Almost 30 years of Bordeaux
Tasted Tuesday, September 23, 2014 by octopussy with 509 views
Introduction
Two friends of mine recently organized a Bordeaux tasting with the title "25 years of Bordeaux", which seemed kind of open. Prior to the tasting we were supplied with around 30 quotes from winery owners (anoymized), critics, journalists and others on the wines we were about to taste. The point of the tasting was not to knowingly and on purpose show how Bordeaux styles have evolved over the years, but rather to serve some wines from different periods in the last 25 to 30 years and to see whether any differences are found and how they correspond to the quotes provided and how the wineries and critics view those wines themselves. All wines had been opened a few hours in advance, but had not been decanted. They were served blind.
Flight 1 - Two 1985s (2 Notes)
In the first flight, we had two 1985s blind. I was late, so in a small pause I had to drink them and guess what they are. I guessed right that wine no. 1 was from St. Julien, but I guessed the vintage to be 2001. Way off. For the second wine, I was even further off - I guessed the 1985 Cos to be a 2005. Well, at least I found out that almost everyone else had guessed the age of the wines way wrong as well. The oldest guess for any of the two wines was 1996. The Léoville Poyferré for me was the wine of the night, super elegant, very Bordeaux, harmonic, lovely to drink. The more 1985s I drink, the more I like them.
Flight 2 - 1990 Château Figeac (1 Note)
The 1990 Figeac, I had had just a few months earlier from several bottles, but served too warm. This bottle was very similar to the last few bottles. I loved the wine, but some on the table found it pretty terrible with too much barnyard involved. I think it was nicely spicy, earthy, quite complex. I don't feel the real magic that some of my friends had told me about 1990 Figeac, but this bottle really was excellent.
Flight 3 - 1995 vs. 2005 d'Armailhac (2 Notes)
Château d'Armailhac is (next to Clos du Marquis) the favorite Bordeaux of our host and I can certainly understand that. The wines I had from Château d'Armailhac had nearly always been better than their reputation (which is, frankly, no reputation at all. To me it seems like d'Armailhac is never cheap, but is also never in the list of wines of any critic that excelled in any vintage). I think the Château produces very classic Pauillac, maybe without the last bit of complexity, but very typical for its origin and very "clean" without seeming polished. I loved the 1995. We discussed at length on whether the 2005 will develop like the 1995 did or whether it won't age that well because modernism has taken over. For me, that question was really hard to answer. I'd guess that the 2005 will age equally well as the 1995. But it is really difficult to tell (especially as I haven't had many young d'Armailhac so far).
Flight 4 - Almost 3 Léovilles (3 Notes)
In the fourth flight we had two Léoville wines and one wine from the Barton family. Blind, hardly anyone liked the 1997 Las Cases. We couldn't believe when it was lifted. But also when people retried it knowing what it is, the wine didn't "improve". The 1997 Las Cases was flat out disappointing. I've had Las Cases from other mediocre vintages such as 1994, but I liked them better than this 1997, which seemed very forced. I really loved the 1998 Langoa Barton, a very young, but promising wine with great depth. But without any question, the wine of the flight (for most the wine of the night) was the 1998 Léoville Poyferré. This is just a fantastic wine and it also shows that simple conclusions have a high chance of being wrong. One could think that the fact that Michel Rolland was hired at Poyferré in 1995 would have led to the wines becoming more modern and receiving more Parker points pretty much instantly. Everyone, even the die hard AFWE types on the table, loved the wine and said it was super classic left bank Bordeaux. Parker gave this wine 88 points. If I ever see this at an auction, I'm a buyer.
Flight 5 - Two 2009s (2 Notes)
Last, we had two 2009 Bordeaux. Obviously, it doesn't make much sense opening them. It was interesting nonetheless. The 2009 St. Pierre (98 Parker Points) was cold hard and repellent as well as unbelievably oaky. Terrible. Since it was served blind and since we were "forced" to give points to our diarist, it was terribly whipped, received an average of 82 or 83 points, maybe. But there were a lot of comments on how this wine seemed a bit closed down. The second wine in this flight - 2009 Le Bon Pasteur by Monsieur Rolland himself - received more praise on the table, but there weren't many people who really liked to drink this either. I have to say that I'm a fan of the "own" (formerly own) wines of Michel Rolland, coming from Ch. Fontenil and from Le Bon Pasteur. Even though they seem a bit on the overripe side here and there (with pruney aromas, low acids, etc.), I think they're exceptionally well made in this particular style. And if I want a wine in that style, I'd rather buy a Bon Pasteur than anything similar from Italy or South Africa. Whether the 2009 Le Bon Pasteur will ever be great, who knows? If so, it'll take some time.
Flight 6 - 1973 Ch. Gazin (1 Note)
1973 was one of the worst vintages in the already bad 70s decade. The 1973 Ch. Gazin drank quite well, but it was a really light bodied and substanceless wine after all. Still, an enjoyabel good night drink.
Closing
This was an extremely interesting tasting that was not just "interesting", but that involved some really nice wines. It was also interesting to re-read the quotes that we had been provided with and do some further reading on some Châteaux, when they hired which consultant and when they are said to have undergone stylistic changes. In any case, wines like the 1985 Léoville-Poyferré or the 1995 d'Armailac showed again that there are not many red wines in the world that are as ageworthy as left bank Bordeaux.
1985 Château Léoville Poyferré 96 Points
France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien
Dense, dark Bordeaux-Red. In the nose very typical left bank Bordeaux, identified blind as St. Julien. Some dark fruit (cassis, plum, blackberry), light overtones, very nice floral notes, very fragrant, some mint, lots of nuances. In the mouth with fresh acidity, a great mouthfeel, very fine tannins, silky, noble. Long and delicate in the finish. For me, a marvellous wine that has aged in an effortless way.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
1985 Château Cos d'Estournel 91 Points
France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Estèphe
Very dark red, no signs of age. In the nose, this is quite linear, a bit monolithic, slightly confected fruit, in particular cherry, some mint, dark, brooding, impressive, but not particularly fine. On the palate, it's also a bit monolithic, slightly angular with prominent acidity and well integrated, but present tannin. Minerally in the long finish. Michael Broadbent calls this wine a "mammoth" in the context of the vintage and I would agree.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue