WTN: 1986 1st Growths, etc.

Tonight we tasted through the first growths and Cheval Blanc of the 1986 vintage. The wines were served half-blind with one fully blind joker inserted for good measure. We also had a starter of Roederer's Cristal and a dessert of d'Yquem. In acts of extreme generosity, some tasters opened up a couple more bottles from their cellars.

Most notes I've seen about these wines emphasise how tannic and backward they are. I think these opened up well during the evening. They were very tannic, but I am not afraid of tannins (why are drinkers afraid of them BTW?) and found the fruit sufficent to cope with them. I wouldn't mind drinking any of these now, though they will (maybe not the Cheval) surely improve still.

Roederer Cristal 1986

This is a rather full on champagne, showing very expressively. Upon opening it was very appley, but soon became more fig oriented and floral. It is in the phase where I most love my Champagnes, when the fruit is still present as are the bubbles but there is a bit of maderisation present also. I find this the most pleasurable and complex stage in Champs, though many seem to find it too old already. The mousse was strong enough that it held up well for the 40 mins that I had some in my glass. Nice acidity and well balanced fruit. Lovely. I wish I could afford it.

Lafite-Rothschild 1986

A deep and earthy nose, but with a prominent strawberry note, juicy cassis, perfumed - a delight to sniff. The palate was rather tannic but seems to have the required fruit to develop well. I like it very much. I guessed it as Ch. Margaux due to the perfumed strawberriness.

Latour 1986

A stern nose, earthy and with a prominent note of iron. The palate is tannic, balancedly fruity with a lovely and fresh aftertaste. A stern wine, but good. This I guessed correctly as Latour.

Margaux 1986

Elegant, ripe and warmly fruity nose, fresh cassis, elegant. This opened up rather slowly. The palate was elegant, fresh and herbal with nicely prominent tannins. Lovely.

Cheval Blanc 1986

A very sweet and almost confected nose of strawberry juice. I thought the nose rather simple. The palate was very fine however: light and juicy and fleshy. It has a fresh aftertaste. A good wine for sure, but my least favourite of the day. I thought the style of this very different from the others, but thought it was the joker rather than the St-Emilion.

Mouton-Rothschild 1986

Earthy and deep nose, slightly herbal with that exotic spiciness that seems unique to the property. Unfortunately my glass apparently hadn't been rinsed well as it also had an unpleasant chemical note that my neighbours' glasses didn't. The palate was lovely: fresh, very "claretty", good acidity and bitterness (yes, some bitterness is good as it makes the wine fresh). Long and lovely aftertaste.

Cos d'Estournel 1986

A rather stern wine that was slow to open. It showed a backward, dark toned nose with admirable depth. The palate was tannic, young, but open, fresh and fantastic. I didn't guess it as the joker and no one else did either.

Haut-Brion 1986

A very fresh and lifted nose, open and expressive and earthy with a touch of dung. The palate is lovely with sweet fruit, noticable tannins, but more fruit forward than the other wines (Cheval apart, of course). Again, the taste is very fresh. Lovely.

Then we had a blind wine:

Haut-Brion 1993

Bretty and red toned fruit with more prominent oak than in the 1986. It is leafy and a little bit evolved, but should keep well. The palate is sweetly fruity, seemingly from a warm year, a little tannic, decently acidic, but doesn't seem to have the structure to go for many more years. But who cares, as it is lovely now.

Léoville-Barton 1985

I love this property. This is a very ripe wine with juicy cassis and a touch of earth. Impeccable harmony despite being a bit lower in acidity that I would like. Quite a delight. I've never quite figured out 1985s and my taste. I tend to like more acid forward vintages, yet the 85's seem to hit all the right nerves for me also. Strange.

d'Yquem 1986

Very intensely botrytised nose, big and oaky, rather inelegant. The palate is also very big and rotten to the core. Very sweet and smooth with adequate acidity. Long. I must confess that d'Yquem (like Rieussec) just never seems to hit the right nerves for me. I realise their greatness, but given a choice I would always choose some other property (like Suduiraut or Climens).

Cheers,
Otto

My, my, what an enchanting wine list, and such a pleasant way to stay warm! I would not have guessed the Cristal would still be so enjoyable for its age, very interesting. I've always been under the impression that champagnes should be enjoyed as fresh as possible, not left to age. Am I mistaken in that? Sounds like the '86 Margaux is worth seeking out for my palate. Nice notes, Otto.

