that the Right Bank, in general, is handicapped by high alcohol Merlot in 2009 and in 2010. Although estates which have a good amount of refreshing Cabernet Franc on average performed better. Still, Pomerol did have some gems in 2009.

But these are just rough sketches. I will get more into detail once I taste the wines next month in Germany and again in June – I hope – in Moscow. It is so much fun to follow the UGCB bandwagon. I missed them in the US this year, but here some notes from fellow taster and wine friend Faryan Amir-Ghassemi, who is not only a talented and perceptive taster, but a true wine lover. He has agreed to grace my blog with notes he took from a tasting in New York City last month on 25 January 2012.

2009 Bordeaux tasting notes by Faryan (at left).

Preemptive note: I didn’t have a chance to taste the right bank wines.  By the time that I was meticulously working through Graves, I was informed that some of the heavy hitters were running out of wine, so I went ahead and fast-tracked to Pauillac, Margaux and St Julien. By the time I was done with these, there was only time to sample the blancs and Sauternes (not to mention most of the right bank wines already packed up or depleted). As such, these notes are not a reflection of the right bank.  We’ll have to try them later.

General impressions – 2009 is clearly a vintage where the elements were favorable.  Across the board, phenolic ripeness was superb, concentration was a given and the quality of fruit was a repeated noted. What differentiates the quality of the wines to me was the ability of the vigneron to conscientiously manage the maturation of their grapes to both create high quality wines but to also be cognizant of the style ofBordeaux, the appellation and most importantly, its own terroir. If terroir is not an issue for you, there will be oceans of good-tasting well ripened wines coming out of this vintage (many hopefully at reasonable prices from the non cru-classé.

If you have favorite producers you are keen on buying, I would advise the careful shopper to navigate this vintage with a more refined view, as there were obstacles to overcome in order to find that perfect balance.  Some wines were outstanding; perhaps the best young examples of their respective chateau I have tasted.  Some wines were endemic of the point-craze influencing craft; overripe, overtreated and generic/lacking character.  Quality in many cases trumped charm.  In a few cases, the identity of the wine as Bordeauxwas marred to a point where it drew no appeal to me, regardless of substance.  Finally, as a whole, I believe the most successful wines in 2009, similar to those in 1990, will be the ones where the vigneron was able to achieve freshness and nervosity (a term I use to describe a certain “electricity” you get from the wine’s ability to balance many powerful components) through careful management, while not sacrificing ripeness and quality of fruit (a difficult balance indeed).  There were a handful of wines that showed this and project to be superlative wines through maturation.

Graves – As a whole, I was quite happy with the reds, with the caveat being that UGC does not showcase the crown jewels of graves (Mission and Ch. Haut Brion).  The cooler more porous soils of the graves perhaps allowed for wines of higher merlot levels without having the worry of pruney/stewed merlot factoring into the final assemblage.  I think this benefits the region.  The whites were simply outstanding.  2009 Domaine de Chevalier is the greatest young white Bordeaux I’ve ever tasted (more on that later).

Haut Bergey Rouge – Opulent, thick, a bit overt oak on the nose which is not symptomatic of the house (didn’t see this as much in the 08,06 or 05 at prior UGCs).  Perhaps they thought the fruit ripeness could afford more oak, but to me it was a bit beyond what I would like in my Haut Bergey, perhaps sacrificing elegance.  The wine is undoubtedly plush on the palate, but it doesn’t speak to Graves.  We’ll see how it progresses. (90-93)

Carbonnieux  Rouge – More traditional and “blocky” than the Haut Bergey.  A bit more stodgy and oaky, but too young to really condemn the wine in terms of its balance.  It clearly has the stuffing and depth that one wouldn’t expect from Carbonnieux, but as a rule, it is something to expect from the 09s. (88-91)

Domaine de Chevalier Rouge – Last tasted a year ago almost to the day via barrel sample.  The wine has “grown up” quite a bit.  Before it was primordial, backward and embryonic.  In this setting it has calmed down and begun to settle into infancy.  The wine shows far more class on the nose compared to the prior Graves.  More floral lift (almost Margauxesque) and a beautiful red berry element to the fruit.  I can’t wait until the telltale smoke begins to develop with more time in bottle.  D d Chevalier rouge seems to be nipping at the heel of the 2^nd tier graves rouges.  Excellent.  (92-96)

Haut Bailly – structured, backward and massive.  To me, Haut Bailly shows very classic and backward in its youth.  I distinctly remember many people fawning over the 05 when tasted at this event years back but I was struck by its reticence more than anything.  Old guard indeed.  Nonetheless, the nose is regal in its fruit.  It has that unmistakable ability to hold both light/fresh delicacy on the nose, compared to the power and depth to the mouth.  The classic velvet glove in the iron fist.   I find wonderful nervosity in the nose and this is something I project as great potential.  (91-95++)

Larrivet Haut Brion Rouge – basic, nice red berry aspect to the nose.  Clearly less regal than the Haut Bailly.  Still, it has beautiful fruit but some drying tannins on the finish butting in.  If priced as LHB has been historically, this is a nice wine to keep, but I don’t think it has the class to justify a high price point.  (88-92).

Pape Clement Rouge – Decidedly more modern than all of the wines tried prior.  The creaminess on the palate smacks of vanilla toast oak rather than fruit and to me this is something I tend to avoid as it impairs the transformative gift that Bordeaux wines provide with patience and a cold cellar.  To me, this wine shows like a California Cabernet that is aimed to please a buyer in its relative youth.  Again, there is wonderful fruit and depth to it, but this is a stylistic choice Pape Clement made, effectively turning its back on what I loved about the Chateau from decades prior.  (NR)

Smith Haut Lafitte Rouge – Cut from the same mold as the Pape Clement.  Too rounded and “smoothed” over.  The finish is a touch drying, but I just don’t vibe with this wine.  The style is simply too formulaic for me.  Caveat being, that if you enjoy the early consumption style, this is undeniably quality. (NR)

Domaine de Chevalier Blanc – OMFG nose, blowing away everything else tonight.  This wine is simply superb.  While embryonic and very basic, it has extraordinary lift and balance; the most focused young white wine I can remember tasting.  It’s like a hypothetical blend of Chablis Clos minerality, Chevalier-Monty focus and Graves tropic fruit/grape composition.  The wine is pure, completely transparent with no hints of excessive oak (or any oak for that matter as the fruit is centerfold).  Guayaba, pineapple, citrus, stone, chalk.  Incredible intensity.  Superb transparency.  Buy buy buy. (97-99+)

- No Pape Clement blanc to taste (empty by the time I was there) -

Smith Haut Lafitte Blanc – Exotic, bombastic with a backbone of oak but again completely overshadowed by the Chev Blanc.  Long live the king. (91-94)

Malartic Lagraviere Blanc – Rounder and sadly a bit of a letdown to taste after the Chevalier blanc.  Lacks that grip, that bracing and shocking focus.  More oak dominated on the nose and riper on the fruit, but still a fantastic graves blanc.  Sadly, it’s a casuality of its compatriot. (91-94)

Margaux –

To me, 09 is a notch or two behind 05 in Margaux (albeit quite a limited sample size).  I don’t think the region’s higher allocation of merlot was favorable for the vintage.  Granted, I was unable to taste 09 Rauzan-Ségla, but from those that I did try (I avoided Lascombes and Kirwan), [Editor's note: Kirwan has increased in elegance since the estate changed its winemaking direction in 2007 from Michel Rolland to Philippe Delfaut, formerly with Château Palmer, and the Boissenot father-and-son team]. I found nice wines but wines that weren’t exactly comfortable in their own skins.  At their best, Margaux wines balance lovely fruit with a floral perfume that matches femininity and delicacy with opulence and mouthfeel to match.  To me, the vintage was likely either a moonshot for an opulent merlot or a dedication to high quality cabernet which was not as prone to excessive ripeness/massive alcohol.  Margaux unfortunately sits in the cradle and really wasn’t able to benefit from the best that 09 offered.  I will be curios to try Issan, Ségla, Palmer and Ch. Margaux…

Cantenac Brown – Stylistic shift from Graves off the bat.  This is less cabernet driven, a litter lighter and more spry on its feet.  Good red berry fruit, but a bit drying oak treatment on the finish.  A solid Margaux at a reasonable price point.  (88-90)

Brane Cantenac – More stuffing than CB, more structure but a bit more reticent.  Much rounder on the finish. (90-92)

Rauzan-Gassies – The 05 is a sleeper and a favorite from that vintage for me (available at a fraction the cost of its elder peer and many of the other heralded Margaux…).  I think the showing of 09 confirms my overall view of Margaux, as this 09 lacks some of the imprimatur of the appellation I look for in a “great” vintage.  Simpler, a bit curt but rounded to deceive one into not prodding too much into its substance.  Nice wine, but lacking the bells and whistles (90-92)

Moulis – Only tasted two of these, but they are the real deal.  They are less ripe in a vintage where above-all ripeness would be one’s Achilles heel.  The Chasse and Poujeaux to me represented probably the best early drinking examples out there.  Bravo!

Chasse Spleen – Really shows lovely.  Wine has great lift, floral aromatic with unmistakable claret qualities.  Projects very well in terms of its ability to progress beyond infancy.  Fruit is the name of the game with this wine.  It is a delicate dancer that has nothing to do with oak.  It’s one of the most transparent wines at the tasting.  Should be drinking immediately well and into the near future.  91-94+

Poujeaux – Cut from a similar cloth as the Chasse Spleen.  All about red berry fruit, great energy and lift.  Not a distance runner, but a beautiful wine to enjoy as you sit on your bigger wines.  91-93+

Pauillac & St. Julien –

To me, the unmistakable superstar of the vintage were the St Juliens followed by the Pauillac.  In their best iterations, the wines provide a wide variety of styles: from modern (St Pierre, St Julien), to regal (Lynch Bages, Pauillac), to feminine (Pichon Lalande, Pauillac) to classic (Pichon Baron, GPL – Pauillac).  This was a vintage where cabernet that was afforded the chance to mature slowly without undue heat exposure really rewarded the chateau with superb wines.

