I always enjoy vertical tastings. Some people find them tedious - too
much of the same thing - I find them fascinating. Tasting several
vintages of the same wine is the only way to determine for yourself if
there are certain attributes or common elements that persist from
vintage to vintage, that typify a wine. In this dinner tasting we had
the opportunity to answer the question "What makes Ducru....Ducru?"

Ducru Beaucaillou was historically a part of the larger Beychevelle
estate until around 1680, when it was split from the parent property.
It started to produce wine in 1760, although not under the Ducru name
until1795, and by 1855 it had enough of a track record to merit a 2nd
growth rating in the great classification that year. The wine has
always been produced in a style at the elegant end of the spectrum,
well to the opposite extreme of such more rustic St. Juliens as Talbot
and a little further toward the elegant than the Leovilles. More like
Beychevelle in fact, and most people would say that Ducru was the best
portion of that old estate in terms of quality.

We tasted 15 vintages from 2000 back to 1970, and found a bit of a
watershed in the early 90s in terms of style. The traditional version
seems to mature and hit plateau at age 20 or so (opinions will vary).
The younger vintages drink well much sooner and I question what this
means for their future.

We started off with a palate cleanser/taste adjustment of:

1996 Fleury et Fils Brut Champagne - crisp and clean, decent value. I
have been pleasantly impressed although not exactly wowed by the 1996
Champers I've been tasting recently.

The right into the main event, all served in reverse chronological
order.

With essence of oxtail consommé

2000 - youthful colour, a nose still a bit primary with berry fruit
and cassis, a sweet entry, medium body smooth feel, soft tannin and
very good length. This wine is very good and quite drinkable now. It is
certainly not made in the same style as older vintages and I question
whether it will still be as good in 15 - 20 years, much less better, as
one would expect from older vintages.

1998 - the berry nose on this one was a bit subdued but the wine
showed good weight on palate, more elegant than the 2000 and showing
soft tannins only at the end.

1996 - big sweet cassis nose and some anise in there as well and even
a lead pencil element, quite enticing. The tannins are still quite firm
but the wine is very harmonious and I don't see that changing.
Patience will be rewarded in this case!

The next course was a nine-herb ravioli filled with ricotta in a lemon
beurre blanc.


1995 - This wine was tight and the nose reticent to show itself.
Although unyielding at this point, it was promising as we could see a
sweet fruit core and excellent balance. Needs time.

1990 - in contrast, the big nose of this wine leapt out at you with
vanilla and cassis featuring. The tannins are now soft and the length
was excellent. Lovely wine

1989 - less fruit in the nose and although still elegant the wine
failed to impress after the other two in this flight. Medium body,
pleasant but not special.

Next course - breast of quail in savoy cabbage topped with seared
foie gras.

1988 - the nose was compact and this wine possessed ample tannin and
acidity but like the 1989 failed to really impress us.

1986 - infanticide, but I was certainly a willing accomplice! Dense
purple colour with a sweet berry nose, a nice flash of fruit on palate
just before the tannins clamped down signalled wonderful things ahead
for this wine. Patience, Grasshopper! I wouldn't touch this for
another 10 years (but then I am renowned for my self control...)

1985 - quite a contrast with the previous behemoth. The nose was very
pleasant with sweet fruit, on palate it was sweet and forward but in no
way tailing off or heading down slope as some 85s now are. No rush, as
this will continue to hold and drink well for some years, but why wait?


Next course - sun dried tomato and olive crusted rack of lamb

1983 - lots of spice in this nose and lots of good fruit in the
mid-palate. I wasn't a big fan of this wine when younger as it went
contrary to the rule in this normally sweet forward vintage, having
relatively hard tannins that made you question the balance of the wine
for the long haul. I am pleased to see that the tannins have softened
and that there is ample fruit to make this a pleasurable wine.

1982 - Oh my! One of those wines that make you think "THIS is why I
cellar Bordeaux - nothing quite like it!" The nose has a full
complement of berries, complex and melded with secondary elements that
make you spend several minutes just sniffing before you remember to
taste. When you do taste it, you find wonderful fruit, great flavour
intensity and a harmony that other houses would envy. This wine will
offer great pleasure for many years and at the age of 24 years has
reached what will doubtless be a long plateau stage.

1981 - this one probably suffered from the fabtastic 1982 tasted just
before it, but one must do justice to this largely forgotten vintage.
Many of the 81s are drinking beautifully now. This one had a classic
and forward nose, soft and balanced in the mouth and again, elegant.

