My notes from a dinner tasting of 1986 Bordeaux. A vintage that some say will
be the last old style vintage ever made, with hard tannins, needing many years
to come into focus and balance. This review after 17 years was most
enlightening. We saw some bottle variation even with these brawny and
presumably fairly durable wines.

1990 Dom Perignon - fine mousse in a lively wine with some quite yeasty notes
in an otherwise closed nose, well balanced. With oysters on half shell, gravlax
and shrimp spring rolls.

1998 Ch. Couhins-Lurton - light in colour, with a slightly ripe nose, quite
flavourful and medium long. Went well with Asian seafood ravioli in barbecued
duck consommé. This wine is 100% sauvignon blanc.

With duck breast in sun dried cherry and red wine reduction (the wines were
tasted before, and with the food):

Ausone - the nose is starting to show some complexity, but I found the wine a
bit lean in the middle, although it came back a bit at the end. With time in
the glass and with food, it fared a bit better, and some cherry elements came
out, but overall a disappointing showing, particularly in comparison to the
wines that followed it.

Vieux Chateau Certan - darker, with an excellent nose of currant with a touch
of nutmeg, smooth entry, the wine firm in the middle but not hard, with good
length. My best of flight choice.

Canon - this was Canon simpliciter, not the Gaffer. Ripe nose, medium body, bit
less fruit but elegant and balanced with fair length, but drying a bit at the
end and with a very slight terminal bitter note. The wine was worse with food,
hardening up and seeming stemmier, which was a bit unusual.

Reserve de la Comtesse - Good colour, a sweeter but slightly dusty nose, the
tannins firmer, but drinks well now and even better with food. Decent but not
up to the others.


After the obligatory sorbet, which was too sweet and totally unnecessary (don't
get me started - this is a favourite complaint of mine - you want your palate
cleansed and refreshed, so what do these supposedly sensitive chefs do? They
offer up an adjunct dessert which does neither and in fact makes it harder to
taste the ensuing wines! If I ever do a sorbet in meals I am preparing, I use
an unsweetened Earl Grey tea or similarly unsweetened Rosemary sorbet. Don't
chefs drink wine? The rant is now over), the next flight was served with
roasted caribou with flageolets, pommes puree and veal reduction:


Talbot - I love this house - rough and ready, if normally a bit coarse, and
this vintage showed quite well. An excellent nose with big fruit and cedar, a
positive blast of concentrated flavour in the mouth, with good fruit, and
excellent length, the tannins acceptably soft. I noted however that the
overall impression declined with time in the glass.

Leoville Barton - an initial funkiness to the nose soon disappeared, though
what replaced it was somewhat reticent to show more than a core of sweet fruit.
This aspect should improve with more age. The tannins in this wine were quite
firm and it is built to last, but based on what I could see now, it was my
second favourite wine of the flight, based more on potential than current
showing.

Haut Bages Liberal - again, a slightly funky nose, but after that some bright
cassis fruit and vanilla. Smooth and adept in the mouth, the tannins easy going
now, the wine supple. This wine is ready now in the sense of being drinkable
with enjoyment, and while I do not believe it will get any better in the
future, I do think that there are sufficient tannins to maintain it at a
plateau of drinkability for some years.

Lynch Bages - this turned out to be my favourite, although for a time the
Talbot was in the running, before it started to go 'off' a bit, and before this
one started to open up. After that, there was no contest. Best nose of the
flight, with currants, vanilla, and a hint of raspberry. Sweet approach, mellow
and smooth in the mouth with good feel, good length, and the tannins only a bit
too hard at the end. Why oh why didn't I cellar this wine?


The last flight was served with a wild mushroom and cheese tart which in my
opinion admirably served the wines. A savoury course (albeit served before the
dessert) that wasn't so savoury as to interfere with the wines.

Pichon Lalande - I don't recall ever tasting a wine from this house and a
decent vintage that I didn't like - a lot (well OK, the 1990 was an exception,
but I'll allow one error every century). Marvellous depth and complexity in the
nose, with perfumed oak, ripe fruit and spice. Excellent balance and
concentration, and it drinks beautifully now, but really needs time to hit its
real potential. Of the wines in this flight, I judged it to be the best in
terms of current enjoyment.

