Category Archives: Uncategorized

Classic French wines, including a 2001 Ch. La Conseillante

Many wine dinners start out with a glass or two of Champagne, but people rarely give this more than passing mention when remembering the line-up of wines they have tasted. I think this is a pity, so I’ll break the mold and give special praise to a 1996 vintage Champagne from Charles Heidsieck.
I have a soft spot for Charles Heidseick (owned by the Descours family, along with Piper Heidsieck, since 2011) because I did a six month internship there in Reims when I was a college student.
I honestly think that this is one of the best grandes marques available today, from the Brut Réserve on up.
1996 is widely considered a fine vintage, and Mr. Parker rates it 97/100, considering it “slow to mature”.
The wine we had was in excellent shape, neither too young nor too old. The color was medium-gold and the bouquet was wonderfully subtle: slightly biscuity, understated, sophisticated, and sexy. The wine followed through in much the same way on the palate, with not a hair out of place, and a long, cool aftertaste. Wonderful.

Our guests that evening were Jakai Zhang (Ch. Le Bon Pasteur in Pomerol), Nerissa Chen (Ch. Kirwan), and Denis Darriet, owner of Ch. Seguin in Canéjan (appellation Pessac-Léognan). Feedback was very positive about the upcoming 2015 vintage which started today, August 24th, in Bordeaux for grapes destined to make Crémant.

The first course was accompanied by a 2002 Corton Charlemagne from Domaine Bruno Clair. This also had sentimental value to me since it was a gift from the winemaker, Philippe Brun, whom my wife and I met when we lived in the Napa Valley years ago.
Mercifully, the wine did not suffer from the Burgundian blight of premature oxidation (I had two back-up bottles of chilled white wine just in case). The color was pale gold and the nose ultra-classic and exquisite. Not even an inkling of oxidation. Rather than hazelnut overtones I often find in white Burgundy, there were fine almond nuances. The wine surprised me by being not very rich on the palate, but it lived up to its grand cru status by the way it so gracefully evolved into a super long aftertaste, with controlled power. This wine is delicious now, but has the stuffing to age much longer.
Enough to restore one’s faith in white Burgundy.

I am a great fan of Côte Rôtie, and have attended the Marché aux Vins in Ampuis (http://www.marche-aux-vins-ampuis-cote-rotie.com/) on three occasions. I very much recommend this 4-day event, with the proviso that you go on Friday and/or Saturday morning. Seeing as it is open to the public, there are simply too many people thereafter. Among a host of other wines, I bought two bottles of 2007 Château d’Ampuis 4 years ago at the Guigal stand. This was one of the most impressive wines I tasted all day.
Seeing as I had two bottles, I thought I would try one on the young side to see how it was doing.
The color was very deep and vibrant and the nose had the tell-tale aromas of fine Côte Rôtie: violet, black pepper, and even a smell of blood and raw meat (not as gruesome as it sounds). Despite what one may read in wine books, I tend to think of Côte Rôtie as a feminine wine. However, this one was fairly butch and had plenty of energy, vigor, and ageing potential. Yes, I will wait a long time before opening the second bottle.

The wine with the cheese course was 2001 Châteu La Conseillante. This was served blind, and most people thought it from a more recent vintage. The color certainly looked younger than its age and the nose had the trademark humus and truffle aromas of the finest Pomerol. The wine was luscious on the palate and very rich, but not overpowering or alcoholic – the balancing act of the finest Bordeaux. The texture was funky, velvety and even what I call “furry”. The aftertaste was assertive and featured deep black fruit nuances. As good as this was, the wine will improve further. It also confirms the good opinion I have of the 2001 vintage – and Château La Conseillante.

02 Ch. Sociando Mallet, 01 Ch. Talbot, and 04 Ch. Durfort Vivens

Everybody loves a success story, and Sociando Mallet certainly falls into that category. When Jean Gautreau bought the estate in 1969, there were just 5 hectares of vines. There are currently 85! However, it was not only production that increased. Sociando Mallet also built up a solid reputation for quality and established a loyal following.
The vines grow on a rise overlooking the Gironde Estuary east of the village of Saint-Seurin-de-Cadourne, the northernmost commune in the Haut-Médoc appellation. The soil is very gravelly, with a clay-limestone subsoil.
Sociando-Mallet did not even ask to be included in the most recent cru bourgeois classification. They felt above it, and the price their wine commands tends to confirm that…
The first time I tasted 2002 Sociando was at the Darroze restaurant in Langon, where I had been invited to lunch by Xavier Gonet-Médeville of Ch. Gilette in Sauternes. This was about 5 years ago and the wine was quite closed at the time. The situation was compounded by the fact that young wines rarely have the chance to open up in restaurants, even when properly decanted.
Anyway, by August 2015, this wine was, unsurprisingly, much more developed. It was decanted 3 hours before the meal. The color made the wine appear younger than its age.
As for the bouquet, Sociando is noted for displaying a decided green pepper quality in certain years, to the point where some people have found it too overpowering. The 2000 vintage is a case in point. Personally, I have never felt this way, but that green pepper factor was there in the 2002, albeit in an understated way.
The wine has a velvety texture and good grip on the palate. It also seems to share characteristics with nearby Pauillac. My friends know that I prefer my wines on the young side, but at 13 years I must admit that this is still not all it could be. It is heady and virile, the perfect wine to have with red meat, making up in vigor and assertive Cabernet fruit what it may lack in elegance. That having been said, Sociando Mallet has just 48% Cabernet Sauvigon (and 5% Cabernet Franc), but this variety seems to dominate the flavor profile.
I would love to taste this wine blind in a line-up of California Cabernets…

I have visited Château Talbot, a 4^th growth Saint Julien only once, a long time ago, and have not tasted their wines as often as I’d like to… I have a fond memory of the odd proprietary bottles the Cordier estates used to come in, with a picture of old man Cordier and his white moustache on the embossed part.

Times have changed, and most of those estates (Gruaud Larose, Meyney, Lafaurie-Peyraguey) have now been sold. Château Talbot, though, acquired by Désiré Cordier in 1917, has been in the family ever since. Talbot has 106 hectares of vines, which is absolutely mammoth in Burgundian terms, and big even in Bordeaux. They also make a small quantity of white wine, Le Caillou Blanc, AOC Bordeaux.
I had just one bottle of Talbot in my cellar, from the 2001 vintage, one usually overshadowed by 2000. However, I’m a huge fan and it is not rare for me to prefer a 2001 to the 2000 from the same château.
So, we enjoyed the 2001 Talbot just after the Sociando-Mallet. The Talbot is the weightier wine, with a deep regal color. The nose is gorgeous, everything I love about the Médoc and classic Bordeaux. It smells like a room with old mahogany furniture polished with beeswax, as well as subtle, pure blackcurrant fruit – none of the famous bretty/phenolic odors sometimes referred to as the “Cordier stink” that existed years ago… The wine is also very traditional, refreshing, and well-balanced on the palate. It is a lovely drink, and while not at its peak, is not far off. This 2001 Talbot is an excellent wine to serve to people who think that “modern Bordeaux” is over-extracted, over-oaked, and over-alcoholic. In fact, it is just the opposite.

2004 Durfort-Vivens

Château Durfort-Vivens is one of several great growths owned by the Lurton family, but it never seems to attract the same attention as the other Lurton great growth in Margaux, Ch. Brane-Cantenac. The fact that Durfort has 55 hectares of vines compared to Brane’s 75 may have something to do with this, but that doesn’t explain everything. I once enjoyed a lunch with Lucien Lurton and he told me that the “dur” (meaning “hard”) in Durfort describes the wine’s character. It is perhaps this slightly austere and unyielding side when young that makes Durfort less popular.
The Lurtons sold the actual château building to Philippe Porcheron, who renamed it Château Marojallia. The château is now a luxury hotel as well as the name of the AOC Margaux garage wine Monsieur Porcheron produces.

2004 Durfort Vivens has a browning rim and dark core, with thick legs. The nose is soft and smoky, with subtle cosmetic and chocolate overtones, along with a major earthy/truffle component.
The wine starts out smooth on the palate, showing textured tannin, but the finish unquestionably displays that Durfort hardness, and the wine is starting to dry out. While enjoyable at table, this smelled better than it tasted, and the balance is such that any evening-out of the tannin in a few years will leave the fruit behind. In short, I am somewhat disappointed, especially since I rated the wine highly when tasted en primeur in spring 2005.

2009 Durfort-Vivens

Two fine Médocs and a reflection on vintage reputations

I was invited to dinner recently and served 2 fine wines that belied some received wisdom about Bordeaux.

The meal started out in the back garden of my friends Dewey and Catherine Markham with white and red Lillet (I prefer the white). This patent aperitif is made in Podensac, in the Graves, and was sold by the Borie family of Ducru-Beaucaillou to Pernod-Ricard seven years ago.

Dewey wrote the definitive (and only!) book on the 1855 classification http://www.amazon.com/1855-A-History-Bordeaux-Classification/dp/0471194212 and his wife is office manager at Ch. Clerc Milon (Ph. de Rothschild). Other guests included Hamilton and Wendy Narby, former owners of Ch. Guiraud in Sauternes.

The first wine, 2005 Ch. Brane Cantenac, was served blind. I didn’t venture to say what it was because I was confused. There were elements of Right Bank smoothness, or so I thought, but also the tell-tale graphite smells of the Médoc – but without the body of the Pauillac and Saint-Julien wines I usually associate with those aromatics. I should have deduced from this that the wine was a southern Médoc, but didn’t and remained baffled. I was very surprised indeed when the label was revealed because here was a second growth Margaux from a great vintage, just ten years old, but fully enjoyable and ready-to-drink. The structure was supple, without any tannic asperity.
A wine like this confirms that vintage reputations are misleading. This 05 Brane is as good as it’s going to get. I don’t see it any better a decade or two from now, despite the qualities people associate with the 2005 vintage.
I might add, as an aside, that Brane Cantenac is coming up in the world. I did a vertical tasting at the estate with Gonzague Lurton not long ago and was particularly impressed with the 2010 – the best Brane I have ever had.

Wine number two was 2003 Mouton Rothschild. We all know what is said about 2003: record heat and wines that are supposedly alcoholic, low-acid, and often flabby. Well, I don’t know anyone who would taste this Mouton and find those characteristics… Furthermore, I think that even the most hard-bitten old-school English claret lover would agree that the wine is enjoyable to drink NOW. Why wait? The lovely trademark blackcurrant and pencil shaving nose is perhaps lacking in complexity and it’s true that might develop a little over time, but the wine is all there on the palate. Where the 2003 vintage has left its mark is in the wine’s exuberance, not unlike that found in some high-class New World Cabernets. A very enjoyable experience. The label celebrates the 150^th anniversary of Mouton’s purchase by Nathaniel de Rothschild.

1982 Ch. La Lagune and 1953 Pétrus

Birth year wines are very special. A friend of mine, who lives in Bath, was born the same year as me: 1953. He and his wife have been inviting me for the longest time to come and share a bottle of 1953 Pétrus they have been saving. Well, that moment finally arrived on a trip to England this summer.
As an aside, Bath is one of the most beautiful cities in the UK and, indeed, in Europe.

My friends prepared a delicious meal and served 3 wines to accompany them.

The first was a 1989 Trimbach “Cuvée Emile” vendanges tardives, which was served blind. I thought it was a Pinot Gris from Alsace. The wine was golden yellow, but looked younger than its 26 years (had I tried to guess the vintage). The nose was ripe and complex, but the wine was medium-sweet rather than sweet on the palate. It had evidently “eaten some of its sugar” as the French say. The varietal characteristics didn’t come through screamingly, but this was a very enjoyable aperitif.

The main course consisted of expertly cooked lamb shanks.
The first red wine was 1982 Château La Lagune. The last time I had this wine was at Restaurant Laurent in Paris, perhaps 7 or 8 years ago. Unsurprisingly, the bottle consumed in July 2015 was more evolved and gave the impression of being much more fluid and easy-to-drink. It had a classical nose with hints of pencil shavings I associate with Pauillac, but not the same body. This wine epitomizes the difference between subtle wines you love to drink with fine food as opposed to point-winning monstrosities.

The star of the meal was obviously the 1953 Pétrus. This English-bottled wine (Avery’s of Bristol, a well-reputed firm) was still very much alive, although past its best. If served blind, I’m sure most people would have thought it a decade or two younger. The nose was sweet and enigmatic, with lovely nuances: empyreumatic, aniseed, vanilla, almond, etc. The taste was remarkably delicate and silky, a wine to meditate on with a very soft, long aftertaste.
My host opened the Pétrus, decanted it, and served it immediately. In retrospect, it would have been better to let the wine breathe longer because it was not particularly fragile and the aromatics blossomed over time. This was a tremendous experience that I am very lucky to have enjoyed.
Anecdote: please note the misspelling of the word “château” on the label!

