Alio's, Surry Hills
Tasted Monday, August 6, 2012 by graemeg with 943 views
This dinner was a virtual repeat (same vintages) of a dinner at which Stephen supplied the wines back in 2003 when we still ate at Lucio’s. For some idiot reason, I didn’t take notes on that occasion; it would have been great to compare the same two verticals ten years apart. Lesson learned though; these notes will have to do as the basis for the 2022 dinner… As a mere stripling Stephen asked Max Schubert at a dinner for his recommendation for a good-quality, cellar-worthy, affordable wine. Max’s tip was Bin 389, which Stephen’s been buying ever since (and to which only the first two of those qualifiers still apply!). Most of the 80s wines are gone now, but we can start from the last couple of years from the decade. All wines were decanted for 20-ish minutes at 6.30pm, then poured back into their original (washed) bottles and re-corked for transport before drinking from 7.45 til about 10pm. As I recall, the consensus back in 2003 was that nearly all the 90s wines were still too young to approach properly; the passing of another near-decade has given us a chance to reassess…
Starting with the oldest wines in the lineup; these were far from disgraced:
There were no true surprises tonight; 90 & 91 are confirmed as the oustanding wines over the period tasted (and probably 10 years either side too, had we done the test). Comparing the 90 & 91 isn’t really fair to either wine, as they are both so astoundingly good. But we did it anyway…
A couple of less-heralded vintages didn’t really offer any surprises:
The 94 confirmed its connoisseur’s reputation as a sleeper vintage, and we had our only cork victim:
The 96 staked its claim as the ‘Vintage of the Decade’, while the 97 confirmed the weaker run that the odd-numbered years suffered during the middle-of the decade.
A terrific night, thanks to Stephen’s generosity, and the sheer quality of that most reliable and achetypal of Penfolds ‘everyman’ reds, the mighty Bin 389. On this occasion we had the timing right. I think I can fairly sum up the consensus by calling the 90, 91, 94, 96 indisputably great, with slight preferences falling this way or that. 88, 89, 97, 92 were very good in varying degrees, 93 was acceptable but not special, and 95 fell victim to cork. For wines aged 15-24 years old, it’s hard to expect more than that, especially for wines that cost from $8.50 to about $22 each over the course of their initial retail lives.
1998 Nicolas Feuillatte Champagne Brut Cuvée Palmes d'Or
France, Champagne
[12%, cork] {Greg} A beautiful and strikingly youthful nose of strawberries and brioche characters. There’s a touch of smoky butter to the palate; some mentioned a mead-character emerging from the glass. It remains always fresh and pure. It’s medium-bodied, with a wonderfully even palate and the finest creamy bubbles the highlight of the texture. Only in a slightly attenuated finish does it fail to justify a very high local price tag (~A$270). Disgorgment date unknown; this seems like it will last forever.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No