TNs: Typical Tuesday slumming: 1964, 1979, 1982, 1986

As a blind starter, we had the first Peruvian wines I have tasted. They were all more than just curiosities. I could imagine that the "internationally" styled Tannat could be a very well selling drink if the price isn't too high:

• 2002 Tacama Salvaje - Peru, Ica (2/26/2008)
  A bit funky nose, rather red toned in fruit, autolytic, reminds of Sémillon in its aromatics. Rather inelegant bubbles, but the taste is both interesting and nice with tart acidity, but weighty fruit. More than a curiosity, this is very drinkable.
• 2006 Tacama Blanco de Blancos - Peru, Ica (2/26/2008)
  The nose is rather sweet, fruit forward and full of pear. The palate is also fruit forward but not heavy. A nice, easy drinking wine.
• 2006 Tacama Tannat Don Manuel - Peru, Ica (2/26/2008)
  Very oaky, sweet, young, jammy. Lively structure, fairly strong tannins, juicy fruit, lots of oak. Too oaky for me, I found the other Peruvians tonight more interesting.

Then we had a set of mature and maturing French reds, half-blind with one fully blind joker thrown in to mess us all up:

• 1986 Domaine de la Romanée-Conti La Tâche - France, Burgundy, Côte de Nuits, La Tâche Grand Cru (2/26/2008)
  Old colour. The nose took some time to open up, but when it did it was a charming, aged Burgundy with the typically spiciness for the vineyard, vegetation and red toned fruit. Lively structure, red and bright fruit, drying tannins. I thought it was lovely, but some might find the palate a bit hard.
• 1986 E. Guigal Côte-Rôtie La Turque - France, Rhône, Northern Rhône, Côte-Rôtie (2/26/2008)
  Sweet red fruit, almost jammy, strawberries; this took some time before the Rhone aromas started showing, but it ended up meaty and herbal (thyme). Very sweet and strawberried attack, but it turns savoury, spicy and acidic towards the finish. A very nice drink and the oak has integrated.
• 1964 Château Cos d'Estournel - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Estèphe (2/26/2008)
  Light red, orange rim, fully mature colour. The nose was that of an old wine, with a lovely brettyness and lift to the red toned yet cedary aromas. The palate was fully resolved, but lively: this had no fruit, but everything was just right with it. Lovely!
• 1982 Château Mouton-Baronne-Philippe - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (2/26/2008)
  What a lovely wine! It has more ripeness to the fruit than I perhaps would ideally want, but otherwise it is such a beautiful and classic Pauillac aroma of blackcurrant leaves, cigar, cedar, lead and dark, savoury fruit that I don't mind the slightly high ripeness. Lively, leafy, classical and classy. Lovely.
• 1979 Château Margaux - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Margaux (2/26/2008)
  A strange bottle. The colour was deep and healthy, but the nose seemed like that of a dying wine: rye-bread, oxidative, pleasureless. The palate was better as there was a lively structure still, but the nose wasn't too nice. I like my wines on the dead side, but not anymore when the rye-bread aromas are so dominant.
• 1979 Château Beychevelle - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (2/26/2008)
  The fully-blind joker: Red toned, lifted, herbal, with lovely aromas of blackcurrant leaf and tea. Refreshing, quite tannic still, has perhaps a touch more acidity than I usually find with Bordeaux - very lively and very long. And at least this bottle was more substantial than "luncheon" Claret! Lovely.
• 1982 Château Talbot - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien (2/26/2008)
  A very big wine for Bordeaux, very sweet, almost jammy, dark fruit, leathery, yet with typical left bank cassis and herbs and lift also. I don't see even the tiniest hint of Brett, though apparently Cordier's wines often have it. Big, dense, dark fruit, lively though very ripe, still a bit tannic. Nice, but riper than I would hope.

For dessert, we had a nice but thick Banyuls:

• N.V. Domaine du Mas Blanc (Docteur Parcé) Banyuls Cuvée Dr André Parce - France, Languedoc Roussillon, Roussillon, Banyuls (2/26/2008)
  Solera, bottled 1995. Herbal, raisiny like a PX except more refreshing/less cloying. Sweet and raisiny but with some very attractive herbal and slightly rancioed counterpoints to the sweetness. Nice!