Two wonderful meals during Vinexpo

Vinexpo is the world’s largest wine trade fair.

It is being increasingly challenged by Prowein in Düsseldorf, but is still number one.

To “do” Vinexpo takes at least two full days – which is what I took, even if I came away feeling as though I had only scratched the surface.

The first day I attended, Sunday the 14th of June 2015, was also the first day of the show. I had a few meetings, but was mostly free as a bird. My friend Izak Litwar – http://www.greatbordeauxwines.com/ – asked me if I wanted to come along with him to the Philippe de Rothschild stand. He had an appointment with Philippe Dhalluin, Technical Director in charge of managing all the Ph. de Rothschild estates. How could I say no? I was all the more tempted since I had not met Monsieur Dhalluin before and also because I rarely make it to Mouton during en primeur week to taste their wines.

Philippe Dhalluin

There was a bit of emotion when I first arrived at first at the Rothschild stand because François Hollande came to visit briefly, along with a horde of journalists, flunkies, well-wishers, and bodyguards. One of the latter pushed a poor photographer hard up against a wall as though he were a terrorist, which seemed pretty shocking to me.
Anyway, Philippe Dhalluin is a tremendously charming man. Not the unctuous, overly cool and sophisticated type of charm, but one full of bonhomie, natural optimism, and genuine interest in others.
We were delighted to taste through the Rothschild great growths from the 2014 vintage with him.

2014 D’Armailhac had a sweet lovely nose with both the blackcurrant and lead aromas I associate with Pauillac. The wine was tense and exuberant on the palate with good acidity and some minerality on the aftertaste, which had good length.
2014 Clerc Milon was even more obviously Pauillac, with a very clean and enticing bouquet. It showed more acidity on the palate, along with good textured tannin. Not a big wine, it also seemed a little more commercial in style and possibly a touch dilute.
2014 Petit Mouton had a deeper color than the two previous wines. The nose seemed a little off (reduced), but I think that is only because this is not an ideal time to taste the wine. It was much more attractive on the palate, which proved to be richer and bigger than the 2 fifth growths. It also had good grip. I’m sure this will turn out to be a fine second wine.
2014 Mouton Rothschild had a perfect color and was very reserved on the nose, which also revealed hints of caramel and oak. The wine was chewy, fresh, dense, and big on the palate. Since tasting means nit-picking, the only shortcoming I could find was a certain lack of length or, should I say, forcefulness on the aftertaste. That having been said, the tannin was absolutely wonderful and velvety, and there were some green and black olive nuances. I noted this wine 17.5 out of 20, and I’m a very tough grader…
2014 Aile d’Argent had some lime and lanoline overtones on the nose. There was an impression of sweetness on the palate of this dry wine which had trouble rising above the good-to-possibly-very-good level. As rare as it is, and although it comes from Mouton, I must be honest and say that it is nothing very special in my opinion, i.e. not a champion price/quality ratio.

Monsieur Dhalluin was glad to answer a few questions. I started with something pretty basic. How would he describe in a few words the difference between d’Armailhac and Clerc Milon. He said that the characteristics are primarily due to terroir. Simply put, d’Armailhac borders on Mouton Rothschild, north-east of Pontet Canet, and has qualities more in keeping with that part of Pauillac. The soil has more gravel and the estate is much bigger than Clerc Milon (40 vs. 80 hectares).
Clerc Milon is on the Plateau de Musset opposite Lafite. It is therefore more delicate and similar in style to that wine.

Monsieur Dhalluin surprised Izak and myself by asking if we would like to stay for lunch. We accepted with pleasure. I’ve included a photo of the menu. I was very surprised by the 99 Mouton. Not that it was poor by any means, but by the fact that it was so far along. If tasted blind, I would have put it much older. I have a bottle in the cellar and must open it soon.

On Tuesday, I was invited to lunch at Ch. Cheval Blanc along with my friend Richard Bampfield MW. Seeing as I don’t take notes at table, I apologize for the lack of details about the wines. Prior to the meal, we visited the new cellars with winemaker Pierre-Olivier Clouet. The French just love to use – and often misuse – the word “passion”, but I must admit that this is the best word to describe Pierre-Olivier’s approach to Cheval Blanc. He is young, enthusiastic, well-travelled and, obviously, very capable. He is also a great communicator, which doesn’t necessarily follow with people who make fine wines. I just loved his description of when to pick the grapes at Cheval Blanc: al dente!
The vat room is extremely modern and tasteful, and there’s a green roof on top.
Many people knock second wines, but I found the 2008 Petit Cheval very full-bodied and sensual. The 2006 Cheval Blanc (from magnum) was nowhere near as open as many wines from that vintage. Neither was it hermetic though, and it was certainly a treat.