Pichon Baron - sweeter nose, with vanilla and a touch of blackberry, a bit
sweeter on palate than the PL, but notably less concentrated, drinking well
now. It will not be as long lived as the PL but offers a tasty glassful now.

Lafite - now normally, I think of Latour as the sleeping giant that takes years
to come to the peak of drinking enjoyment, and Lafite as a much more feminine
elegant wine that can be enjoyed in relative youth. We didn't have the Latour
to compare this time around, but I'll tell you that if this Lafite is feminine,
its a bit more butch than any other vintage I can think of. Fascinating complex
nose with all sorts of subtle elements that included the usual cigar-box,
plummy fruit and some others hard to describe. It has very good fruit, and it
will need it - to outlast the very high level of tannins that make the
structure of this wine approach the monumental (but at this age, no longer
monolithic, for its elements are starting to peak out past the tannin). While
this wine is indeed showing more than the 86 Latour, which I last tasted about
a year ago, it would be an interesting lifelong exercise, had one the cellar to
support it, to taste the two side by side every 5 years, starting perhaps 5
years hence.

Margaux - I first recall tasting this wine about 6 years ago at a vertical
hosted by Corinne Mentzelopoulos in Vancouver, when it showed as dark, brooding
and still a bit hard to read. Since then it has picked up a really nice perfumy
currant/vanilla nose, and a lovely sweet entry, with excellent length, but it
still needs time.

With (or in my case, for) dessert, which was apple tart, we had the pleasant
task of examining two whites from this vintage:

Climens - Wow! Pineapple and coconut nose, great acidity and balance, complex
and with very good length. An excellent wine.

Lafaurie Peyraguay - in any other company, this would have shone much more
brightly, but the Climens was a hard act to follow. Good citrus/coconut nose,
long and sweet in the mouth (sweeter than the Climens) and very good, but not
quite in the same class, nor with the same degree of complexity and interest.

Salut/Hi Bill Spohn,

le/on 05 Oct 2003 16:20:49 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>to come into focus and balance. This review after 17 years was most
>enlightening. We saw some bottle variation even with these brawny and
>presumably fairly durable wines.

Fascinating tasting.

>1990 Dom Perignon - fine mousse in a lively wine with some quite yeasty notes
>in an otherwise closed nose, well balanced. With oysters on half shell, gravlax
>and shrimp spring rolls.

As it happens I've got a mag of this (cadeau from my brother) from your
comment, I'd guess it should be left a while yet. Agree?

>With duck breast in sun dried cherry and red wine reduction (the wines were
>tasted before, and with the food):

Sounds interesting.

>After the obligatory sorbet, which was too sweet and totally unnecessary (don't
>get me started - this is a favourite complaint of mine - you want your palate
>cleansed and refreshed, so what do these supposedly sensitive chefs do? They
>offer up an adjunct dessert which does neither and in fact makes it harder to
>taste the ensuing wines!

Hear hear!!!! This disgusting perversion of the "Trou Normand" is
ludicrous. The original - a strong alcohol served as a palate cleanser
before the roast of a large menu - was perfectly logical and sensible. The
modification - made by some very talented chefs - of using a very alcoholic
sorbet (I remember a sorbet de Marc de Gewurztraminer served in a hotel in
Kaysersberg, and using a marc by Colette Faller) was fine, though IMO less
effective than the real thing. But the use of any random sorbet - words
fail me.

> If I ever do a sorbet in meals I am preparing, I use an unsweetened Earl
> Grey tea or similarly unsweetened Rosemary sorbet.

Interesting. Actually the problem with an unsweetened sorbet is to end up
with a decent texture. How d'ya achieve it?

> Don't chefs drink wine?

Surprisingly few _really_ know their way round wine, in my experience.
Which is one real justification of having a Sommelier in a place with a
really good chef.


>Talbot - I love this house - rough and ready,

I always have slight reservations over Cordier.

>Lynch Bages - this turned out to be my favourite, although for a time the
>Talbot was in the running, before it started to go 'off' a bit, and before this
>one started to open up. After that, there was no contest. Best nose of the
>flight, with currants, vanilla, and a hint of raspberry. Sweet approach, mellow
>and smooth in the mouth with good feel, good length, and the tannins only a bit
>too hard at the end. Why oh why didn't I cellar this wine?

I think M Cazes was about at his peak then.... wonderful stuff. Lynch-Bages
has always been a favourite of mine.

>The last flight was served with a wild mushroom and cheese tart which in my
>opinion admirably served the wines.

Fascinating, any idea what cheeses were used? I find that Gruyère, Cheddar,
Parmesan are all cheeses which go very well indeed with red Bordeaux. And
I'd hesitate to argue with Dale over wild mushrooms.


>With (or in my case, for) dessert, which was apple tart, we had the pleasant
>task of examining two whites from this vintage:
>
>Climens -
>Lafaurie Peyraguay

Actually I'd hesitate a long time before serving Sauternes with apple tart.
Of course it all depends what kind of tart. I don't blame you at all for
making the wines your dessert. I think I'd have been inclined to make them
my _second_ dessert!

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

>>1990 Dom Perignon
>
>As it happens I've got a mag of this (cadeau from my brother) from your
>comment, I'd guess it should be left a while yet. Agree?

I agree. Leave it 5+ years.


>Interesting. Actually the problem with an unsweetened sorbet is to end up
>with a decent texture. How d'ya achieve it?

Periodic mixing as it is freezing results in a granite that is made up of quite
small crystalls of flavoured ice - not as smooth as a sorbet in which you have
mixed sugar, but then it serves the purpose of cleansing the palate much better
and any shortcoming in texture is easily forgiven.


>>Talbot - I love this house - rough and ready,
>
>I always have slight reservations over Cordier.

Ahh - a house that produces some excellent ageworthy wines - Talbot, Meyney,
Grand Puy Ducasse, a good selection of Sauternes.

Good trivia question - when did they last use the oddball bottle that looked
like Haut Brion? I think it was early 70s.

>
>>The last flight was served with a wild mushroom and cheese tart which in my
>>opinion admirably served the wines.
>
>Fascinating, any idea what cheeses were used? I find that Gruyère, Cheddar,
>Parmesan are all cheeses which go very well indeed with red Bordeaux. And
>I'd hesitate to argue with Dale over wild mushrooms.

It was Chevre and mixed mushrooms including chanterelles. Delicate flavours
that didn't affect the wines.


>Actually I'd hesitate a long time before serving Sauternes with apple tart.

I wouldn't do it. IMNSHO, Sauternes do not improve by being drunk with food,
though many tolerate it passably.

In article >,
(Bill Spohn) writes:

>>I always have slight reservations over Cordier.
>
>Ahh - a house that produces some excellent ageworthy wines - Talbot, Meyney,
>Grand Puy Ducasse, a good selection of Sauternes.

I agree. But let's not forget Gruaud-Larose, probably the most age-worthy of
the Cordier reds. Pretty sure the '75 has the unusual bottle, '88-90 have
regular Bdx bottles methinks.
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

In ,
Dale Williams > typed:
> In article >,
> (Bill Spohn) writes:
>
>>>I always have slight reservations over Cordier.
>>
>>Ahh - a house that produces some excellent ageworthy wines -
Talbot,
>>Meyney, Grand Puy Ducasse, a good selection of Sauternes.
>
> I agree. But let's not forget Gruaud-Larose, probably the most
> age-worthy of the Cordier reds. Pretty sure the '75 has the
unusual
> bottle,


I'm almost sure the '78 did too, and maybe even after that.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

About the 1986 Lafite, you state:

(Bill Spohn) wrote

> (but at this age, no longer monolithic, for its
> elements are starting to peak out past the tannin)

Do you mean "peak" in that the fruit is peaking and disappearing, or
do you mean "peek" in that you can now taste the fruit.

Having a case of this stowed away, this would be an important point
for me. If it is indeed peaking, then off to the auction house it
goes.