I've always been under the impression that champagnes should be enjoyed as fresh as possible, not left to age. Am I mistaken in that?

It depends

on how you like your champagne.

Rest assured there are plenty of devotees to both sides of the argument.

But don't discount either until you've had a chance to sample.

Wow, Otto, wow!!! What a beautiful lineup... some deep cellars there in Finland. I envy you for that tasting.

Note to Deorah: that '86 Margaux will be in the high $300- low $400 range according to Wine-Searcher... be sure to let us know how YOU like it!!!

I've always been under the impression that champagnes should be enjoyed as fresh as possible, not left to age. Am I mistaken in that?

Adding to what Rashaan said - At MOCOOL this past summer, the theme was "Sweet 16 and Bubbly" meaning wines were to be either sweet, 16 years old (1990) or bubbly. As it turned out, there were many 1990 Champagnes. Some of these older Champagnes showed an earthy character that Robin said hinted at truffles. (I've never had a truffle, so I'll have to take his word for it.) Tasting that many old Champagnes was a real treat!

Robin's MOCOOL Report

My MOCOOL Report

Wow, Otto, wow!!! What a beautiful lineup... some deep cellars there in Finland. I envy you for that tasting.

Note to Deorah: that '86 Margaux will be in the high $300- low $400 range according to Wine-Searcher... be sure to let us know how YOU like it!!!

Wow, is right, James...lol! I hadn't checked the prevailing price range like you did, still, there must be some upcoming celebration I can justify that purchase for. In your considered opinions gentlemen, if I were to purchase the '86 Margaux sometime in the next few months, would it still be a worthwhile wine event in 4 years (2010)? That would be the year of our 30th wedding anniversary and seems justification enough to celebrate in style. You may definitely count on my TN after that beauty, James!

I've always been under the impression that champagnes should be enjoyed as fresh as possible, not left to age. Am I mistaken in that?

Adding to what Rashaan said - At MOCOOL this past summer, the theme was "Sweet 16 and Bubbly" meaning wines were to be either sweet, 16 years old (1990) or bubbly. As it turned out, there were many 1990 Champagnes. Some of these older Champagnes showed an earthy character that Robin said hinted at truffles. (I've never had a truffle, so I'll have to take his word for it.) Tasting that many old Champagnes was a real treat!

Robin's MOCOOL Report

My MOCOOL Report

Thank you for the insights into older champagnes, Howie and Rahsaan, I honestly have not heard much about this before now. I was under the impression that champagnes needed to be enjoyed fresh because their effervescence becomes less exhilarating over time which is, to a large degree, what champs are all about, no? I never considered that there is actually more to mine from champagne, i.e. maturing flavors. Believe me, I will definitely reserve judgement until I've tried a lot more older bubbly!

Green wirh envy, Otto - a wonderful tasting. Thanks for sharing them with us. Hope to get to talk to you about them next Monday ...... errr ...... Sunday!

I was under the impression that champagnes needed to be enjoyed fresh because their effervescence becomes less exhilarating over time which is, to a large degree, what champs are all about, no?

Champagne is about what you want it to be about.

But, I actually find that when most young bottles are first opened the effervescence is so severe that you can often only taste bubbles but not the nuances of the wine. As such I usually open young champagne well in advance of when I want to drink, although that may seem strange for the crowd who want to hear the Pop! and drink immediately.

I was under the impression that champagnes needed to be enjoyed fresh because their effervescence becomes less exhilarating over time which is, to a large degree, what champs are all about, no?

Champagne is about what you want it to be about.

But, I actually find that when most young bottles are first opened the effervescence is so severe that you can often only taste bubbles but not the nuances of the wine. As such I usually open young champagne well in advance of when I want to drink, although that may seem strange for the crowd who want to hear the Pop! and drink immediately.

Thank you for the feedback, Rahsaan. I actually do not subscribe to the "pop!" concept at all. I was taught that champagne is properly opened with a "whisper," not a pop, and that is the way we open a bottle. As for the nuances of the wine, to be honest, I had no idea I was suppose to experience those as much with champagne and would not have thought to open champagne well in advance of serving. Those are new concepts to me.

Deborah, as Rahsaan says, it's very much a matter of taste. Someone with such contrary tastes as I will of course like Champs that no one else likes. I don't think "effervescense" is what Champs are about. I like them as wines - I want complexity and depth and freshness. If effervescense is what you want, go for Prosecco. Prosecco rocks - especially Bisol.

James, I consider myself very lucky to have tasted through these. This sort of tastings aren't the norm here.

I actually do not subscribe to the "pop!" concept at all. I was taught that champagne is properly opened with a "whisper," not a pop, and that is the way we open a bottle.

Opening a Champ should sound like a well-pleased woman: a sigh of delight rather than a roar. Sorry for all the sexist talk....

Otto, Otto, Otto... you're on your own now, my friend!!

Deborah, as Rahsaan says, it's very much a matter of taste. Someone with such contrary tastes as I will of course like Champs that no one else likes. I don't think "effervescense" is what Champs are about. I like them as wines - I want complexity and depth and freshness. If effervescense is what you want, go for Prosecco. Prosecco rocks - especially Bisol.

I still like the "bubbly" for the sake of the bubbly, but I absolutely agree with you that Prosecco rocks, Otto, and I love it. Apparently, I have never truly appreciated champagne properly (though I have nothing but wonderful memories of our celebratory encounters!), but you can bet I'm going to start looking at the "stars in the glass" a little differently from now on!

Opening a Champ should sound like a well-pleased woman: a sigh of delight rather than a roar. Sorry for all the sexist talk....

On this we totally agree, Otto. With such an insightful evaluation, I doubt that the "Musar Master" (yes, that's my new nickname for you, Otto ) is "on his own" often, James...lol!

I've always been under the impression that champagnes should be enjoyed as fresh as possible, not left to age. Am I mistaken in that?

It depends

on how you like your champagne.

Rest assured there are plenty of devotees to both sides of the argument.

But don't discount either until you've had a chance to sample.

Coming here a bit late.....tasting with Neil Empson, chatting and drinking with Mat Garretson, prepping for Roy Hersh visit to town, man life is tough eh. I think many know here my adage for champers, put it in the cellar for at least 10 years. Recently opened a Roederer from Anderson Valley, purchased in `98. Still too young!!! "Honey, where`s that 95 Heidsieck Brut?".

[Jenise]

I must confess that d'Yquem (like Rieussec) just never seems to hit the right nerves for me. I realise their greatness, but given a choice I would always choose some other property (like Suduiraut or Climens).

Ditto. And I prefer the poor (by conventional standards) vintages. I'm guessing you would, too.

Sounds like the 86 Mouton is doing well--I have a few, and don't want to risk opening another until I'm absolutely sure they're ready. Appreciate the update.

What a great tasting, by the way. You're living well!

Wow, is right, James...lol! I hadn't checked the prevailing price range like you did, still, there must be some upcoming celebration I can justify that purchase for. In your considered opinions gentlemen, if I were to purchase the '86 Margaux sometime in the next few months, would it still be a worthwhile wine event in 4 years (2010)? That would be the year of our 30th wedding anniversary and seems justification enough to celebrate in style. You may definitely count on my TN after that beauty, James!

Deborah, I seem to have forgotten to answer this! The 1986 will surely last and improve until then if you've got proper storage. In fact, it will probably still be a youngster!

Ditto. And I prefer the poor (by conventional standards) vintages. I'm guessing you would, too.

Sounds like the 86 Mouton is doing well--I have a few, and don't want to risk opening another until I'm absolutely sure they're ready. Appreciate the update.

What a great tasting, by the way. You're living well!

At a recent tasting we had the 2001 and 2002 d'Yquems. I did prefer the 2002 for the extra freshness and less overtly oaky character. You may well be right. But even off vintage d'Yquem is too expensive for me so I'll just live without - except in the occasional tasting of course. The 1986, like the rest of thsese wines, is slowly entering early maturity but will surely last for long. If I had a couple bottles, I'd open one in about 5 years to see then how it is.

Wow, is right, James...lol! I hadn't checked the prevailing price range like you did, still, there must be some upcoming celebration I can justify that purchase for. In your considered opinions gentlemen, if I were to purchase the '86 Margaux sometime in the next few months, would it still be a worthwhile wine event in 4 years (2010)? That would be the year of our 30th wedding anniversary and seems justification enough to celebrate in style. You may definitely count on my TN after that beauty, James!