With gorgonzola nd triple cream brie and Port poached pear.

1978 - this was the first wine that showed any lightening in colour.
They did not include any merlot in the blend this vintage and for
whatever reason it has always sown very well, in the top group of 79s
for me. Cedar nose, soft and smooth on palate finishing soft and sweet
with impeccable balance.

1975 - not much on the nose. The tannins have moderated in this
formerly hard wine, but the fruit hasn't lived through and I found it
a bit astringent at the end. Still, it drinks alright, but is not one
of the 'good' 75s. 1975 is a vintage I really enjoy, but I'll
allow that you have to have a slightly masochistic streak to do that as
half the wines never came into balance and some never will. They
surprise you though. I always wondered if the Las Cases would ever pull
through and mirabile dictu, in recent tastings over the last 3-4 years
it has, and very well to.

1970 - back to dark colour, and what a delicious wine! Lots of fruit,
vanilla and toast in the nose, youthful on palate, excellent weight and
good fruit in the middle, and a long finish with good acidity. Wish I
still had some of this. One caveat - if you have this wine with
uncertain cellaring history it may be showing as older, but this one
was in great shape.

1997 Ch. Climens - nice way to finish up and the first time I'd
tasted this wine. Still light in colour and showing a honeyed botrytis
nose, it wasn't too heavy in the mouth and had nice fruit and length.
Drinks very nicely now but should have a long life ahead.

The Ducru was amazingly consistent over a 30 year period, always
showing characteristics that reflect the terroir of the property. The
post 1990 vintages are wonderful, but I can't help a slight sadness
at the change in style, although this has perhaps harmed this wine less
than others (assuming you can call it 'harm' - maybe it is only
we few reactionaries that would). All in all a very instructive event.

"Bill S." > wrote in message
ups.com...
1982 - Oh my! One of those wines that make you think "THIS is why I
cellar Bordeaux - nothing quite like it!"

Great notes.
Just like my St Estephe tasting, it reminds you how great fine claret can
be, and why we cellar it and wait and wait, and then, you're in heaven.

My annual wine dinner tomorrow, I will post notes, rumour has it we are
having some old Rhone,

Hope you are well.

John

Yes, but you're not tasting them at the same age....so it's
pointless....