Pauillac

Pichon Baron – A bit atypical on the nose.  Far more feminine in its lovely floral lift.  Like a precocious youth wowing you with his memorization skills.  Reminiscent more so of the Lalande in many ways.  Red fruit and cassis but far more backward than the 08 was at this stage.  It is less transparent and classic in its expression, but more like a show horse.  Stuffed to the gills with tannins and fruit.  One doesn’t need to worry about the structure or over-treated oak as some of the other wines.  I still haven’t been able to discern its Pauillac roots after sampling the wine for some time, but the big 09s are so embryonic and must be judged with a longer time horizon.  (93-97)

Pichon Lalande – Nose is a bit more reticent and shut down (could just be the amount of air this wine has gotten).  Still has hints of the feminine floral lift one comes to expect from great Lalande, but this wine is big big big.  The palate is simply lovely with world-class balance, fruit and composition.  Beautiful, delineated fruit; so transparent.  There is no makeup, there is no cloying/overt oak.  Classic Lalande.  Just give it time to add richness, depth, pitch and complexity.  This wine will not disappoint.  (94-98)

Lynch Bages – A regal wine, undoubtedly and a style Lynch Bages seems to project vintage in and out.  A millionaire’s (not billionaire’s) Mouton so to speak.  Rounded, supple nose with rhubarb and wonderful cassis.  The cassis is the name of the game.  A bit of vegetal/burnt rubber that blows off with some more swirling.  The palate is clean, pure and in superb balance.  Will it be the next 90 LB?  Time will tell  (94-97)

Grand Puy Lacoste – One of my top three of the tasting, and it garners this title partly because one doesn’t have to crack a thousand dollars to buy a case of it.  I’d love to line this wine up against a recent vintage Latour and serve them blind; it is that good.  What the GPL has that many of the other Pauillacs tasted seemed to miss was the freshness and nervosity on the nose that I began in my preamble.  Great lift and floral elements on the nose that is simply gorgeous.  Far less backward than the 06 and 05 GPLs; this wine is not draped in imposing tannins like those vintages.  It is subdued and elegant; qualities I think will make for better aging in a vintage that may have some risk-factor for long-term cellaring.  Simply superb and a wine I will seek to buy.  (94-98+)

Clerc Milon – Not quite as impressive as the GPL, lacking some excitement.  Clerc seems to nail a balance between classic Pauillac and modern fruit very well and the 09 is no different.  Should be approachable younger than many of its peers.  (91-93)

d’Armailhac – Maybe a small notch below the Clerc.  Similar, but harsher on the nose with some drying wood tannins on the finish.  (90-92)

St Julien

St. Pierre – Too much.  Too much oak, too much extraction.  Vanillin, toast, drying fruit that smacks one in the mouth.  I don’t understand why they build their wines this way (welp… the big points they garner).  There is no elegance and restraint to their wines anymore.  I think 05 was the last vintage that didn’t push this envelope too far. (NR)

Talbot – Nice, but has a burnt streak to it that seems to arise from the oak treatment.  Will it integrate overtime?  If so, it will be a nice wine  (88-92)

Leoville Poyferré – One of the most heralded wines at the tasting and you can see why; it’s structured similar to the 2003 with a bombastic and “winner take all” style, but unlike some other chateau, I think the fruit is sufficient to hold the oak treatment.  The nose is beautiful red cassis with mocha bean espresso, but not excessive or drying.  Superb balance with miles of fruit, but not a classic wine in its balance or composition.  Very plush, very modern but I don’t sense that electricity, that nervosity, that freshness that I feel when I drink a 1990.  Let’s see if this wine can evolve positively.  (93-98)

Langoa Barton – You know you’re at Barton when you begin to taste some backward wines.  I think I can still taste the 08s, 06s and 05s from yesteryear UGC tastings.  This Barton, while backward in comparison to some of its peers, is surprisingly rounded on the mouth.  So delicious, satin, plush.  Marries the structure with the mouthfeel.  A superb success this vintage with approachability in the near-term (92-95)

Leoville Barton – Excellent.  The best way to describe this wine is complete.  Structured and voluminous but not embryonic.  Excellent mouthfeel even superceding the Langoa.  Unfortunately, this bottle is pretty shut-down, especially on the nose which isn’t budging much.  I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a banner year for Barton (94-97+?)

Gruaud Larose – Another top 3 for me even though I concede it as less “impressive” and “endowed” as some of its peers.  This wine beckons to the glory days of Gruaud: the 80s (or 60s if you’re an old fart).  Already the most complex nose of the night, with hallmark Cordier funk (sans Brett), superb red fruit, intermixed with secondary aromatics.  The mouth is absolutely lovely and light on its feet.  I recall old-timers talking about how fantastic and unheralded 1982 Pichon Lalande was in its youth.  I think this wine may be similar; the rare Bordeaux that drinks fantastic throughout its lifespan.  Back up the truck (95-98+)

Beychevelle – Simple fruit, lacks depth and harmony.  Cloaked with heavy oak.  The finish confirms what the nose sleuths out.  Not an impressive showing (86-89)

Sauternes –

Another banner year for the Sauternais?  We are fortunate, as it seems to be every vintage (not just every other) nowadays.  Hard to condemn any qualitatively, but I will note that stylistically these lack some of the backbone and acidity seen in the 05s, 07s or 01s in their youth.  They are round, supple, approachable and botrytis driven.  Sadly, the Suiduraut was kicked before I got there.

Climens – A great Sauternes, but for whatever odd reason, I reach for the memory of the 2008 which made a better impression on me than this wine did.  The 08, while less endowed, had a lift and a delicacy that was quite Germanic in many ways. It balanced tropic fruit with acidity and lift.  The 2009 is much bigger and a bit more cumbersome at this phase (something that would likely be eased with age).  The finish still shows why its Climens.  It is precise, delicate and beautiful.  The nose opens up as it comes to temperature with delicate crème brulee, coconut shavings.  Still Barsac, but I crave 08 (94-97)

Coutet – Less complex and intricate, the 09 Coutet still has a beautiful depth of fruit at a very reasonable price.  The botrytis sings through but it lacks that nth degree of complexity and finish in the Climens.  A value buy (93-95)

de Fargues –  shut down on the nose but deep on the palate.  Supple, but lacking the “baby yquem” qualities I associate with de Fargues, especially with regards to mouthfeel and weightlessness.

la Tour Blanche -  perfectly enjoyable, but didn’t really leave an impression on me. (90-92)

A nice lineup

Château Figeac may be somewhat of a conundrum for neophytes to Bordeaux. Even for some who work in wine. While sampling three white wines at the trendy Vino Volo airport wine bar at Dulles International Airport last week, just before a flight to Frankfurt, Germany, I told the wine salesman there about Figeac being a top notch St Emilion. And he replied that he adores the Merlot from that appellation and recommended a glass of Beau Sejour Becot, also a premier grand cru classé, he stressed.

Yes, but Figeac is made from vines that grow on more gravely terrain and thus includes very little Merlot – it is composed typically of 70% Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Franc… To complicate matters still further, Figeac never followed the drumbeat of the Garagiste Movement on the Right Bank in the early 1990s, sticking to a policy to pick somewhat early, al dente if you will, to retain freshness. And as we reach levels of 15 degrees alcohol and more with many Merlots on the Right Bank these past few years, Figeac to me represents something more authentic and more mineral from Bordeaux, rather than big, bold and sometimes drying aspects from the high alcohol-soaking new oak.

What is perhaps even more surprising is that since the mid 1970s at least, Figeac has been aged in 100% new oak. Even Petrus has not used 100% new oak since 1990. But Jean Claude Berrouet of Petrus explained to me that the high degrees of alcohol in Merlot are not well suited to so much new oak.

Starting with Krug

Cabernets, on the other hand, can be. And for Figeac owner Eric d’Aramon, the time spent in new oak varies according to the vintage character. For example, the 1997 harvest only saw 12 months in new oak while the 2009 counted 18 months…  D’Aramon, who does not like over fruity and over plump plum flavors – see my video below – explained that the new oak he uses is generally low to mid toast, so the purpose is not to impart oak flavors but to more efficiently age the wine – and new oak tends to be more efficient in that regard, he stressed.

So, combine the fact that this is a St Emilion from a unique terroir with mostly Cabernet that is picked somewhat early, and you can see that it will not win many beauty contests when compared with what many tasters expect from beauty contests: a kaleidoscope of plum, raspberry, strawberry, cherry and whatever other (often bordering on over) ripe berry and high-alcohol Merlot derived sensations.

St Emilion and Figeac? A false sense of peerage? It is not an accident that some people call Figeac the Medoc of St Emilion…

Setting the table

In any case it was with great pleasure to organize a tasting of 11 vintages of Chateau Figeac at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse in Washington DC with wine educator and sommelier Maria Denton. Many thanks to her and her team for preparing a magnificent five course meal to match the wines.

Just before he was to join scores of other Bordeaux chateau representatives to tour the United States to have their 2009 vintage tasted from bottle – in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York – D’Aramon flew into Washington on 18 January exclusively for this tasting dinner – and he generously donated 10 of the 11 vintages. The Parker numbers have never been to high for Figeac, so he wanted to have this wines tasted by American merchants and sommeliers and bloggers, to see what they thought of his wines.

For the most part, all participants were impressed, as was I.

Sommelier Maria Denton tasting the wines before dinner

One of the more controversial bottles was the 2000, and to a lesser extent the 1990. Robert Parker had recently downgraded the 2000 vintage from a mid 90s score to a mid 80s score, professing to have “blown it” in his initial judgment. That was a revealing remark, because D’Aramon does not seek big styled St Emilion wines. But he also admitted to having perhaps gone too far in the other direction in 2000. To avoid having too much richness, he may have picked a bit too early, he told participants, who noted some green in the 2000. In defense of the 2000, which I have tasted on several occasions since 2004, it reminded me last week of how the 1995 was about two years ago. Last week the 1995 showed better, somehow having incorporated its greener aspects. As D’Aramon said, the 2000 represents an older style of Bordeaux, and with time, will probably be fine if not delicious.

The 1990 promised great things but proved a bit underwhelming because it lacked some freshness, and I think we just had bad luck with two of the three bottles. One bottle was fine. Interestingly enough, some participants raved over the third bottle which Maria Denton and I had set aside because we thought it to be the dustiest. And even D’Aramon did not want to include it. Perhaps we misjudged it? Perhaps it was a question of more contact with air (although all bottles had been double decanted three hours before the dinner).

The Wines

I was able to taste before the dinner with sommelier Maria Denton. Wines in bold, I liked particularly; in red and bold even more. When underlined, the very best.

2009. Oak still on the nose and palate, a very opulent wine, somewhat mammoth like at this stage but displaying ripe Medoc like cassis and primary fruit, more black than red. It tastes like a barrel sample and has much weight on the palate, with finely grained tannin, albeit just a bit monolithic now. Long finish. 92-95

Cheers to Figeac

2006. Cooler nose. Red rather than black fruit, with a touch of violet aromas that are also offset by a bit of iron, lending a just slightly rustic aspect. But the palate is medium plus in body and packs quite a punch, balancing both richness and verve. Do not touch for a few years… 91+

2005. A lovely nose of ripe cassis and cooler blueberry like fruit, this wine exudes a warmer profile on the palate than the 2006. It also has greater volume and depth, nicely balanced with brisk acidity, with a touch of oak derivation slowly receding. I like the very pure cassis aspect to this wine on the palate, which seems more focused than the 2006 and more nuanced than the 2009, although rather tightly wound for now. Potential for a higher score. 95

2004. A mix of graphite and lightly sweet red fruits, plum and cassis. A very smooth medium-bodied palate, just a touch of vanilla flavored with cedar and brambly red and ripe fruit. An appealingly fresh lingering finish with mint. I can understand why so many people liked the 2004 at the dinner. 93+

2001. Pleasing red cherry, more mineral than mentholated freshness here mingle with a certain olive like flavor on the palate. If I had to choose between 2001 and 2004, I would pick the former because it seems to show a touch more depth, a touch more substance on the mid palate especially. Although the finish is similar, the 2001 adds an extra dimension of toffee-like sweetness. 94

2000. Amazing how this wine has transformed from being a super star in 2005 when I tasted it twice (once in a vertical in Germany in February, once in a blind tasting with most of the other premier grand cru classés) to a bit of a question mark in 2012. Eric d’Aramon admits to having picked perhaps too early to preserve freshness, his greatest concern in general. How will this evolve. Some, like critic John Gilman, sees this as a “positive herbaciousness” while others, notably Robert Parker, say he “blew it” when he graded this highly early on and downgraded the wine more recently. My feeling is that it will develop into a better wine, and taste like some of the more appealing 1970s Bordeaux. But there is not guarantee here… 89 for now.

Lamb with Figeac 1999 1998 1995

1999. When I first opened this with sommelier Maria Denton, we both marveled at its floral aspects, but there was a bit of VA that showed itself later à table. Whatever the case may be, it exuded a certain freshness and minerality that pleased my palate. Medium bodied, and perhaps somewhat hollow in the middle, this may have been the weakest of the evening. 88

1998. This had to be one of the two or three best wines of the dinner. It certainly wins as the most sumptuous. Whoever thinks Figeac is thin in the 80s and 90s needs to drink this, or has been drinking too many fruit bombs…. Sorry but that is my subjective opinion. This wine reflects a natural concentration due to a hailstorm, d’Aramon explained. Whatever the cause, the result is magnificent, with focused flavors of red and black fruit, nuanced richness and a fine underlying freshness. A great wine indeed. 95

1995. My how this has improved. When I last tried it with Ben Giliberti in Washington DC two or three years ago, a certain green aspect annoyed me. But that was pretty much gone at this dinner, where I noticed a mélange of stony mineral notes, baked plum and hint of cardamom spice. The tannins were not completely melted, displaying a 1995 “solidity” that one encounters in wines of quality on both sides of the Gironde, indicating yet again that 1995 is a vintage to be reckoned with in Bordeaux. 92

1990. The nose seemed like it needed dusting… but then came a mixture of forest floor, tobacco,  light leather and blackberry and plum flavors. The palate was rich, but not as exciting as the 1998. There was a dusty tannin aspect to the palate as well, that was even worse in one bottle. Later however, some tasters drank from that bottle and thought that that dusty aspect had gone. I am not so sure. Even d’Aramon felt that the 1990 was not showing its best from at least two of the three bottles he brought over ex-chateau. 92, but could have been higher.

Beef Wellington with Figeac 1990 and 1986

1986. Here was perhaps my wine of the night, because I just absolutely adored a certain crushed mint leaf flavor on the nose and on the palate, coupled with faded flowers and pencil shavings. Fully tertiary and yet of high intensity and precision chiseled by brisk acidity that kept this wine quite youthful in fact. This is not a wine for people who want evident fruit or low acidity… In an eloquent address to dinner participants, Burgundy lover Maureen Nelson compared Figeac to fine Burgundy, and I think that the 1986 certainly illustrates that comparison. For me, a beautiful wine. 96

My sister Tina in her kitchen

On 13 January 2012 she invited me and a few friends over to dinner, which featured a particularly tender and tasty veal roast, flavored just slightly with Madeira-infused cassis that served as a sort of stuffing within the roast.

Veal roasting in the oven

I was initially worried that the Madeira would make the dish sweet, and complicate wine pairings, but that was not at all the case. It was just a feather touch that accentuated the meat’s juices.

Homemade croutons for the salad

With that, she prepared flavorful homemade hand whipped potatoes with celeri root: a simple combination that was flexible enough to go with red or white. Of course her salad was delicious, accentuated with homemade croutons.

Delicious veal and wine

Tina is lucky enough to live near Arrow Wine, which imports some of the best wine in the country. Owner Doug Rosen is an inspired wine buyer and has a particular love for Champagne. Last year, he had organised a wonderful tasting of various Champagnes, many not so well known, and he brought a special bottle from one of those producers to dinner. I must say that it was pretty much the wine of the evening. As much as I enjoyed the wines that followed, I could have just continued with that Champagne over dinner and into dessert: Tina’s delectable homemade pear pie, with cardamom and ginger. I enjoyed it so much that I forgot to snap a photo!

Wine of the evening

Wines

1996 R. & L. Legras Champagne Cuvée St. Vincent Blanc de Blancs Grand Cru from magnum. Doug knows the owner of this estate and had several bottles made personally for him. This was one of them, and it had just recently been disgorged. What emerged was brisk freshness and mineral flavors. It had a citrus and apple as well, but never mind the subjective descriptions. What impressed most was that a wine nearly 16 years old tasted so much like a primary sample. It helps of course to come from a magnum format. And from such an excellent vintage that combined both high acidity and excellent ripeness.  100% Chardonnay from the grand cru soils of Chouilly, the Champagne of course conveyed Chardonnay smoothness. So, here we have a bubbly that surely pleased all five dinner participants.  Wine of the Evening!

Fine premier cru 2002 Puligny

2002 Vincent Girardin Puligny Montrachet 1er Cru Les Perrieres. I recently purchased three of these bottles from an auction for $40 each.  Here we had a wine that was not affected by premature oxidation. In fact, it was very tasty and rather crisp, although some age was beginning to show, but in a good way. Smooth and flavorful, it had enough body to stand up to the veal – and I certainly reached for more (both veal and wine).

Giscours 2000

2000 Chateau Giscours Margaux Haut Medoc Bordeaux. I brought this bottle to dinner: a rather famous Margaux wine from the southern part of the appellation in Labarde. Giscours has been improving in quality, particularly starting with this vintage, which has aged well. The wine’s medium body combined cassis and earthy flavors that also matched the food quite well.

A Sauternes duo

1999 Chateau Raymond Lafon Sauternes. Here we had a more Barsac like lightness coming from a lighter vintage in the 1999, which I have always enjoyed from Raymond Lafon. A lovely wine, still quite youthful in color and expression, that pleased the palate and paired well with the pear pie.

1990 Chateau Rieussec Sauternes. A noticeably darker color, coming from an older vintage and a half bottle, many thanks to Doug for bringing this wine, as well. This wine seemed a bit spicier and had more noticeable botrytis derived flavors, coming from a more famous and warmer vintage as well.

Doug and Tina with the wine of the evening

Many thanks to Tina and to Doug for the food and the wines - and for the great company! I must say that I tend to eat and drink just as well in Washington D.C. as I have been eating and drinking in France. Thanks in part to my dear sister Tina!

A nice lineup of reds

Wine tasting Tour de France

At the Kennedy residence in Chain Bridge Forest, Arlington VA

14 January 2012 at 6.30 p.m.

Participants: 25 people

Food was brought to accompany the wines. A lot of really tasty food, I must add. Thanks to all the participants!