>I agree. But let's not forget Gruaud-Larose, probably the most age-worthy of
>the Cordier reds. Pretty sure the '75 has the unusual bottle, '88-90 have
>regular Bdx bottles methinks.
>Dale
>
Dale

Have you had this in the 86? Maybe I'll have to taste mine, as it seems these
(86) wines are coming around.

Tom Schellberg

>Do you mean "peak" in that the fruit is peaking and disappearing, or
>do you mean "peek" in that you can now taste the fruit.

The latter - the wine has many years to go.

(Bill Spohn) wrote:

> Ahh - a house that produces some excellent ageworthy wines -
> Talbot, Meyney, Grand Puy Ducasse, a good selection of
> Sauternes.

Talbot is not in the Cordier stable anymore (owned by the two Cordier
daugthers and run together with their husbands), while Cantemerle is
part of the herd now.

> Good trivia question - when did they last use the oddball bottle
> that looked like Haut Brion? I think it was early 70s.

No, it ran longer, the 1978 vintage still was bottled into these
pots. Iirc, the change came with 1980 or 1981.

M.

In article >,
(Xyzsch) writes:

>Gruaud-Larose,
>Have you had this in the 86? Maybe I'll have to taste mine, as it seems these
>(86) wines are coming around.

My one experience with the '86 G-L was a disaster, but it wasn't the wine's
fault. As someone coming to a dinner party was a pesce-vegetarian, the host
served sole. There were other wines at table thank goodness, but the match of
the tannic Gruaud and fish sticks in my mind. Oh dear. This was 3-4 years ago,
and it seemed far from ready to me, but a piece of red meat might have made
seem more accessible.
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

Bill Spohn > wrote:
: My notes from a dinner tasting of 1986 Bordeaux. A vintage that some say will

Hello Bill --

nice tasting
(and notes)

: Vieux Chateau Certan - darker, with an excellent nose of currant with a touch
: of nutmeg, smooth entry, the wine firm in the middle but not hard, with good
: length. My best of flight choice.

I tried this about 4-5 years ago and maybe it was still not showing much.
Mine was closed without aromatics and didn't seem to show too much class.



: Pichon Lalande - I don't recall ever tasting a wine from this house and a
: decent vintage that I didn't like - a lot (well OK, the 1990 was an exception,
: but I'll allow one error every century). Marvellous depth and complexity in the
: nose, with perfumed oak, ripe fruit and spice. Excellent balance and
: concentration, and it drinks beautifully now, but really needs time to hit its
: real potential. Of the wines in this flight, I judged it to be the best in
: terms of current enjoyment.

I'd have to disagree with you on the drinkability of this: VERY tight and
tough and tannic at the moment (had earlier this summer), this unyeilding
wine shows enormous potential, but I'm not going to open another bottle of
this for another 8-10 years (seriously!). Lots of stuff going on
underneath the denseness, but I'm letting this sleep for awhile longer.

Mark S

Salut/Hi John T,

le/on Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:30:00 -0800, tu disais/you said:-

>> >>1990 Dom Perignon
>> >
>> >As it happens I've got a mag of this (cadeau from my brother) from your
>> >comment, I'd guess it should be left a while yet. Agree?
>>
>> I agree. Leave it 5+ years.
>
>That's odd.
>We had the 90 Dom at a dinner two years back and felt it was opening up and
>was stunning, packed with bisquit and length.

I had a bottle too for New Year's Eve celebrations 1999/2000. I'm not
experienced enough with this wine to know if it had more to show, I liked
it very much, btw. However, this IS a mag, and a mag does have the
reputation of taking longer to come round.

That said.... here's a poser - if it's true that a mag takes longer to come
to maturity, does this apply to champagne? And if so, doesn't that blow the
theory that it's to do with slower oxidation due to the increased
volume/opening ratio out of the air? One thing one can guarantee, is that
there's NO oxygen ingress into champagne.

>BTW, moving house soon after 25 years in this Victorian pile, only 65yds
>around the corner.

What FUN!!!! (;-))

>So a lurker for a bit

Lurk well. Good luck with the move. What price Arcadia now?