Bill S. wrote:
> I always enjoy vertical tastings. Some people find them tedious - too
> much of the same thing - I find them fascinating. Tasting several
> vintages of the same wine is the only way to determine for yourself if
> there are certain attributes or common elements that persist from
> vintage to vintage, that typify a wine. In this dinner tasting we had
> the opportunity to answer the question "What makes Ducru....Ducru?"
>
> Ducru Beaucaillou was historically a part of the larger Beychevelle
> estate until around 1680, when it was split from the parent property.
> It started to produce wine in 1760, although not under the Ducru name
> until1795, and by 1855 it had enough of a track record to merit a 2nd
> growth rating in the great classification that year. The wine has
> always been produced in a style at the elegant end of the spectrum,
> well to the opposite extreme of such more rustic St. Juliens as Talbot
> and a little further toward the elegant than the Leovilles. More like
> Beychevelle in fact, and most people would say that Ducru was the best
> portion of that old estate in terms of quality.
>
> We tasted 15 vintages from 2000 back to 1970, and found a bit of a
> watershed in the early 90s in terms of style. The traditional version
> seems to mature and hit plateau at age 20 or so (opinions will vary).
> The younger vintages drink well much sooner and I question what this
> means for their future.
>
> We started off with a palate cleanser/taste adjustment of:
>
> 1996 Fleury et Fils Brut Champagne - crisp and clean, decent value. I
> have been pleasantly impressed although not exactly wowed by the 1996
> Champers I've been tasting recently.
>
> The right into the main event, all served in reverse chronological
> order.
>
> With essence of oxtail consommé
>
> 2000 - youthful colour, a nose still a bit primary with berry fruit
> and cassis, a sweet entry, medium body smooth feel, soft tannin and
> very good length. This wine is very good and quite drinkable now. It is
> certainly not made in the same style as older vintages and I question
> whether it will still be as good in 15 - 20 years, much less better, as
> one would expect from older vintages.
>
> 1998 - the berry nose on this one was a bit subdued but the wine
> showed good weight on palate, more elegant than the 2000 and showing
> soft tannins only at the end.
>
> 1996 - big sweet cassis nose and some anise in there as well and even
> a lead pencil element, quite enticing. The tannins are still quite firm
> but the wine is very harmonious and I don't see that changing.
> Patience will be rewarded in this case!
>
> The next course was a nine-herb ravioli filled with ricotta in a lemon
> beurre blanc.
>
>
> 1995 - This wine was tight and the nose reticent to show itself.
> Although unyielding at this point, it was promising as we could see a
> sweet fruit core and excellent balance. Needs time.
>
> 1990 - in contrast, the big nose of this wine leapt out at you with
> vanilla and cassis featuring. The tannins are now soft and the length
> was excellent. Lovely wine
>
> 1989 - less fruit in the nose and although still elegant the wine
> failed to impress after the other two in this flight. Medium body,
> pleasant but not special.
>
> Next course - breast of quail in savoy cabbage topped with seared
> foie gras.
>
> 1988 - the nose was compact and this wine possessed ample tannin and
> acidity but like the 1989 failed to really impress us.
>
> 1986 - infanticide, but I was certainly a willing accomplice! Dense
> purple colour with a sweet berry nose, a nice flash of fruit on palate
> just before the tannins clamped down signalled wonderful things ahead
> for this wine. Patience, Grasshopper! I wouldn't touch this for
> another 10 years (but then I am renowned for my self control...)
>
> 1985 - quite a contrast with the previous behemoth. The nose was very
> pleasant with sweet fruit, on palate it was sweet and forward but in no
> way tailing off or heading down slope as some 85s now are. No rush, as
> this will continue to hold and drink well for some years, but why wait?
>
>
> Next course - sun dried tomato and olive crusted rack of lamb
>
> 1983 - lots of spice in this nose and lots of good fruit in the
> mid-palate. I wasn't a big fan of this wine when younger as it went
> contrary to the rule in this normally sweet forward vintage, having
> relatively hard tannins that made you question the balance of the wine
> for the long haul. I am pleased to see that the tannins have softened
> and that there is ample fruit to make this a pleasurable wine.
>
> 1982 - Oh my! One of those wines that make you think "THIS is why I
> cellar Bordeaux - nothing quite like it!" The nose has a full
> complement of berries, complex and melded with secondary elements that
> make you spend several minutes just sniffing before you remember to
> taste. When you do taste it, you find wonderful fruit, great flavour
> intensity and a harmony that other houses would envy. This wine will
> offer great pleasure for many years and at the age of 24 years has
> reached what will doubtless be a long plateau stage.
>
> 1981 - this one probably suffered from the fabtastic 1982 tasted just
> before it, but one must do justice to this largely forgotten vintage.
> Many of the 81s are drinking beautifully now. This one had a classic
> and forward nose, soft and balanced in the mouth and again, elegant.
>
> With gorgonzola nd triple cream brie and Port poached pear.
>
> 1978 - this was the first wine that showed any lightening in colour.
> They did not include any merlot in the blend this vintage and for
> whatever reason it has always sown very well, in the top group of 79s
> for me. Cedar nose, soft and smooth on palate finishing soft and sweet
> with impeccable balance.
>
> 1975 - not much on the nose. The tannins have moderated in this
> formerly hard wine, but the fruit hasn't lived through and I found it
> a bit astringent at the end. Still, it drinks alright, but is not one
> of the 'good' 75s. 1975 is a vintage I really enjoy, but I'll
> allow that you have to have a slightly masochistic streak to do that as
> half the wines never came into balance and some never will. They
> surprise you though. I always wondered if the Las Cases would ever pull
> through and mirabile dictu, in recent tastings over the last 3-4 years
> it has, and very well to.
>
> 1970 - back to dark colour, and what a delicious wine! Lots of fruit,
> vanilla and toast in the nose, youthful on palate, excellent weight and
> good fruit in the middle, and a long finish with good acidity. Wish I
> still had some of this. One caveat - if you have this wine with
> uncertain cellaring history it may be showing as older, but this one
> was in great shape.
>
> 1997 Ch. Climens - nice way to finish up and the first time I'd
> tasted this wine. Still light in colour and showing a honeyed botrytis
> nose, it wasn't too heavy in the mouth and had nice fruit and length.
> Drinks very nicely now but should have a long life ahead.
>
> The Ducru was amazingly consistent over a 30 year period, always
> showing characteristics that reflect the terroir of the property. The
> post 1990 vintages are wonderful, but I can't help a slight sadness
> at the change in style, although this has perhaps harmed this wine less
> than others (assuming you can call it 'harm' - maybe it is only
> we few reactionaries that would). All in all a very instructive event.