The Wines

DRY WHITES

Champagne

Delamotte Brut: This was a fresh blend of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier. At $35 from MacArthur Beverages, it was a very good deal. Smooth and even delectable, albeit a tad rich, it was perhaps served just a touch warm… But a very good deal. 89/100 – Cost $35 at MacArthur Beverages in Washington DC

Delamotte Blanc de Blanc 2002: Very focused and deep, yet refreshing. A 100% Chardonnay that is smooth and accessible, but with good body and length. Structure, too. A noticeable step above the previous wine, and worth the double price. 94/100 – Cost about $70 at MacArthur Beverages

Alsace Dry 
Trimbach Cuvee Frederic Emile Riesling 2004: Lovely smoky nose, slightly gunflint. Dry Riesling par excellence that married a subtle richness with brisk acidity. One of the participants did not like it because it was so nervous, too much acidity. Had he tasted it about two years ago, he would have probably despised this wine. Point being, this great cuvee from two grand cru vineyards is built to age. I would say that the 2004 will be better in another three to five years. 92+/100 – Cost about $40 on wine-searcher.com

Burgundy White
Paul Pernot Burgundy Chardonnay 2007: For the price, a smooth and full-bodied and somewhat simply pleasing Old World Chardonnay, coming from a vintage that has both vivacity and fat. At $15 per bottle at MacArthurs, a very good deal from a top individual producer in the Cote du Beaune.  89/100

Bouchard Père & Fils Meursault Les Clous 2009: Surprisingly good for a 2009, I was expecting something fatter, less disciplined, but Bouchard Pere & Fils has become one of the top major houses of Burgundy and this is an example why. Most participants picked this as their favorite white in the tasting. Sample donated by Bouchard for a horizontal for wine bloggers and professionals in Washington D.C. 92/100 – Cost about $43 on wine-searcher.com

REDS

Originally, I had planned to start with two simple Southern Rhone Valley reds, but they were rather pronounced in flavor, so I went immediately to the Bordelais, since there were two older vintages, followed by a more delicate Burgundian interlude, before heading south to the heady Rhone!

A pair of heady southern Rhones and the second wine of Brane Cantenac

Bordeaux
Baron de Brane 2008: Adequately aromatic, coming from a rather tough vintage for Margaux, but the palate shows potential for moderate aging, because the tannins are still present on a certain tight finish. Is there a hint of vegetal? Perhaps. Give it time… this is getting to be one of the better second wines to be found in the Medoc, given the challenging vintage, a good job. 87+/100  – Cost about $25 at MacArthur Beverages

Chateau Brane Cantenac 2nd Growth Margaux Medoc 2000: For some, the wine of the night, and I would easily understand why. Smooth and complex at the same time, this wine exuded fine floral aromatics one would expect from Margaux, with excellent palate texture and presence (moderate plus), with a lingering finish. Was there  a bit of “closed earthiness”? Chalk that up to perhaps its current age. This should even improve over time. For now, still, a rather high score. 94+/100 – Costs about $100 on wine-searcher.com

A flight of 2000 Bordeaux

Haut Bages Liberal 5th Growth Pauillac Medoc 2000: A disappointment! I recall trying this in the 1990, 2004 and 2007 vintages and it impressed me particularly in 1990, not far behind Grand Puy Lacoste and even Lynch Bages in that vintage. So I was hoping great things for the 2000… But there was a distinct green note on the nose that only became more pronounced as it sat in glass (and bottle). For its defense, I guess it did indeed have a Pauillac power type palate, and some participants preferred it to the Brane Cantenac 2000 because of that “stuffing” but this seems to have a ripeness issue. 85/100 – Costs about $60 on wine-searcher.com

Chateau Belair St Emilion Premier Grand Cru Classe 2000: This reminded me a bit of the Belair 1982 I had tried over dinner with then owner Pascal Delbeck about six years ago. For some reason, this reminded me less of a Merlot on the palate than of a Cabernet Sauvignon. Methinks we opened this 10 years too early! It was rather tight and not quite unforgiving but not quite open either. The nose however was a dead giveaway: plum, spice and chocolate. The aromatics were far different from the two preceding wines. Although I enjoyed drinking the wine, it was not quite the pleasure I was expecting from a right bank Merlot with over 11 years of age! 91/100 – Costs about $75 on wine-searcher.com

Château Belair 1976: I had purchased two bottles of this wine at an auction and was hoping that it would be great. I was hoping against reason because 1976 was a very hot vintage and although the estate picked early to retain acidity, the wine was close to dead when we tried it. OK, I initially liked it, perhaps because I wanted to so much… Was not sure how much air to give it (too much for a fragile vintage could have killed it via decanting, so it was popped and poured). I liked its older earthiness, I suppose, but I could see why more than a few participants were making unfriendly grimaces while trying this… No note to give… Cost about $45 per bottle at auction

Château Meyney Cru Bourgeois St Estephe Medoc 1989: Things came back to life with this wine. Perfect for a cru bourgeois at over 20 years of age. It tasted more youthful than its years. Not the most complex wine, but darn tasty and showing much backbone and substance! Nice job! 93/100 Costs about $65 on wine-searcher.

Burgundy Red

Beaune Clos de la Mousse Premier Cru Bouchard Pere & Fils 2009. Cherry fruit for me , lively and fresh. I could not understand the mushroom comments from some of the participants! Well, I guess I am just used to drinking more Old World wines? The thing is, this wine will also be retasted at a Bouchard 2009 horizontal for professionals and I will ask them if they detect mushrooms… In any case, a classy young Burgundy from Beaune, and a good price for the pleasure, about $45 on wine-searcher.com. This bottle was donated to me by owner Henriot for the horizontal. 92/100

Fine Burgundy and fine Bandol, next to the magnum of Beaucastel

Southern Rhone Valley
Cote du Rhone Villages Perrin & Fils 2009: Decadent on the attack. Rich and ripe, but drying on the quite short finish. What do you want for $11 ? 2009 was not ideal for the southern Rhone (lesser balance than vintages like 2001, 2005, 2006). Most liked this, as did I. Not to think too much about, but a certain hedonistic pleasure to be sure. 88/100

Seigneur de Lauris Vacqueyras 2009: An improved version of the above, with a more interesting aroma, that does have the rich fruit but matched by some mineral components, cooler aspects. Still, let us not exaggerate either. This is a rich, heady Grenache based wine from a rather hot vintage, to boot. In any case, as one participant commented, “a great deal for a $15 bottle of wine.” Indeed. Available at MacArthurs in Washington D.C. 89/100
 
 
Provence
Bandol Pibarnon Red 2001: A bit too tight, this wine is still not ready to drink, thanks to the Mourvedre that seems to have more than nine lives. But I liked its palate substance. And many participants were happy to drink this, too. It certainly has more classy aromas than the preceding wines, more nuanced and complex, and the palate does pack serious punch. But it is telling the drinker today: leave me alone in your cellar for a few more years, and you will have more pleasure. 91/100 with much potential for higher score. Cost about $40 on wine-searcher.com

Chateauneuf du Pape
Chateau de Beaucastel Red 2001 from magnum: Here we have a majestic wine from the top producer – arguably - in Chateauneuf du Pape. It rivalled the Brane Cantenac for wine of the evening… but for different reasons. Yes, this is a mix grapes, primarily Syrah, Mourvedre and Grenache. The Grenache lends the richness, the Syrah the backbone, the Mourvedre the spice. Or something to that effect. Point being, the vintage is superb for Chateauneuf du Pape and the producer does not go for an overly rich style here. Overall impression of balance and elegance as well as palate filling pleasure: rich fruit, peppery spice, licorice and minerality. I purchased five magnums a few years ago on sale for $110 each. Today this costs close to $300… good reason because it is darn good! 95/100
 
Alsace Sweet
Beck Hartweg Gewurztraminer Frankstein Alsace Bas Rhin 2005. 2005 was a very good vintage for this exotically spicy grape in Alsace, and this bottle did not disappoint! Subtle in its aromatics, displaying some litchi and ginger, the palate was sweet but never cloying. Most participants loved this for its freshness and delicacy, and the touch of sweetness was a fine way to finish the series of richer reds towards the end…. How to score this? 93/100 for sure! I paid about 20 euros at the property for this bottle, which I could not seem to find on wine-searcher.com, but I am sure that an importer could get this bottle for people who want it…  

The food and service were first class – as you can see in this video. As for the wines, I think that Chateau Belgrave Haut Medoc 2004 is drinking well today, although still a bit too young. But it paired very well with the roast goose and red cabbage with potato dumplings. The lobster medallion tart, rabbit filet crepe and esgargot soup as appetizers were also particularly delicious, washed down with Louis de Sacy Grand Cru Brut Champagne.

Here the video:

Vibrant and vivacious: Pinot Noir freshness at 40 years of age

A tasting that brought home to me a certain nostalgia. A poster on the wine forum wineberserkers.com recently lamented the loss of Old School Bordeaux. He went so far as to give “faint praise” to the 1982 vintage, while extolling the virtues of the 70s and 60s. I found his comments a bit strange but ended up understanding somewhat his point.

Wine was not made as well back in those years. But the wines that are good from that era have sometimes turned out superb today. Many have greater freshness. It is like looking back at movies from that era compared to the super glitzy, digital, very well made films today, that tend to have more action and less interesting dialogue. In the world of wine in many places today, replace the words “action” and “dialogue” with “alcohol” and “complexity”. There are exceptions. The Artist, anyone? A superb, silent and glorious film… But I digress.

As I listen to some average 70s music by Peter Frampton, I am reminded that not everything that is old school is necessarily good. Not to pick on poor Peter. He did pen some nice tunes, and I do enjoy his rendition of Stevie Wonder’s Signed Sealed Delivered and that wonderful live wa-wa jam Do You Feel Like We Do. But he would not be my main reference for older rock music. I would look to The Who, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles of course, as well as tons of others, from David Bowie and The Velvet Underground and Jethro Tull to The Kinks, Pink Floyd and The Yardbirds. 

Same for wine. I suppose. Yes this is a facile comparison but it can hold merit. The thing is, the treasures you find from the older era make you wonder how some of the new, high alcohol wines will age. Can anyone know for certain? I find reviewers going out on a limb when they say that such and such a wine will age 50 years. OK, one can obtain certain clues. It is likely that a high octane wine, with tons of alcohol, tannin, fruit and acidity – all “balancing” out – will age. But will it age well? Will it age to my taste?

Ah, now, that is the interesting question.