Posted from CellarTracker

[*]1964 Château Cos d'Estournel - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Estèphe (2/26/2008)
Light red, orange rim, fully mature colour. The nose was that of an old wine, with a lovely brettyness and lift to the red toned yet cedary aromas. The palate was fully resolved, but lively: this had no fruit, but everything was just right with it. Lovely!

Otto,
You have finally gone over the deep end. I am a old world guy, do not like big ripe fruit, do not like out of balance oak, do not like high alcohol and love fully mature nuiances, particularly from old Bordeaux...BUT...I still have to say that fruit is a major, if not the major, component of good wine. It must be balanced, it should dance around the other flavors but has to be there, IMHO. To say the wine had not fruit but everything was just right seems quite strange. From your TN I must guess the flavors were brett and some wood or cedar. To each his own but the opposite of goopy fruit is not "no fruit". Does it have something to do with the weather up there or did you momma drop you on the fruit side of your brain?
Walt

Walt,

I haven't yet decided if my post is mostly hyperbolic criticism of the fixation with fruit that I see in so many places, or whether I honestly think that a fruitless wine is good. The point is that the wine was very tasty - to me. One could tell that it was made from fruit. So is that then not fruitlessness? Yet it was so evolved that it was all about evolution. I guess, since it was made of fruit, my note was hyperbolic. Yet I could counter this argument by saying that the dead 1979 Margaux was more fruity than the '64 Cos. Anyway, I find fruit to be secondary - just like I like my fruit!

-O

p.s. Am I allowed to be a bit pissed off that one of the most fascinating tastings I have been in has seen only 15 views (probably half from me, editing my grammar and spelling) and 0 replies and has slipped to the second page? Don't lesser known, but brilliant and affordable names interest people here?

p.s. Am I allowed to be a bit pissed off that one of the most fascinating tastings I have been in has seen only 15 views (probably half from me, editing my grammar and spelling) and 0 replies and has slipped to the second page? Don't lesser known, but brilliant and affordable names interest people here?

Couple of comments:
1)The large percentage of lurkers have never had '64, '79 & '82 Bordeaux so it is hard to comment. I am lucky as my cellar is 25 years old and at first was almost all Bordeaux, when you could afford it.
2) In the US for most people west coast wines are still what is being drank. It is easier to understand and available everywhere. You have to have a cellar to enjoy old world wines.
3) WTN seem to many times be the thread less read. This makes no sense to me but it just happens. Post something controversial, like Robin is a close friend of RP, and you will get lots of reads and responses. Actually until I just wrote it I did not know Robin and RP were such close friends.
4) If you liked fruit you would have more friends
Walt

I think '79 is an underrated vintage, and particularly strong in Margaux. Never had the '79 Ch. Margaux, but that sounds like a damaged bottle, as Palmer and even du Tertre and Giscours are excellent wines.

Lots of bottle variation in '82 Talbot, which I like, but usually get some funk.

Who cares about views? Some posts get more than others.

Hey Otto-
Don't sweat the fact the note didn't get a lot of views/replies. That just seems to be the personality of this corner of the internet, especially if you're not slamming a wine that has a following. Nothing to get pissed off or discouraged about. FWIW, I did read your note (I read virtually all notes), but that is just me...unfortunately, I've never tasted any of the wines so nothing for me to add that wasn't gratuitous.
Cheer up!
William

1)The large percentage of lurkers have never had '64, '79 & '82 Bordeaux so it is hard to comment.

Walt (and BillP) I thought this particular thread did get a normal amount of views. I was surprised at the notes I put up on Monday about José Michel's Champagnes, Loew's pure Alsatian wines and Cotar's magnificent but a bit freaky Slovenians! Afaik, those are all imported to the US and are affordable (unlike these older Bordeaux), and having read about the likes of many on this forum I assumed that thread would have been of great interest for many.

I think '79 is an underrated vintage, and particularly strong in Margaux. Never had the '79 Ch. Margaux, but that sounds like a damaged bottle, as Palmer and even du Tertre and Giscours are excellent wines.

Lots of bottle variation in '82 Talbot, which I like, but usually get some funk.

Who cares about views? Some posts get more than others.

I have had some lovely '79s recently - most notably Haut-Bailly and GPL. We thought the Margaux had to be slightly off, because of our group's otherwise good experiences with the vintage. I wonder if there was no brett in the Talbot because it was bought immediately once it became available here and has been kept in the same, very cool cellar since? Will a cellar that is a few degrees centigrade colder than normal inhibit the growth of brett?