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

Salut/Hi Dale Williams,

You put your finger here on quite a knotty problem of etiquette, it seems
to me.

le/on 06 Oct 2003 13:25:24 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>My one experience with the '86 G-L was a disaster, but it wasn't the wine's
>fault. As someone coming to a dinner party was a pesce-vegetarian, the host
>served sole.

I wonder how many at the dinner don't normally refuse meat.

Imagine a community where the only diet was fish and vegetables. If you had
someone to dinner who didn't eat fish, would everyone else be expected to
do without too?

When is it right for the dietary preferences (I'm not talking about medical
needs, or allergies for the moment) of one person to limit the diets of 3
others? 7 others? 11 others?

I know that political correctness would have us (the meat eating majority)
do without meat for the sake of the person who doesn't! However as someone
who is politically _incorrect_ out of a matter of principle, but
nevertheless seeks to be a good host, I find this a genuine dilemma! For
example, I cannot abide swedes (rutabaga) and yoghurt. But if I were
invited I'd _really_ not expect a host not to serve them on my account (ok,
the analogy is bad, as I (can eat cooked yog and swede is rarely _central_
to a dish so I can push it to one side, or ask to be excused it).

Not eating meat is often a matter of principle. But if you think about it,
so what? Are they right? In which case why are WE continuing to live a
lifestyle we know to be wrong? If they aren't right, why should we expect
the erroneous whims (fighting talk, I know) of ONE person, to impose on the
majority. Is this not a logically fallacious way of behaving?

This is probably all off topic anyway.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

>For
>example, I cannot abide swedes and yoghurt.

I agree - both are pretty bland.

I favour a spicy Norwegian or Dane, myself.....

In article >, Ian Hoare
> writes:

>When is it right for the dietary preferences (I'm not talking about medical
>needs, or allergies for the moment) of one person to limit the diets of 3
>others? 7 others? 11 others?

Well, most of my friends (there are several) who are vegetarians,
pesce-vegetarians, etc. are pretty non-demanding. They will politely decline
the things they don't want. But to me the essence of being a good host is going
out of one's way to make your guests welcome. Sure, I'm a meat-eater. But if a
pesce-vegetarian is at the table, what is the harm of making grilled fish (and
using it to showcase a good white Burg, for instance)? If the true vegetarians
are coming, Betsy makes a wonderful mushroon risotto. And for that matter, once
we realized my friend Rachel doesn't like lamb (from 2 dinners where she barely
ate meat, before she "confessed" reason), when she was attending my birthday
dinner last week it was scarcely a hardship to serve Beef in Barolo. I also
have a friend, Jim, who won't eat "anything from the sea" (I know, strange). I
don't feel any of these things are an imposition.
God knows I don't need to eat lamb 7 days a week!

Of course, I don't invite vegetarians to St. Patrick's Day celebrations - I
want my corned beef.

That usually just applies to main courses. As we usually have several sides, I
could frankly care less if someone doesn't like beets.And Jim was at same party
last week, I just didn't offer him the salmon roe and other roe appetizers.

That is my thinking re dinner parties. At our big holiday party, we serve 20
mostly finger-food dishes, without thinking about it -everyone will like
something. And big parties during summer usually feature meat, fish, and
veggies all from grill.

I guess to me the problem with the dinner I cited was that the host, eager to
share his bottle of fine Bordeaux,insisted on serving it with an inappropriate
dish. I think he would have been better off doing one of the following (in
order):
1)saving the Bordeaux for another occasion
2)serving a cheese course with Mimolette, aged Gouda, or the like w/the Gruaud
3)serving a main vegetarian or fish course that could have matched OK (if not
great ) with the Bordeaux- fish in a Bordelaise sauce, grilled portabellos, etc
4) serving the Bordeaux with a meat appetizer of some form (kabobs, pate, etc)

The only situation I've felt that it's not my duty at a dinner party has been
in 2 cases of extremely picky eaters (1 child, 1 adult). The child's parents
just bring chicken pieces that she likes. The adult (son of friends) is a
vegan, and a picky one at tht. If he comes to a party (not someone I usually
would invite to a sitdown dinner), if he doesn't like any of the 15-20 foods
I'm serving, he's welcome to get out jar of peanut butter. But if I invited him
to a sitdown dinner, I'd at least be sure we had plenty of greens and maybe a
rice side.