As I am discovering more and more, palates like mine – palates that like vivacity in their wine – it is hard to beat the wines from Burgundy. Yes, the Pinot Noir based wines from that famous winemaking region in France that can age very well indeed. As I found out with a group of friends and expert tasters in the Washington D.C. area. Thanks to Ken Brown who organised the event as a “holiday dinner”, which was held in the wake of the holidays, on 5 January 2012. At our favorite BYOW joint, Lavandou on Connecticut Avenue. Being a holiday dinner, participants brought some excellent wines. Special occasion wines. Sadly several participants – including Kevin Shin, Chris Bublitz and David Zimmerman – could not make it, because of illness or work issues. But we had a great time nonetheless.

From left to right: Howard, Chris, Ken Brown, Paul, Randy and Ken Barr

Ken Brown brought perhaps the wine of the night, although that is hard to say… as you will see later. Let’s just say that the Francois Gros Richebourg Grand Cru 1971 (Francois was Anne’s father) provided me with (yet another) Burgundian wine epiphany. As most readers know – and as you can see on this website – I am a huge Bordeaux fan. And I remain so. But the Richebourg dispelled any general notions that Pinot Noir is meant to drink earlier than Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot from Bordeaux. At just over 40 years of age, the wine – see photo far above – exuded a kaleidoscope of flavors and aromas, ranging from spice and subtle faded … and beguiling fruit.

When drinking great red wines, nothing beats simplicity, such as this Steak Frites at Lavandou!

What impressed me most was its depth and length and texture. The wine was vibrant and alive, with a very pleasing finish. Yes, there was a bit of rusticity on the initial palate, a hint of beef blood/iron. But that was to be expected, given its age. What impressed most was its overall sumptuous nature. Richebourg counts as one of the greatest grand cru vineyards in Burgundy. I understand why. No points here, just an overall excited reaction. Bravo to Ken for bringing this wine.

Domaine des Chezeaux Griotte Chambertin 1996

Domaine des Chezeaux Griotte Chambertin Granc Cru 1996. Chris Sipes brought this wine, which was paired with Randy McFarlane’s  G Figlio Monprivato Mascarello Barolo 1996. Two very different wines, both superb. But if I had to choose, if I was given a dire choice between the two, I would have chosen the Burgundy. The Barolo was very rich, exuding ripe cherry like flavors, and tasting far more youthful than its years. There was a pigment like concentration about this wine, which also had much grip and freshness. So, it was almost perfect in one sense.

I was, like everyone else at the table, singing its praises. But what made the Griotte Chambertin more appealing to me was its greater freshness. The wine tasted – as its moniker indicates – like fresh and ripe red cherries. Cerise griotte! It also seemed to possess a more pleasing sap, a juiciness that appealed to me more than the Barolo. Participant and Burgundy fan Howard Cooper dubbed 1996 a German Pinot lovers vintage. Because of the acidity in that vintage. All I can say was that this also achieved fine balance, with very well integrated acidity. A clean acidity. The fruit was bright and vibrant, and the overall feeling was “give me more of this, please.”

The Richebourg described above was also paired with another Burgundy, which may be a candidate for number two wine of the evening. Thanks to Ken Barr for bringing a profoundly lovely Bruno Claire Chambertin Clos de Beze 1988. Another vintage with highish acidity, no? At 13.3% alcohol, there is also fine glycerine and ripeness. And some unresolved tannin on the finish, more than suggesting that this wine will only improve in a few years.

Bruno Claire Chambertin Clos de Beze 1988

And yet, time in glass resulted in the wine opening up more and more. Expanding on the palate, with a mix of toffee and mineral without ever being heavy. There is a real elegance to this substantial wine that also dances on the palate.

Not quite 100 points tonight...

Ken and I insisted on serving the Bordeaux and California Napa Valley Cabernet after the Burgundians… This proved to cast the Bordeaux somewhat poorly. And we are talking about a 100-point Robert Parker wine, the Chateau Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande 1982, which Paul Marquardt had brought.

At first I thought it was not quite as fresh as the two bottles I had tried in New York City two years ago, brought from the chateau by then winemaking director Thomas Do Chi Nam (who has since joined the team at Chateau Margaux). But I am now rather convinced that it showed badly only mainly because it followed the one-two punch of the 1971 and 1988 Burgundies that had more freshness overall.

Still, the Comtesse displayed amazing concentration and youth for a wine that is almost 30 years old. I loved its olive and cassis and graphite flavors. A superb Bordeaux.

The Comtesse was paired with Howard Cooper’s lovely Joseph Phelps Eisele Vineyard 1987, which exuded eucalyptus and mint aromas, showing a more open profile than that of the Comtesse, certainly more openly fragrant and on the palate more expressive. I would say that it was drinking better than the Bordeaux, but the Comtesse seemed to have more concentration.

Very minty fresh Eisele Vineyard Joseph Phelps 1987

My tasting acumen was not in top form that night, as I took a whiff of the Vega Sicilia Unico Ribera Del Duero 1986 that Paul had also brought and proclaimed “great!”… The palate was fine, too, methought. Well, it did have a peppery aspect, and lots of concentration and unresolved tannin. The palate impressed me, but there was a hint of TCA that my TCA detector such as it was that night did not catch. Ken caught it, and it only revealed itself more as the wine stayed in glass. But I have to say that it was not too obvious at first. Oh well! I am sure that this wine would have been superb, if it had been unhindered by the faulty cork.

Stickies

This was perhaps the best series of stickies I have had in a while. And I must pat meself on the back for bringing another contender to wine of the night: Chateau d’Yquem 1990. It was my only bottle, purchased in the French Auchan hypermarket back in 1998 for about $200. A tobacco and white pepper coolness intrigued me most, matched to ripe orange cake and blood red orange flavors. The texture was Sauternes but never thick or cloying. This is the top wine of the appellation, and readers should be reminded that it had been given the unique category of Premier Cru Supérieur back in the 1855 Classification of the Medoc and Sauternes. Yes, there were four premiers crus from the Medoc and even more premiers crus from Sauternes, but Yquem was alone, rated as a “superior premier”.

The only "superior" premier cru, Yquem stands alone

Tasting this 1990 reminded us all why. It was paired with what would have been a downright honorable Chateau Climens 1986 that Ken brought. But the Climens – with fine light orange and lemon flavors, and bright acidity and energy – could not compare, try as it might. It seemed to be a touch abrupt on the finish and two-dimensional to the Yquem’s multi-dimensions. Well, now, in all fairness to Climens, I have to digress and relate an opposite comparison at Chateau d’Yquem a few years ago over dinner, where a Chateau Climens 1976 outgunned a Chateau d’Yquem 1983… Still, on 5 January 2012, Yquem 1990 ruled.

Ken Brown holds up the two Bordeaux based dessert wines

Two Germans, two different vintages indeed

Possibly the best ice wine I have ever tasted

I always learn things when I taste with the esteemed palates of the Washington Winos! Sitting next to me, Ken Barr explained why 1990 was such a great vintage for German late harvest wines, because of their acidity and ripeness. A vintage like 1994, he further explained by contrast, had ”ridiculously high” acidity but lacked ripeness. Here by the way, a decent link to recent German vintages. Ken brought the Weingut Selbach Oster Zeltinger Schlossberg Riesling Eiswein 1990 which was nothing short of superb, conveying mineral and cool tobacco with vibrant grapefruit in a very bright and youthful expression. A wine that pleased, again, my penchant for vivacity. Another contender for top wine honors of the evening? Perhaps third place?

Dönnhoff Beerenauslese 1989

As much as I adore the wines of Dönnhoff, I could not bring myself to love the Dönnhoff Oberhäuser Brücke Beerenauslese 1989 that Howard brought. It was almost too rich for my taste and compared poorly to the ice wine, which seemed more alive to me. Yes, there were pleasing notes of clove and orange rind and it was very tasty, but there was also stiff sweet wine competition tonight…

And the lovely Loire

Each year I get a mailer from Domaine Huet with a listing of prices, including older vintages. This evening reminded me why I must buy more Huet. Thanks to Chris Sipes we enjoyed also the Domaine Huet Clos de Bourg Le Haut Lieu Moelleux 1er Trie 1997, a delectable Chenin Blanc with ripe peach and cinnamon flavors and a palate displaying excellent grip and energy. The color was dark and I was initially worried that this would be oxidized, but that was not the case. A very enjoyable late harvest wine from Huet!

WHITE DESSERT WINES

So as 2011 came to an end, I really wanted to revisit older school Bordeaux. Below you will read notes on another series of Bordeaux from the 80s, this time all 1982s, the mythical vintage that had put Robert Parker on the map. The PREVIOUS EVENING (28 December), I had enjoyed mostly 1986s.

It was interesting also to note noticeable evolution for certain bottles (Cos d’Estournel and Canon for example) that some of the same tasters had tried in December 2005 – see HERE – while other wines seemed to have improved, or were just perhaps better bottles (Calon Segur, for example).

Randy and his Krug 1990

Krug 1990. Thank you Randy. What a marvelous bottle of Champagne. Manly stuff? I had enjoyed a vertical of Krug in London last month (1989, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2000), thanks to Decanter’s Fine Wine Encounter, but we did not have the 1990. The vinous nature here is impressive. Freshness married to deep substance. One encounters subtle toffee, white fruit, and cinnamon spice, in a broad shouldered yet complex and overall elegant Champagne. A tonic finish really completes this bubbly, because it makes you reach for more. 96

Pol Roger Winston Churchill 1999. This seemed softer in comparison. But it was the wine of the night for me at a big party thrown in Bordeaux by Domaine de Chevalier’s Olivier Bernard – SEE HERE. Richer to some extent than the above, but less focused. The palate lacks the strict precision of the above, with a touch more sweetness, perhaps. Coming back to this, it is tasty and very fun to drink, and not a lightweight by any stretch of the imagination, but a bit “sandwiched-in” between two superior Champagnes. 93+

Salon 1996. Could this be the best Champagne I have ever had? Possible. It certainly qualifies as a revelatory experience. 1996 is such a brilliant vintage and here we have a superb expression of that brilliance. A slightly reticent nose precedes an exuberant, energy- filled palate, exuding chalky minerality that beguiles the palate into a state of near ecstasy. Excuse me, but it was that good. 100% Chardonnay sumptuousness, but with such backbone and structure, it is built to age. The energy and briskness however make it oh so pleasurable now.  99-100?? Thanks Kevin for this revelation.

Near perfection...

Henri Boillot Criot Batard Montrachet 2004. Chris and Marjorie Bublitz brought this bottle and I think Chris and I liked it particularly. I did not mind a slight under-ripe aspect. In fact, I found it very tasty. Yes, there was a bit of wet sock on the initial nose, which was just slightly off-putting, at first. But that blew off pretty quickly, or, perhaps I was left just mightily impressed with the palate’s sheer briskness. This reminded me of a fresh Sancerre, as Kevin noted in his fine notes, but also of a meeting I had had earlier this year with Klaus Peter Keller in Germany, who professes enjoying lemon and grapefruit in the morning. Tart pleasures. And to boot: this shows no sign whatsoever of premox. Good on Henri Boillot, very good to drink. 93+

Thirst quenching Burgundy

Faiveley Meursault Charmes Hospices de Beaune bottling 2006. Here again a 2006 white Burgundy that to me at least is a bit too sweet. The butterscotch is just a tad over the top, but that does not detract too much from the high quality of the wine itself, as it is rich and full-bodied like a Meursault should be, yes? Still, a question of subjective taste. I much prefer the 2004 above. 90

Ramonet Batard Montrachet 2008. The 2008s I have tasted in Burgundy tend to have bracing acidity but here I found a spherical aspect – completeness. One could get some slightly thick oak derivation but, sheesh, it is so well integrated. Much pear and white fruit, depth and richness, and, yes, freshness. A wine that certainly impresses and tastes marvelous. Thank you Kevin! 96

Paul Blanck Riesling Grand Cru Schlossberg 2007. Thanks to Howard and Nancy Cooper for bringing this bottle. We last saw one another when they visited Alsace this past summer. I must say that here we have a Riesling that held its own against some fine white Burgundy. I often hear Alsatian winemakers telling me that Riesling can be every bit as good as fine white Burgundy, and I always think: apples and oranges, folks. But here I sort of get the picture. Opulent on the nose, but thoroughly dry on the palate. Blanck is one of my favorite producers in Alsace, and this wine reminded me why. Do not hesitate to get this. 92

The main event:

Bordeaux 1982 almost 30 years on, and still going strong 

Canon and La Lagune with Pol Roger in the background, and superb wintry soup in the foreground

Chateau Canon 1982. In comparison to six years ago, this wine has become a bit more open knit and has lost some grip. A sweet yet iron-like nose, exuding all spice and chocolate, announces a delectable palate of medium body and of moderate intensity, with tannins melted. The iron quality stayed throughout, but rather in the background, as chocolate notes took prominence, leaving an overall impression of richness. Ken Brown brought us a great bottle with which to start things… 93

Chateau La Lagune 1982. With more grip by comparison, more structure, this La Lagune left me with the feeling that it has more time ahead of it. The nose is more refined, as Kevin noted. At first the palate seemed to me not quite as pleasing on one level – when compared to the Canon’s delectable richness – but the La Lagune displayed a silkier and more refined texture, albeit married with greater tannic presence and a more youthful profile, which is a good thing for a wine that is getting on in years. It is also great to drink, to be sure. And I think it was the better bottle tonight. Thanks to Chris and Marjorie Bublitz for this fine bottle. 94

Chateau L’Eglise Clinet 1982. Here we have more of a beef blood aspect on the nose that is, I agree, as Kevin noted, detracting, and there is some austerity on the palate, too. But it is a very concentrated wine. When I went back to it, towards the end of the dinner, it had improved. And the palate was getting more interesting. Still, it stood out negatively given its pedigree and when compared to the two previous wines. An awkward phase? A bottle that is not showing well? 88+

St Estephe

Cos!

Chateau Cos d’Estournel 1982. Big bows to Randy. This was his final 1982 from his cellar. The cedar perfumed nose promised great things. Here I got an initial feeling of pleasing dusty tannin but with much depth and richness. The palate feel is broad but with good acidity that assured freshness. Interesting how the wine had lost some of the exuberance we had experienced some six years ago. In any case, I do not see how the modern day Cos 2009, for example, at 15 degrees, will age… Not like this one did, I am fairly certain. 94+

Heart's delight

Chateau Calon Segur 1982. Energy and freshness. I was upset that I could not find another bottle of this recently, and tasting it makes me want to obtain more … but prices have edged upwards. I was struck at first by a slightly high acidity when I had opened it at home for an Audouze, but it all just came together over time in glass and proved to be magnificent: with such verve and still tannic edginess that although very pleasing now, will last a long time yet. The Cabernet perfume as Kevin wrote stayed on focus throughout. At a certain point, we say that the bottle (or cork) matters more than the wine. This particular bottle was mighty impressive, better than the one we had tried back in 2005. 96

Rich and tasty cru bourgeois

Chateau Meyney 1982. Chocolate richness, fun to drink. And amazingly youthful for its near 30-year age. The only cru bourgeois (thanks to Chris and Marjorie Bublitz) of the evening’s 82s that stood well against its more aristocratic peers, although it was somewhat simpler when compared to the classed growths above from St Estephe. Still, this was, as Kevin wrote, quite a revelation of sorts, proving the French adage: grande annee, petit vin. You will be happy. 92

St Julien and Pauillac

Showing the strength of the superb 1982 vintage

Chateau Talbot 1982. Now I was raving all over the place when drinking this initially. David Zimmerman, whom I had not seen in at least two years, brought this rather underrated estate to our table, which was drinking very well. Chris stood up with his characteristic enthusiasm and we were nodding in agreement at how delicious this was. Orange rind freshness, plus finesse and that Cordier saddle leather combined to make this a fiesta of earthy Bordeaux. But there was just a hint of green pepper that I normally do not mind at all – and even welcome in many cases as a component of older Bordeaux, when in digestible quantitiesJ. But here the green pepper component came more to the fore with time… Folks, we were drinking a series of 82s, and I could not help but be more critical, so the next two wines proved more pleasing on most levels. Still, this is one lovely bottle of wine that I would welcome anywhere, anytime! 93+

Poor man's Latour?

Chateau Grand Puy Lacoste 1982. The Talbot seemed to show more depth, at first, but the GPL grew better and better in glass, tightening its Pauillac grip, but staying very pleasing throughout. Has not budged much since last tried a few years ago, displaying cigar box like aromas and flavors but also some cassis and much freshness. A poor man’s Latour to be sure, thanks to Karl and Adelaide Kellar for bringing this lovely wine. 95

Easily 2nd growth quality

Chateau Lynch Bages 1982. In addition to the aromatics and flavors that Kevin outlined, I also got particular minty freshness that appealed to me (perhaps the bell pepper for Kevin?), then so much depth on the palate, that I have to tip my hat to Lynch Bages. It left an overall impression of youthful richness, balance and pleasure, with a lingering finish. As much as the GPL developed in glass, this to me was of a better pedigree in 1982, at least when comparing these two bottles! The evening before I had a very fine 1986, and then having had in recent years 1989, 1990, 1995 and 1996, and of course 2000, all I can say is that Lynch Bages does merit a 2^nd growth rating. Thanks to Howard and Nancy for reminding us, with this superb bottle. 95+

St Julien – best flight?

Elegance and substance, please give me more

Chateau Ducru Beaucaillou 1982. I noticed a dusty aspect that seems somewhat typical of older Ducru, but it was refined dust… Floral aromatics combined with tobacco announced a rich, nuanced, licorice-like palate that was both long and focused. All throughout, this wine maintained an overall impression of refined elegance ending on a rather firm, graphite-like finish. A solid 95 or so… perhaps more? Thanks to Ken Barr for bringing this, as it was the first time I have ever tried a Ducru Beaucaillou 1982, at least I cannot recall ever having this before!

Cordier Class

Chateau Gruaud Larose 1982. Cedar and tobacco. A bit funky? I hardly got any Brett, to me this was one of the cleanest Gruauds from the 80s I have ever had. A repeat performance from the 1982 I had tried in March 2011 in Germany (SEE HERE), thanks to Howard and Nancy for this great bottle. A pleasing tonic and youthful austerity on the initial palate, which was showcasing mature ripe fruit but also tobacco, very cigar box, could I say rather more typical of older Bordeaux than the next, superior, wine? Still this Gruaud simply kicks ass. A very different style when compared to the Ducru: more foreboding and perhaps a wine that will last longer?  Hard to tell because both exude substance, but the Gruaud Larose seems to show more power, without ever being overbearing or sweet. A really magnificent wine. 96+

Top of the taste mountain, amazing wine

Chateau Leoville Las Cases 1982. Could we get better? Yes we can. Sap-filled wine, opulent yet with so much seductive grip. A wine that is spherical, complete, mixing elegance with depth and brightness. There is a feeling of both warm and cool fruit, still more youthful, on a slower evolutionary track than either of the above. The cool fruit wins over, for me, and that is why I give it near 100, if I must use that number, this wine is rather there. 99, 100? The 1982 of the evening in any case.

By this time, dear readers, I will admit to some palate fatigue. Unlike Kevin, I was not as studious this time around, having indulged more than using the spitting buckets… So I shall leave these last wines without scores….

Stickies

A sucker for Sauternes

Château Lafaurie-Peyraguey 2001. Interesting, I did not get as bothered by the palate texture. Perhaps I am a sucker for thick textures? I found it more balanced at this stage, but it could certainly use more aging – and will improve. Like Kevin, I got the cream caramel, mango and apricot, but also ripe pear and even grapefruit. I really liked this Sauternes and bought three bottles online the next day. Thanks to Ken Brown for this bottle.