20150615_123121

20150615_123223

Pierre Lurton

I sat with Pierre-Olivier at lunch and asked him about Ch. La Tour du Pin. As you may recall, for years there were two Saint Emilion grands crus classés with the same name: La Tour du Pin Figeac. One belonged (and still does) to the Giraud-Belivier family and the other to Antoine Moueix. When Bernard Arnault and Albert Frère bought the latter, they renamed it in simply La Tour du Pin in order to avoid the inevitable confusion. However, I told Pierre-Olivier that I had stopped seeing the wine around and wondered what had become of it. He explained that, after years of experimenting and tasting, they were convinced that 1.8 hectares of the 8 hectares were good enough to go into Cheval Blanc. Of course, this is perfectly legal in Bordeaux, as opposed to Burgundy. So, I asked him the inevitable question. What about the other 6.2 hectares? You could have knocked me over with a feather when he told me that they had planted white wine grapes there! In fact, they’ve been making the white wine for several years now, but are not ready to release it and don’t as yet know what it will be called. The reason for this is simple: Cheval Blanc feels that the soil is better suited to a fine white wine than a fine red wine.

Weekend des Grands crus/May 2015 – tasting of 2012 Médocs

The Union des Grands Crus is a fine example of what Bordeaux can do when people work together to promote fine wines. Of course, other countries/regions have their promotional associations too, either official or, like the UGC, privately-funded, but few have quite the outreach and international presence as the grands crus de Bordeaux…
Going back several years now, the UGC has organized one weekend a year in Bordeaux to showcase members’ wines: http://ugcb.net/fr/wgc/remerciements What makes the Weekend des Grands Crus unusual is that events are open to the general public, attracting people from all over the world. Activities include vineyard tours, formal dinners in châteaux, and a golf tournament. But the highlight is the mammoth tasting held on Saturday. A château representative (usually the owner or winemaker) is there to answer questions and serve two vintages: a designated one and a second one from a recent vintage of their choosing.
I attended the tasting at Hangar 14 in Bordeaux on Saturday May 30th 2015. The featured vintage was the 2012 and the choice was mind boggling. Having only one tongue, and therefore capable of tasting only so many wines, I decided to focus on one region in one vintage. And that was 2012 Médoc. I sampled 34 of them. Here are my notes.

Please note that there is little mention of color. That is because most Bordeaux have a deep rich color. Please also note that my scores need to be understood in the context of my personal scale. I am a tough grader. For example, 14/20 is an excellent score by my standard.
Also, I apologize for the lack of photos to go along with the text.

I would very much like to thank the Union des Grands Crus for inviting me to this tasting.

Ch. de Lamarque, Haut-Médoc:
Nose: sweet and simple with some oak.
Palate: bit dilute, but balanced. Lacks breadth. Elegant and frivolous. Short aftertaste.
12.5-13/20
Ch. Labégorce, Margaux
Nose: Closed at present, but revealing promising ripe berry fruit and graphite nuances.
Palate: Turns out to be rounder than the very first impression would suggest. Sweet, together. Refined tannin. Will be enjoyable young.
14.5-15/20
Ch. Clarke, Listrac
Nose: strong oakiness, but stops short of being overbearing and there is fruit to back this up.
Palate: oak plays a greater, and perhaps too great a role here and contributes to a dry finish. It remains to be seen if this will integrate over time.
12/20
Ch. Fonréaud, Listrac
Nose: pure, unadulterated fruit with a subtle floral component. “Fresh ash” aroma.
Palate: narrow taste profile. Refreshing, with slightly rustic tannin. Authentic Médoc, but lacking in substance.
12/20
Ch. Foucas Hosten, Listrac
Nose: Fruit forward (forest fruit). Not complex, but seductive and intriguing
Palate: well-made with oak ageing kept under control. Quite juicy and thirst quenching, but shows some character on the finish.
13/20
Ch. Pojeaux, Moulis
Nose: brambly, black fruit jelly. Understated.
Palate: More mouthfilling than all previous wines, but falls down somewhat on the middle palate. Big, slightly meaty wine. Fine Cabernet Sauvignon. A little austere, but the real thing.
13.5/20
Ch. Chasse Spleen, Moulis
Nose: good balance between fruit and oak. Forthcoming classic bouquet, but could show more personality and depth.
Palate: round, fluid, tangy, and will be enjoyable relatively young. Good wine in a somewhat commercial style.
14/20

Ch. Beaumont, Haut-Médoc
Nose: brooding, a little rustic and musky
Palate: surprisingly fine with dense candied black cherry flavours. Good long aftertaste. Great discovery. One of the biggest surprises of the tasting.
14.5/20
Ch. Camensac, Haut-Médoc
Nose: ripe candied fruit, but not very complex.
Palate: nice mouth feel. Generous, spherical and uncomplicated. Decent tannic grip. A tad dry.
13.5/20
Ch. Monbrison, Margaux
Nose: wood aromas (oak, cedar). Fruit is hibernating and the bouquet lacks freshness. Not expressive at this stage.
Palate: not a soft, feminine Margaux, but the breeding does come through on the aftertaste, which reflects some of the appellation’s magic. However, prior to this, the wine seems facile and a little dilute.
13.5/20

Ch. d’Angludet, Margaux
Problem on the sniff here. Gread deal of brett.
Not rated.
Ch. Brane Cantenac, Margaux
Nose: excellent berry fruit, pure and fresh, with a touch of caramel
Palate: rich, round and satisfying with a great follow-through into a medium-long aftertaste. Nice long, assertive mineral finish. Brane is on a roll!
15/20
Belgrave, Haut-Médoc
Nose: disappointingly lacking in expressiveness. Some fruit even so, which gives way to floral aromas. Some greenness and caraway nuances though. Fleeting.
Palate: round and upfront with good tannin. Simple, but attractive. Bit dry on the finish. Solid Médoc with maybe too much oak showing on the finish.
13/20
Cantenac Brown, Margaux
Nose: elegant violet nuances along with dark fruit notes, mint, and chocolate.
Palate: big, mouthfilling, thirst quenching, well made, and refreshing. Marked acidity gives lift to the wine. Very good.
14-14.5/20
Dauzac, Margaux
Nose: definite smoky quality combined with leather nuances and seductive almost New World Cabernet fruit
Palate: a little thin, but tangy, with a long aftertaste. Serious and technologically irreproachable, but does not seem like a “vin de terroir”. Too much oak influence.
13.5/20
Ch. du Tertre, Margaux
Nose: slightly artificial, brambly black fruit aromas waiting to come out. Ash and caramel overtones.
Palate: good acidity accompanies rich, classy fruit with a certain sappiness, but not quite enough. I came back to this wine at the end of the tasting and found it softer, with some graphite on the nose.
13.5-14/20
Ch. Lascombes, Margaux
Nose: marked berry fruit
Palate: interesting progression. Starts out soft and caressing, the shows a more acidic side with fine-textured tannin. Balanced and fairly classy.
14/20
Ch. Marquis de Terme, Margaux
Nose: soft. not much there, but what there is is elegant (blackberry and a touch of talc).
Palate: fresh, fine acidity and tanginess. Medium-long velvety aftertaste. Good effort, should age harmoniously. Puts this wine back in the limelight for me.
14/20
Ch. Durfort Vivens, Margaux
Nose: some herbaceousness (asparagus), but also chocolate overtones…
Palate: unbalanced, once again herbaceous, which follows through all through to the finish. This may diminish over time, but will always be there.
11/20
Ch. Rauzan Ségla, Margaux
Nose: disappointing and not very expressive. Some dark fruit and graphite in the background.
Palate: weak attack, but opens up to show good acidity. However, this wine is ultimately thin. First rate luncheon claret…
13/20
Ch. Beychevelle, Saint Julien
Nose: Pure, understated, and intriguing. Mysterious, beguiling bouquet.
Palate: Lovely velvety texture and good richness to back it up. A class act. Not a great deal of volume, but decent, if not broad-based, length. Fine wine. Not big, but refined.
14.5/20
Ch. Branaire Ducru, Saint Julien
Nose: underdeveloped, but with mineral hints reminiscent of limestone
Palate: much better on the palate Voluptuous, rich, sweet fruit tapering into a lovely classic St. Julien aftertaste. If it were not for the muteness of the bouquet, I would give this wine a 16. Let’s see how it develops…
14.5-15/20
Ch. Lagrange, Saint Julien
Nose: pure and mineral with some chocolate and ethereal cosmetic nuances, but not nearly expressive enough
Palate: open commercial style with an interesting juxtaposition of richness and acidity. Best enjoyed on the young side.
14/20 (charitably)
Ch. Léoville Poyferré, Saint Julien
Nose: lovely bouquet of blackcurrant and crushed blackcurrant leaves. Pure and very typical of its origins
Palate: rich and round going on to show marked acidity and fine character. Not quite the volume one would have hoped for, but extremely well-done.
14.5-15/20
Ch. Saint Pierre, Saint Julien
Nose: Toasty oak predominates, in fact overwhelms the fruit, in a way that will not be evened out by time.
Palate: in the château’s open, round, and sensual style, but the estate needs to tone down the barrel ageing.
13.5/20
Ch. Léoville Barton, Saint Julien
Nose: subtle strawberry and cherry jam overtones. Lovely and enticing.
Palate: Very round and surprisingly approachable. A soft Léoville with a cool (slightly mentholated) aftertaste. Very attractive with the class to match. Soft grip on the aftertaste.
15.5-16/20
Ch. Talbot, Saint Julien
Nose: rich, gummy, with ferrous and mucilage smells
Palate: angular, awkward, not very attractive. Possibly a bad bottle or a bad time to taste.
10/20
Ch. Lynch Moussas, Pauillac
Nose: classic Pauillac with graphite and good fruit and restrained oak to back it up. Fine candied cherry elements. Very nice bouquet.
Palate: good, grippy, and solid, with medium-long aftertaste. Maybe a touch dry, but Lynch Moussas has gone up in my estimation. Nice surprise.
14.5-15/20
Ch. Clerc Milon, Pauillac
Nose: sweet cranberry and some lead. Open and fruity.
Palate: mouthfilling fresh and fruity. Chewy mouth feel. Tannin melts in the mouth and then goes into a tangy finish with a reasonable amount of oak. Polished. Successful.
15/20
Ch. Lynch Bages, Pauillac
Nose: not very expressive with soft, underlying, creamy cherry-vanilla
Palate: soft on the palate as well. Develops seamlessly on the palate. A feminine Lynch Bages.
14-15/20 (depending on how it develops)
Ch. Pichon Comtesse, Pauillac
Nose: fine, classic nose, if not overly pronounced
Palate: lovely, creamy texture and a long subtle aftertaste – but I prefer the Lynch. A rematch is called for in 5-10 years. However, the Comtesse does have lovely fine-grained tannin and an attractive mineral aftertaste…
14.5/20
Ch. Pichon Baron, Pauillac
Nose: clean, bright, brambly black fruit that is not tremendously complex at this stage
Palate: assertive from the very first, unfolding to reveal a very Pauillac taste profile (cedar, graphite, cigar box) with first class tannin and excellent grip. Built to last. Not as rich and powerful as some Barons, but a very successful wine.
15/20

A wine lunch including 85 Cheval Blanc and 85 Léoville Las Cases

Emilie Porcher is a young Frenchwoman originally from the Loire Valley who came to study in Bordeaux. Like many before her, she was smitten with the place and has decided to stay.
Emilie is also active on the Internet https://plus.google.com/116247789402476926405/posts

In order to celebrate her 30th birthday, Emilie invited some friends over to share wines from her birth year, 1985 – a very good one in Bordeaux.

I do not like taking notes at social occasions, and even less at table, so here is an overview of what we drank.

There were two sweet wines for the aperitif: a 2002 Gewurtztraminer vendanges tardives from Clos Saint Landelin and a 2005 Rayne Vigneau, first growth Sauternes.
I must confess to not usually liking Gewurtz, finding it frequently too aromatic and never knowing beforehand how sweet it will be (a frequent issue with Alsace…). This wine, however, was not over the top. It had a fairly deep bronze and golden-amber color and a delicate white fruit nose (pear, gooseberry, jujube) with hints of rose petal. Some botrytis was evident as well as candied fruit overtones. The wine was quite sweet and smooth on the palate – the sort I enjoy in small quantity.
The Sauternes, 10 years old, had a medium deep color. The bouquet was honeyed, but a little one-dimensional. The wine showed better on the palate, with good acidity. The best part of the taste profile was the finish, which has that attractive bitterness that serves as a foil to the sweetness of the best Sauternes. This can be enjoyed now, but will hold.