I am very winecentric, and even when AA friends are at dinner I have wine. But
I do try to make sure we have some other options (juice, sparkling and still
waters, etc).

Making my friends happy is part of the joy of entertaining to me. There are
plenty of other occasions for me to indulge my likes. I also like calves'
liver, rabbit, and artichokes- but Betsy doesn't. There's always restaurants,
dinners when she's touring, etc. I don't feel deprived.
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

In article >,
Ian Hoare > wrote:
>Salut/Hi John T,
>
> le/on Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:30:00 -0800, tu disais/you said:-
>
>>> >>1990 Dom Perignon
>>> >
>>> >As it happens I've got a mag of this (cadeau from my brother) from your
>>> >comment, I'd guess it should be left a while yet. Agree?
>>>
>>> I agree. Leave it 5+ years.
>>
>>That's odd.
>>We had the 90 Dom at a dinner two years back and felt it was opening up and
>>was stunning, packed with bisquit and length.
>
>I had a bottle too for New Year's Eve celebrations 1999/2000. I'm not
>experienced enough with this wine to know if it had more to show, I liked
>it very much, btw. However, this IS a mag, and a mag does have the
>reputation of taking longer to come round.


I had a bottle of the 1990 Dom in August 2002. It was one of the best
wines of the 1990 vintage that I've had so far. That includes Veuve
Clicquot La Grande Dame, Pol Roger Winston Churchill, Bollinger Grand
Annee,


I tend to like a fuller, more yeasty style of champagne, but this Dom was
fantastic. I liked it much better than the 1988, which I almost had to
choke down in comparison. It was fruity, yet complex, with a long and
glorious finish. It had a certain quality that filled the mouth. It wasn't
as acidic as others, so I'd say it was more balanced. My experience with
Dom is limited to the 88, 90, and 93. I wouldn't even buy the other two,
but the 90 is worth twice its price. I've seen it for under $100.


Dimitri

Salut/Hi D. Gerasimatos,

I was reading, and re-reading your article, trying to work out what was
wrong....

le/on Tue, 7 Oct 2003 18:29:34 +0000 (UTC), tu disais/you said:-

John said

>>>> >>1990 Dom Perignon

I commented...

>>>> >As it happens I've got a mag of this (cadeau from my brother) from your
>>>> >comment, I'd guess it should be left a while yet. Agree?

Bill said

>>>> I agree. Leave it 5+ years.

I said again
>>I had a bottle too for New Year's Eve celebrations 1999/2000.

And then you said....
>I had a bottle of the 1990 Dom in August 2002. It was one of the best
>wines of the 1990 vintage that I've had so far. That includes Veuve
>Clicquot La Grande Dame, Pol Roger Winston Churchill, Bollinger Grand
>Annee,

And I looked at this list, and wondered????????????


Then I realised that I've been quietly raving. It's not the Dom that I had,
neither in bottle nor in mag. It was the Bollinger Grande Année. Duh. Sigh,
put it down to old age, or to the fact that I'm trying to replace all our
1st floor windows and keep hitting my hand with a club hammr, when I try to
shift the last masonry pin!

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

In article >,
Ian Hoare > wrote:
>
[snip!]
>
>Then I realised that I've been quietly raving. It's not the Dom that I had,
>neither in bottle nor in mag. It was the Bollinger Grande Année. Duh. Sigh,
>put it down to old age, or to the fact that I'm trying to replace all our
>1st floor windows and keep hitting my hand with a club hammr, when I try to
>shift the last masonry pin!


The Bollinger Grand Annee is probably my second favorite, but I did like
the Dom better. I would usually opt for Bollinger, but the 1990 Dom is
Dom at its finest. I have not had the 1985. Dom usually seems to be
overrated, but the 1990 is an exceptional effort.


Dimitri