Trimbach Pinot Gris Sélection de Grains Nobles 1994. Indeed, Kevin, Pinot Gris is not my favorite of the Alsace grape trio, but of course SGNs are different and this was lovely. Count on Trimbach for precision and crispiness, even in SGN wines. Yup, very pure nose indeed, with the bright acidity.

Von Hövel Scharzhofberger Riesling Eiswein Mosel Saar Ruwer 1985. Many thanks to Ken for this, but I agree that the wine seemed just a tad tired compared to the previous entries.

A fine set of 82s, tasted 23 years later

One had 12 % alcohol, another 11.5% – I do not think any of the nine Bordeaux 1982s we enjoyed had more than 12.5%.

Does this matter? Perhaps not at all.

But in this day and age of very ripe and concentrated Bordeaux, sometimes clocking in at 13.5 or even 14.5% [and since this article was written, above 15%], it was amazing to taste a wonderful array of top Bordeaux wines from the fabled 1982 vintage with comparatively diminutive degrees of alcohol in a banner sunny year to boot, with members of the Mark Squires erobertparker wine bulletin board from the Washington D.C. area, some of whom (not me) had purchased these wines at rock bottom prices, when they were released… some 20 years ago.

First off, we were lucky. No corked bottles. And I believe not even a “faulty” bottle, though some noted a slight cork flavor in La Conseillante while others did not.

The nine 82’ wines were all very good, at the very least, and they also nicely represented some of the major Bordeaux appellations:

Leoville Barton, Gruaud Larose and Branaire Ducru of Saint Julien, Grand Puy Lacoste of Pauillac, Calon Segur and Cos d’Estournel of Saint Estephe, Canon and Figeac of Saint Emilion and La Conseillante of Pomerol

Participants were fellow chat members of Mark Squires’ Bulleting Board on the  erobertparker.com website: Randy McFarlane (Branaire Ducru and Calon Segur, opened at the restaurant), Kevin Shin (Grand Puy Lacoste), Chris Bublitz (Cos d’Estournel), Ken Brown (Gruaud Larose, previously decanted), Ben DeLancy (La Conseillante), Howard Cooper (Canon), Maureen Nelson (Leoville Barton), Alex Anthopoulos (who kindly came down all the way from Pennsylvania without any 82s, but brought a 1990 Suduiraut as well as a tasty Lynch Bages white 2001).

Maureen smartly advised the group to take small pours of each wine so that we could revisit each one. Intelligent suggestion as the wines of course evolved in glass.The only caveat I could raise is the room, or lack thereof, for the rapidity of the servings. Some tasters were not fully done evaluating the first three wines, while the next ones already came around the table! No matter, it worked in the end, but I wonder if for such a tasting it would not be better to find a larger table, so that everyone would have room to bring, say, six glasses (most brought two or four).

Enough pickiness. The tasting proved wonderful, because we were all very content with the wines, debating about which was the wine of the night.

TNs Game Plan: As Maureen suggested, my notes reflect initial reactions and reactions to the wines as they evolved in glass.

FLIGHT ONE – RIGHT BANK

Chateau Canon Saint Emilion (premier grand cru classé B): Nose, dominated at first by white caramel, with a hint of baked cherries. Full-bodied palate has depth, intensity and power, with a taste of beef blood. Nose later turns to strawberry, and the palate stays very deep and vinous. About two hours later nose turns to crème brulée and palate has somewhat less intensity and depth. Basically, this wine was complex and brooding, but some time in glass allows it to open and then actually lose some of its initial intensity. It was a real pleasure to drink for its clearly defined flavors and had a nice length.

Chateau La Conseillante Pomerol: The nose was more polished than the above, fresher, with wintergreen notes. Was this a funky bottle? Corked? I got neither.  Perhaps a hint of yeastiness on the palate, but it did not really bother me… at all. The palate actually was dominated by a taste of dark chocolate. It was however not nearly as full bodied and brooding as the Canon. It was rather light in comparison, but not diluted by any stretch of the imagination. Another style of wine, which was also very good. With time in glass, it improved if anything, with mint notes, more freshness and an underlying, somewhat sneaky, power and persistence. A lovely wine.

Chateau Figeac Saint Emilion (premier grand cru classé b): What an interesting comparison between the two Saint Emilions. With Figeac just across Cheval Blanc in the famous graves regions of Saint Emilion and containing so much more Cabernet (35% Cabernet Sauvignon and 35% Cabernet Franc – only 30% Merlot), it proved different from the Merlot-dominated Canon (though Canon also contains 25% Cabernet Franc), whose vines are grown on the cooler limestone plateau – more suitable to Merlot. Still, I understand that in 1982, Canon had more Cabernet Franc in the mix… Anyhow, Figeac’s nose evoked pine forest freshness, with truffle, earth, leather, plus spice (a pinch of cinnamon). It was probably the most complex nose of all so far. On the palate, it seemed to me to marry the full bodied aspect of the Canon – though being far more open and not at all brooding – with the silky elegance of the Conseillante. This is also logical when one considers the soil and make up: La Conseillante’s vines also grow on gravely soil over clay, and at that time, the wine at La Conseillante also contained more Cabernet Franc (30% then as opposed to about 20% today, I believe). The feeling on the palate of Figeac was, someone appropriately said, “Burgundian.” It was very silky and soft and yet also very long and full of flavor. Time in glass did not change its flavor profile that much, though I did not get a chance to taste it again at the very end because it was… gone (a note on its popularity!). I think Ken said that he would be more than happy to nurse an entire bottle one evening. Make that two for me, pretty please. 

FLIGHT TWO – SAINT JULIEN

Chateau Branaire Ducru (4th growth): At first, a slightly green pepper nose – NO I DO NOT MEAN THAT IN A NEGATIVE SENSE. It was ripe green pepper, which then started showing animal leather and even ashes from a fireplace, plus chocolate (which is quite typical for this property). Its rather complex nose preceded a tasty, medium- to full-bodied – and certainly pleasurable – palate that was sweet and luscious. But it was structured, too, and this wine, perhaps now at its plateau, can still last much longer, I think (I remember enjoying a 1966 at the chateau with owner Patrick Maroteaux last year that was thoroughly delicious). As the wine sat in the glass, animal notes began to dominate, but never too prevalent, never horse-like. What struck me was the approachability, and it proved a nice partner for the tasty venison I ordered… except perhaps for the food’s excessive pepper.

Chateau Gruaud Larose (2nd growth): My my my. If I really, really had to vote for a wine of the night, at least on a really gut feeling, I might just as well pick the Gruaud Larose. What a wine! What made it so special? First off: the nose was, well, SO DARN YOUNG. I could not believe this, but it almost reminded me of the 2000’s nose, when I had tasted the 2000 on three separate occasions in Germany for a vertical I organized for the chateau. Maureen was looking at me as if I were nuts, when I pronounced “vanilla and oak-derived notes.” It was, I give, too much to utter oak-derived notes, but the nose here was at times singing sweet vanilla and even… some butter toast, wonderfully mingled – okay – with cigar box, sweet cassis and very fine leather, which came on especially on the palate in the form of meatiness. And talk about the palate. This was, if you will, the “Canon” of the Left Bank wines: brooding yet sweet, opulent yet well knit, indeed rock solidly built. The texture was very finely grained, too. And the length? At least half a minute. But what impressed me most was the intensity when I slurped it to get the retro-nasal flavors. Really, this was something truly special. No wonder Robert Parker gave it (I believe) a 98/100 rating… 

Chateau Leoville Barton (2nd growth): The 1982 was I think the last wine made under Ronald Barton, Anthony Barton’s uncle. Some critics – I think a French critic but I do not remember – prefer wines like the 1986 to the 1982, which they call more rustic and old school. I got no sense of rusticity in this wine, though it was very likely the MOST BROODING  of all in tonight’s tasting. The nose was at first muted, and then gave forth hints of cedar and lead pencil, licorice and some cassis. The temperature was normal, but I am not sure whether Maureen decanted beforehand – I believe she did. What I really liked was the full bodied power and intensity in this wine – it seemed indeed contained by a wall of sound tannin. I mean tannin not in any way aggressive but rather present and indeed reassuring, as if this wine is telling you: “Don’t you worry about me; I will be around for a long, long, long time.” About two hours later, it had opened up, with a mélange of cigar box and now more animal notes coming through on the palate, but it was still brooding and not really truly ready for business, yet. Oh, I almost forgot: 11.5% alcohol (see caption).

FINAL FLIGHT: SAINT ESTEPHE AND PAUILLAC

Chateau Calon Segur Saint Estephe (3rd growth): Randall brought this too warm and Maureen advised us to put it into the ice bucket. It stayed there too long and was thus served too cold. But with time, this baby showed its lovely colors (speaking of colors, the restaurant was rather dark, so I could not really describe in detail any of the wines’ colors and tones, but some were darker than others, including the Leoville Barton and the Gruaud Larose in particular, while the Figeac, for example, was much more brick and see-through). At first, with the cold temperature, the nose was not that expressive, and the palate was tight and somewhat tannic. With time, the wine showed an interesting mixture of espresso and graphite, mineral notes which were echoed on the smoothly drinkable palate. This wine was complex – though not the most full-bodied of the evening – its texture possessed contours and a graininess that I really enjoyed. Later on the palate, I sensed some animal notes with some pepper, which made it also go very well with my venison.

Chateau Cos d’Estournel Saint Estephe (2nd growth): If Calon smelled a bit of espresso, this wine was singing roasted coffee with hints of milky chocolate. What a sweet and seductive nose. I wanted to sip, and sip again – and again.  A full-bodied palate with a silky texture, it also pleased with a meaty flavor with spices that made me think: “Okay, now I understand the original owner’s adoration for exotic travel!” This wine wins my vote as the most exotic of the night, if you will, as I got hints of ginger on the palate, which was yet so meaty and opulent as well. With more time in glass, it seemed to gain in body and flavor. Bravo!