Deborah, I seem to have forgotten to answer this! The 1986 will surely last and improve until then if you've got proper storage. In fact, it will probably still be a youngster!

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question, Otto; I knew I could count on you! I am seriously considering the purchase because of your answer, and look forward to an immensely satisfying toast in 2010.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question, Otto; I knew I could count on you! I am seriously considering the purchase because of your answer, and look forward to an immensely satisfying toast in 2010.

Deborah! Have you tasted older Bordeaux ever? Do you know you like Bordeaux? If not, try to get yourself to some tasting with a couple of older ones. I think the Margaux 1986 is a great wine, but I really would not want anyone to risk that sort of money unless you know you like the style. Which Bordeauxs have you had so far?

Try to get your hands on some older Haut-Bailly (1978, 1979, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1994 are some good ones I've recently had). I bought these for about 45-50€ each (i.e. just a couple euros more than what the 2003 costs here!!!) and all were ready to drink and will give you good idea of Graves. Margaux, of course, isn't Graves, but it will at least give you for a moderate price an idea of what Bordeaux can turn into. I hope you don't mind me giving these caveats.

The other reason that I gave H-B as an example, is that frankly I would have thought the other H-B (Haut-Brion), even more so than Margaux, would have been the one you would like!

-O-

Great advice, Otto. Another one I can recommend that rocked my world was the 1996 La Mission Haut Brion (also from Graves). I paid $90 for it a couple of months back... for me, classic Bdx. Expensive experiment? Yes, but better than spending $400 and not liking it. Plus, if you do like it, the real adventure begins!!!

Deborah! Have you tasted older Bordeaux ever? Do you know you like Bordeaux? If not, try to get yourself to some tasting with a couple of older ones. I think the Margaux 1986 is a great wine, but I really would not want anyone to risk that sort of money unless you know you like the style. Which Bordeauxs have you had so far?

As I read your post, I felt terrible that I may have put too much pressure on you by seriously considering such an expensive purchase on your recommendation and I deeply apologize; that was not my intent at all, Otto! I merely respect your impressions and opinions and was factoring all of that into my decision. Never fear, I have not made any expensive wine purchases yet...lol! As to your Bordeaux question, yes, I've definitely enjoyed Bordeaux wines before but couldn't begin to provide you with producer or vintage info. One of my uncles loved Bordeaux and that is all I can ever remember drinking in his home, but that was 25 years ago and I was far from being anything close to "wine savvy." I couldn't have told you why I liked any wine and certainly didn't record tasting notes, much less paid attention, I just drank what I liked!

Try to get your hands on some older Haut-Bailly (1978, 1979, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1994 are some good ones I've recently had). I bought these for about 45-50€ each (i.e. just a couple euros more than what the 2003 costs here!!!) and all were ready to drink and will give you good idea of Graves. Margaux, of course, isn't Graves, but it will at least give you for a moderate price an idea of what Bordeaux can turn into. I hope you don't mind me giving these caveats.

I will look up the Haut-Bailly Bordeaux vintages you suggested, Otto, and try others as well. It certainly wouldn't hurt to familiarize myself with Bordeaux once again after so many years. I would just like to celebrate with one special wine that will be worthy of an occasion that will only come around once. My goodness, Otto, I never mind your suggestions or caveats, I very much appreciate them! You should know that by now. As an aside, no one could ever be responsible in any way for my palate or my money spent, so no worries. Those are decisions I assume full control over at all times.

The other reason that I gave H-B as an example, is that frankly I would have thought the other H-B (Haut-Brion), even more so than Margaux, would have been the one you would like! -O-

It's interesting that you say that because the H-B was my personal second choice from your list, but I didn't think it necessary to share the order of my preferences at the time. Both the H-B and the Margaux seem suited to my palate based on your TN's, but of course, TN's cannot substitute for actual tastings and I realize that. Then again, the Cristal would be absolutely fine with me anytime as well...lol!

I trust you are breathing a little easier now, Otto, and do hope you will not mind if I run a few wine possibilities by you when I do narrow the list down? Thanks again!

Deborah

I trust you are breathing a little easier now, Otto, and do hope you will not mind if I run a few wine possibilities by you when I do narrow the list down? Thanks again!

Yes, I've caught my breath again! Of course I don't mind if you contact me about the wines. It would be interesting to know what aged Bordeaux you have available!

-O-