I care about views, because I like to know if it's worthwhile posting on the lesser known stuff.

The '82 Talbot that I sampled before did not appear to be as ripe as you experienced it to be. Tannic, leathery and dark, but not riper than most of the other '82s that I sampled.

Thanks for the other notes. I've not had any of them but they were interesting.

In Sept I had the '79 Margaux from a double Magnum that was perfectly cellared since release. My TNs is as follows:

"'79 Margaux, double magnum - Fruit on the nose, soft, light bodied and totally integrated. A nice finish but with a touch of alcohol. After 1/2 hour seemed to sing a little louder but sill very soft. No oxidation but this wine was approaching and elegant decline. From a 750 would expect this wine to be past its prime. "

I feel that most '79 Bordeaux is over-the-hill by now but you could certainly find exceptions. It was a very pleasant but soft year, never very tannic. The above wine was tasted next to magnums of '62 Latour and '75 LMHB so the softness may have been somewhat exagerated.

Walt

Funny, apparently Broadbent slammed '79 on release for being too tannic. The better wines I've had recently were very good- resolved tannins, bright. If you don't like acidity maybe not a good vintage, as it is high acid. I like acidity, and have quite liked the du Tertre, Giscours, Pichon Lalande, and DDC. All resolved tannins, bright fruit, good length, not fading. The Lafleur is supposed to be the wine of the vntage, I found it big and ripe but a little monolithic. '79 is an uneven vintage, and I haven't liked Pichon Baron or Montrose among others.

Otto, I did read that post, but Amirault is only one of those producers I have even heard of. One can't predict who will read and find value. I post partly to see if others have opinions, and partly as my own archive. So if one person reads, remembers post when he/she sees Loew's wines in store, and decides to buy, doesn't post have value, even if no one responded?

[James Roscoe]

What?!?!?! Robin and Parker are buddies?!?!?!? Do they sit around and smoke cigars and drink a lot of Opus One and Grange? Geeze!!???!?!?!?Who knew?!?!?! Thanks for filling us in Walt. Was there something else in this thread?

Robin and Parker are buddies

Wonder if Mary knows about this?

What?!?!?! Robin and Parker are buddies?!?!?!? Do they sit around and smoke cigars and drink a lot of Opus One and Grange? Geeze!!???!?!?!?Who knew?!?!?! Thanks for filling us in Walt. Was there something else in this thread?

I will try and get some pictures next time
Walt

Well Otto, I think I understand your comments on the Cos but only if your use of the word 'fruit' is really as personal and idiosyncratic to you as it appears to be.

Thanks for the wide-ranging notes including the Peruvian experience.

I have only had one of the wines, the Talbot 82, and oddly quite a number of bottles from the same source that supplied, even more fortuitously, an equivalent amount of Pichon Lalande 82 over several years.

The Talbot also drank well relatively early and was invariably a very enjoyable experience as well as being 'bigger' than usual. I recall some brett but nothing like e.g. Montrose 90. I was interested in your description of a wine that clearly tasted younger to you than my last bottle did to me.

Otto wrote.........Am I allowed to be a bit pissed off that one of the most fascinating tastings I have been in has seen only 15 views (probably half from me, editing my grammar and spelling) and 0 replies and has slipped to the second page? Don't lesser known, but brilliant and affordable names interest people here?

Yeah, it is a tad discouraging at times, especially if one suffers from the fatigue of writing TNs!! I think it can get a bit slow around here (of late) and we are all busy but keep writing Otto! I know I will, even if no-one responds (grin wink).

I wonder if there was no brett in the Talbot because it was bought immediately once it became available here and has been kept in the same, very cool cellar since? Will a cellar that is a few degrees centigrade colder than normal inhibit the growth of brett?
.

Brett is notoriously variable, even within same case. Warmer storage does increase likelihood of brett bloom. I would assume there was some brett here, but under your detection level (and yes cold will help).

The '82 Talbot that I sampled before did not appear to be as ripe as you experienced it to be. Tannic, leathery and dark, but not riper than most of the other '82s that I sampled.

I agree, not riper than other '82s, but I do find '82 on the riper side of Bordeaux in general and that was what I was implying. Sorry for the confusion.