Chateau Grand Puy Lacoste Pauillac (5th growth): You see, when I tasted this wine, this – sadly – last wine of a series of such great 82s – I began to think, how the heck can we have a wine of the night? I doubt that the GPL would win wine of the night, if we took a vote. That honor would likely go IMHO to either Gruaud Larose or Cos or perhaps even Figeac… But when I was trying the GPL and drinking it, it became wine of the night for me. Then I went back to another wine, thinking, “Nah, this one is better.” But that is how this tasting went. Each wine was lovely in its own way. The GPL exuded typical Pauillac cigar box and still youthful black currant aromas, with hints of fine grained leather as well. Its palate was very well structured – even a bit of slightly bitter austerity – but happily enriched with full bodied flavors that proved complex, ranging from – yes – milk chocolate to a tasty beefiness! Time in glass allowed for it to open up, and the finish was long and smooth. A lovely wine indeed.

Now some people may prefer the Left Bank to the Right Bank.  I can understand that point to a certain extent. I think in general that the Cabernet Sauvignon dominated wines did show more of a tannic edge and perhaps more power. But I could not pick between the two because I liked all three Right Bankers as well (and I like Right Bank and Left Bank equally). From my very limited experience, I also remember tasting a 1924 La Conseillante a few years ago that was still alive and kicking, if a bit odd on the finish (not sure if it was Merlot, though) or a 1945 Belair that was delicious. Also remember drinking more recently 1959 and 1961 Figeac, so such top end Saint Emilions and Pomerols can last a long time indeed!

Finally a word on picking a WOTN. In the end, there was IMHO no WOTN, and how about that for making an acronym sandwich?

Not everyone will agree with this assessment, but I think that, at best, one could say that a particular wine had the most intense nose or the greatest structure or was the most ready to drink. Each of these wines had superior qualities. Perhaps one could pick out some wines that did not shine as much, but when I thought of beginning a list, I quickly became disheartened, because I realized that even those wines were so darn good… or at least had qualities that made me think, “What the heck are you doing?”

Basically, the impression I get is that the 1982 vintage is far from approaching any decline, as some people in France have told me, including the jovial Tim Johnston of one of my favorite wine bar restaurants in Paris, Juveniles.

He once told me that the 82s are “overrated” with many approaching decline.Not so  … for each and every one of the nine we tasted tonight, none being first growths …

Ready for fun, from left to right: Ian, Keith, David Ehrlich, Faryan and David White

Here we are! Nearly 2012. For wine lovers, the end of a year seems to increase the need to taste superb wines.  At least, I feel that rush. And thank my lucky stars for having fellow wine lovers to share such experiences. As much as I am increasingly enamoured by the freshness of Burgundy as some modern Bordeaux approach 15 degrees and more, my heart still beats for Bordeaux. At least from the “enlightened” Old School (meaning, traditionalists who have adapted to positive change to make wines that are clean, but neither over-high in alcohol nor over-high in new oak, for example). So it was a real pleasure to start two nights of Bordeaux, mainly from the 1980s.

Bordeaux 1980s, part 2: 1982 vintage, 30 years on – and still going strong!

What better way to count down 2011? With a group of wine geeks and fine bottles? A resounding yes. Many thanks to Ian Lipner for hosting – and preparing a superb meal, with all the trimmings, on 28 December. It was great to see Ian and Faryan Amir-Ghassemi again. And to finally meet Keith Levenberg, whom I have “known” as a blogger since 2004, back when the famous Parker board was public. Great to meet David Ehrlich and David White, who publishes the excellent Terroirist blog.

Things started off with a fine Henriot 1998, whose softer nose of subtle stone and mineral did not quite hint at the increasingly citrus-infused palate. I liked the acidity, but it was not a particularly brutish brut.

Beaucastel 2006: as fine as can be from the southern Rhone

David (Ehrlich) brought a white Chateauneuf du Pape 2006. The vintage was rather dry in the summer, so September rainfall which compromised other parts of France was rather welcome – for the reds. Here we have as fine a white Southern Rhone as one could expect. Not much beeswax, David noted. The nose was subtle, with white fruit, apricot and some pear, and the palate expectedly thickly textured but not overbearing. Over time, it became just a tad monotonous, but not a bad drink – also given its intriguing spice overtones.

Ian prepared tasty leek soup, made from leeks cooked in butter and red wine before being pureed and augmented with cream. I liked the acidity in the Champagne as a better match for the soup.

Nice match!

Flight One

Chateau Ducru Beaucaillou 1990. This great estate from St Julien we all agreed had the best label of the night. In spite of TCA problems in the mid-80s which marred the 88-89-90 trio here, this bottle was fine. David (Ehrlich) sourced it from a relative with a pristine cellar. Deceptively soft, because it tightened up a bit in glass, it was still a rather light expression from this vintage, and not among the top Medoc 1990s I have had. A certain dusty aspect reminding me of the 1970 blew off, and then the wine just became a soft pleasure to enjoy, with moderate floral aromatics and jam, and some black licorice on the palate. 92+

Chateau Pichon Baron 1988. Two years older, and yet it looked (less bricking) and particularly tasted younger.  Lovely precision and focus on the nose and palate, which had “more going on” and although we encounter tertiary notes, they are as fresh as ever. Although prominent acidity betrays the vintage nature – this is not the greatest balance one can obtain – the wine is now in a sweet spot, and shows certain signs that it will age very well for at least another 7-10 years. If the price is right, one to seek. Thanks to David White for letting us in on this information. 94

The softer side of 1990

For these two first Bordeaux, Ian allowed a “soft entry” – a salad with a thoroughly tasty mix of various mushrooms. The meat was on its way…

Underrated Pichon Baron 1988? Lovely stuff!

Flight Two – Best overall flight

For this superb duo, Ian served perfectly prepared strips of rare duck, ladled with a delectable sauce of port and cherry…

Floral and elegant - but with much underlying substance.

Chateau Ducru Beaucaillou 1986. My, my. Now this illustrates the often used phrase to describe the chateau as the “Lafite of St Julien”. Sheer elegance. Where the floral aspects in the 1990 were muted, here they come to the fore, with lavender and spring flowers. The palate exudes a contained power, with finely grained tannins that have come to a certain maturity but can last a long time yet. Tobacco aspects pleased me in their subtlety. Rounded and elegant. Does it get much better from 1986 Bordeaux? Perhaps there are wines that out power this one (see below), but this has feminine charm, and I like women. 96

Foreboding Gruaud Larose 1986

Chateau Gruaud Larose 1986. Whiffs of brett. I was thinking, trouble looms. But it blew off, over time. Keith may have double decanted beforehand but this needed more air. I have had this vintage over several years between 2005 and 2010, and always conjured up the image of Led Zeppelin’s When the Levee Breaks. Not for the meek this wine. Not big in a modern sense, with sweet tones of (over) ripeness in the mix. Ney, this wine is Old School and damn delicious, but it needs time to open up, its tannins still foreboding, and enrobed in saddle leather and cow hide and some notions of poop that are not – thankfully – overwhelming. At least not with some time in glass. Indeed, this became even more poised and clean on the palate over time. What it lacked for in elegance, it made up for in earthy power. 96

Delicious duck, aromatic wine. Hard to beat.

 Third flight

A 1986 pair from the Northern Medoc

Chateau Montrose 1986. In spite of my best efforts to ah-so the cork out, with careful coaxing, the thing fell in, so I poured the wine into a decanter and back into a just-finished bottle of Haut Bailly 2004, which no one in their right mind should drink today because it needs more time… But that is another story. Montrose 1986 has shown better from other bottles, but this was darn good. The color was light ruby and transparent, and I had the feeling that it was on a faster evolution than other bottles I have had. Still, tobacco infused, smooth integrated tannins, a pleasing even somewhat sweet yet refined aspect, with a definite 1986 acidity that matched perfectly the roast lamb that Ian also had prepared. 94+

Chateau Lynch Bages 1986. Most of us raved over this wine. I did, too, but perhaps not as much. There was something somewhat stolid about it, but, yes, it was very youthful – a much darker core than the Montrose to be sure – and showed more primary fruit. Lots going on here, too. Did I get a slightly drying finish? Going back to it, I could not but be amazed with its downright youthful mid palate, with an intensity of “compacted power” that reminded me also of the superb 1989. More proof of Lynch Bages as the “Poor Man’s Mouton” – or is Mouton the “Rich Man’s Lynch Bages”? 95

Perfect lamb with all the trimmings

The lamb was superbly prepared, with roasted potatoes in one bowl, and a mix of Brussels sprouts and broccoli in another. It was interesting to try both wines with the lamb. While the more mature Montrose seemed more to “accomodate” the food, the more robust Lynch Bages gave it a greater accent. Both went well with the serving, basically.

We finished dinner with a trio of “dessert” wines and obligatory Washingtonian political discussion that was quite civil. It is possible.

Chateau Gilette in Sauternes has the curious habit of holding its fermented wine for up to 20 years in concrete vats before release. Some say it preserves freshness, others call it a gimmick. The truth lies somewhere in between. This 1983 from a half bottle promised nice things, with orange rind and cinnamon spice. The vintage was successful for Sauternes, given a fine late summer that lead to late pickings and a rather slow spread of botrytis. But I have had better 1983s, such as Fargues and Raymond Lafon, both of which pack more punch. In any case, an enjoyable sticky!

A 2002 Quarts de Chaume Les Varennes from Jo Pithon was a bit too honeyed for my taste. I was expecting more acidity from the Loire. But de gustibus non disputandum est…

Finally, the Dow Vintage Port 1985 was as good as I have had from this estate and vintage. A fine bottle, exuding soft tannin, red fruit and a fine smokiness. Will not win any first place awards for high flavor intensity, but it certainly lulls the palate into a relaxed state of mind. Certainly ready for a metro ride home… Don’t drink and drive!

Many thanks to Ian, our host and master chef !

Master chef Ian Lipner preparing mushroom assortment