Bill S. wrote:

> 1970 - back to dark colour, and what a delicious wine! Lots of fruit,
> vanilla and toast in the nose, youthful on palate, excellent weight and
> good fruit in the middle, and a long finish with good acidity. Wish I
> still had some of this. One caveat - if you have this wine with
> uncertain cellaring history it may be showing as older, but this one
> was in great shape.

I still have a few bottles of the 1970 that have been properly stored
since shortly after release. The wine is still holding well and should
last at least a few more years. I have a bottle or two of the 1976, but
have not tasted it in some time. It likely is now beginning to decline
a bit and never was of the quality of the 1970. The 1962, that often
neglected vintage, was still holding well about 3 years ago, and I
expect my one remaining bottle to still be good. It was a very full
wine by modern standards. The 1961 also is holding well and is very
fine and concentrated, but I only have one remaining bottle.

It is good to see your posts again. I was beginning to think you might
have gone to a spa to make up for all of the foie gras you ate over the
holidays :-) .

wrote:
> Yes, but you're not tasting them at the same age....so it's
> pointless....


I guarantee that I was the same age when I tasted all of them, give or
take an hour or two.......

cwdjrxyz wrote:

> It is good to see your posts again. I was beginning to think you might
> have gone to a spa to make up for all of the foie gras you ate over the
> holidays :-) .

I have been taking it easy and just enjoying wine over the holidays
without taking notes!

As for foie gras, I just took delivery of a kilo of goose liver from
Montreal, so another foie feed this spring seems to be in order......;-)

Bill S. wrote:

> As for foie gras, I just took delivery of a kilo of goose liver from
> Montreal, so another foie feed this spring seems to be in order......;-)
>

Foie Fools Feast IV?

BTW, Bill, have you any thoughts on the likelihood of '85 Santa Duc
Gigondas being alive and well at this late date? I'm thinking of
bidding on a mixed lot that has some in it...

Mark Lipton

Bill S. wrote:

> As for foie gras, I just took delivery of a kilo of goose liver from
> Montreal, so another foie feed this spring seems to be in order......;-)

Most of the US Foie Gras comes from duck, often from New York or
California. A whole lobe of Foie Gras is much too much for me, so I
usually settle for a 6 oz medallion of truffled foie gras from New York
or French Kisses. Before you decide I am strange, French Kisses are
armagnac soaked prunes stuffed with a mousse of duck foie gras
containing wine, and they come from New York. In the central US, the
New York fine food store, Dean and Deluca, has a distribution center
for internet sales, and they ship all over the country. I can order the
foie gras products I mentioned from them and there are a few foie gras
producers that will ship directly. They also sell whole raw lobes of
Moulard duck foie gras from Canada. When available, they sell whole raw
lobe goose foie gras from France, but it costs about $US 160 plus a
considerable charge for overnight air delivery. Of course lower prices
likely can be found elsewhere if you live in a large city, especially
if you consider the considerable overnight air delivery fee.

Bill:

Thanks for the notes. I had the '82 last night (along with the '61) at
a '61/'82 tasting. Notes will be forthcoming soon. Wines we

- '90 DP Oenotheque
- '95 Valentini Trabbiano d'Abruzzo
- '04 St. Michael-Eppan Sanct Valentin Sauvignon Blanc
- '61 and '82 Ducru
- '61 and '82 Gruaud
- '61 and '82 Pichon Lalande
- '61 and '82 Latour
- '61 and '82 Haut-Brion
- '96 Castello della Sala Muffato della Sala

Of all the '82s, the Ducru (surprisingly) came out the most
fruit/gobby/sweet to start. It also may have made the largest
transition through the night, as it finished still large but with
classic Ducru elegance.

Thanks again for the notes.

Jim

Tr_e_bbiano d'Abruzzo, that is.

Jim

Whoof - 1985 is a bit long in the tooth. What the heck, buy it and the
next time you travel this way we can try to do a 1985 Rhone lunch. I
think I have one bottle of Chave left. It might take me quite awhile to
find it, mind you.

You can sometimes be very pleasantly surprised with old bottles - and
if not, well you did say it was a mixed case.....

I find a whole lobe a bit much too, but I've treid the prunes stuffed
with FG and that is a nice way to go.
I have always liked goose although by a small margin, while many prefer
duck. The Quebec producers only have goose at Christmas time, and I
decided that a future foie fools event would have to try and settle the
question so I grabbed a kilo or so (about $100).