I feel that most '79 Bordeaux is over-the-hill by now but you could certainly find exceptions. It was a very pleasant but soft year, never very tannic.

How very strange to hear that! I don't have much experience with '79s but at least the Haut-Bailly and GPL I found to be surprisingly tannic still. In fact with these two wines I found them similar to their 1978 counterparts except harder, more tannic. Are these the anomalies or where my bottles anomalies? I see from Dale that Broadbent also found them tannic - but I don't think they are too tannic (but I do like my meat bloody).

Well Otto, I think I understand your comments on the Cos but only if your use of the word 'fruit' is really as personal and idiosyncratic to you as it appears to be.

How else should one define fruit, except as aromatics than are based from the fruit source rather than yeast, wood, etc.?

-O

I feel that most '79 Bordeaux is over-the-hill by now but you could certainly find exceptions. It was a very pleasant but soft year, never very tannic.

How very strange to hear that! I don't have much experience with '79s but at least the Haut-Bailly and GPL I found to be surprisingly tannic still. In fact with these two wines I found them similar to their 1978 counterparts except harder, more tannic. Are these the anomalies or where my bottles anomalies? I see from Dale that Broadbent also found them tannic - but I don't think they are too tannic (but I do like my meat bloody).

Otto,
I do not believe there is any question that '79 was a soft year and a relatively early drinking year. I have had 100+ of these wines, went through 2 cases of Gruaud; most are now getting quite tired. My comment is a vintage generalization and there are certainly exceptions to all vintages. Maybe GPL, who's wines I love, left lots of stems in and did things to toughen up what was expected to be a soft year. Who knows what the cellar master does in the depths of the cellar. I do not remember ever having the '79 GPL and with Broadbent on your side I certainly would not argue.

Go eat an apple; wait; that has fruit in it and you probably would not like it.
Walt

Go eat an apple; wait; that has fruit in it and you probably would not like it.
Walt

But malic acid rocks!

Is go eat an apple a saying?

Go eat an apple; wait; that has fruit in it and you probably would not like it.
Walt

But malic acid rocks!

Is go eat an apple a saying?

Nope, just my attempt at lame humor

Walt

Well Otto, I think I understand your comments on the Cos but only if your use of the word 'fruit' is really as personal and idiosyncratic to you as it appears to be.

How else should one define fruit, except as aromatics than are based from the fruit source rather than yeast, wood, etc.?

-O

Otto
This probably isn't worth pursuing since my comment was not intended to be argumentative but to say that I thought I understood your comment on the Cos:
"the palate was fully resolved, but lively: this had no fruit, but everything was just right with it. Lovely!" - but only since it was coming from you.

Anyone else saying that a wine had 'NO fruit' would almost certainly be making a very negative comment and probably inferring the wine was dead. From you, I took it to mean that there were no obvious 'fruity' tastes and that the wine was, as you said, 'fully resolved'.

It would be interesting to have had a contemporaneous note from another taster drinking from that same bottle. I suspect they might describe the 'fruit' differently without necessarily have a different overall rating of the wine. Hence my 'personal and idiosyncratic' comment. No big deal and certainly not a criticism.

Nigel, I see now what you meant, thanks for the clarification. I think there are quite many people who use the hyperbole of "fruitless" to describe wines that have no primary aromas and are far gone in evolution but not dead yet. Some others might use more of a fruit based vocabulary to describe the wine (e.g. at this tasting some talked about it by naming red berries of various sorts), but I don't want to since I don't find the fruit anymore to be what the wine is mainly about. It has transformed into something that transcends fruit. Of course, wine vocabulary is very loaded so it perhaps says more about who is tasting than what is tasted.

[Jenise]

So have you acquired a sugar daddy? Great wines, especially for a Tuesday.

[David M. Bueker]

I understand the comments on the Cos. If a wine has no serious oxidative problems, but is rather a melange of herbal, leather, cedar, etc. aromas and flavors I can still find it fascinating ,even if it is not to my taste (I do like there to be some fruit left).

As to the lack of views/posts on the other thread Otto - I feel your pain. Been there. I glanced at the title one very busy day, saw nothing I recognized (even vaguely) and moved on. Of course I have since looked into it and seen a Pinot Meunier Champagne, so now I have something to shop for.