Below is a rare picture of Alex the blogger:

The first wine at table was not served blind. This was a 2013 Odé d’Aydie, from Pacherenc du Vic Bihl, the white wine made in the Madiran region (60% Petit Manseng and 40% Gros Manseng). This had a nose reminiscent of Sauvignon Blanc and decided grapefruit aromas. The citrus component continued onto the palate, which was rather average. The wine was just too sharp for me.

The first red wine was poured blind. I hesitated for some time as to which side of the river it was from, and incorrectly plumped for the Left Bank. Perhaps I can be forgiven because it turned out to be an 85 Cheval Blanc which, as we all know, has a high proportion of Cabernet (Franc). I should have known better since there was a definite emyreumatic note…. Anyway, the wine looked quite old and had a very tertiary nose of lead, tobacco, cherry, and sweet pepper. It was fully resolved on the palate and is still quite tannic on the finish. The bottle we shared of this outstanding wine was a little tired, but still a great treat.

The second red wine of the meal was 1985 Léoville Las Cases. I have had this wine before on several occasions, but guessed it was a Latour. In fact, one whiff sent me to Pauillac… The LLC was more vibrant than the Cheval, but also considerably evolved. It is a subtle wine with good acidity and a long, velvety aftertaste. I think it is past its best, but still a wonderful pleasure.

The last red wine was an 85 Beaucastel, Châteauneuf-du-Pape. This seemed oldest of all, and quite faded, but a wine to sip on slowly, gratefully, and meditatively at the end of the meal.

An unforgettable tour of top-flight châteaux – day one

As mentioned below, I belong to a virtual community based in several countries called www.bordeauxwineenthusiasts.com

Along with a friend in Paris and others in London and the US, I organized a 5-day tour of top-flight Bordeaux châteaux for 18 people.
This took a great deal of planning, months in advance, but was well worth the effort.

We started off with Château Palmer. All my Bordeaux-loving friends adore Palmer, and I’m not about to disagree. It is not rare for me and others to find Palmer better than Margaux in certain vintages, and such was the case with 2014 in my opinion. Anyway, we were shown around by Céline Cassat, and I give her full marks for starting out in the vineyard, explaining the lay of the land, the estate’s winegrowing philosophy and, of course, their recent turn to organic and biodynamic viticulture. This was as opposed to most châteaux that only show visitors their cellars.
Palmer has been entirely renovated and is clearly in full swing. The grounds are beautiful, the château looks great, and the cellar is now magnificently-equipped.
We tasted 2011 Alter Ego and 2006 Palmer. The former was smooth and is in an early-maturing, more commercial style. The latter had velvety tannin and good grip, and will also show well before too long.

We went from Palmer to 5th growth Château du Tertre, which has belonged to Dutch businessman Eric Albada Jelgersma since 1997, as has 3rd growth Château Giscours. Several members of the group had specifically asked to go to du Tertre because the wine offers such excellent value for money. We were very well received by Marc Verpaalen and not disappointed with what we tasted. After sampling the elegant and fairly forward 2012 du Tertre and 2012 Giscours, we went for a light lunch on a beautiful veranda overlooking a swimming pool and the château.
You have to admit that Bordeaux does some things extremely well…
The wines we had at lunch were 2009 du Tertre, 2006 Caiarossa from Tuscany (also owned by Eric Albada Jelgersma), 2014 Giscours and du Tertre, as well as 2004 Giscours. The 2014s are very promising and the 2004 was good for the vintage and ready to drink now.
Marc informed us that since the owner’s son is allergic to red wine, Château du Tertre will be soon be producing a white wine.

While organizing this trip, I learned that the first growths now limit the number of visitors, which made planning things a little hairy. Such was the case with Château Latour, who accept no more than 10 people. However, much to their credit, they agreed to welcome two groups in succession.

: The famous tower…

: Tasting room at Latour

While the first group visited Léoville Las Cases, the other half, including myself, went to Latour. Like many top-flight châteaux, they have expanded and renovated their cellars, which are now in tip-top condition. We were first of all ushered into a room to watch a film about the château. This had tinkly faux-Zen music and didn’t seem particularly to focus on Latour rather than any other wine estate. Once past this rather boring introduction, we went on a guided tour. The facilities were as impeccable as one would expect at a first growth. We also admired their new wine library, with magnums going back a very long way. The tasting room is wonderful, and we sampled three wines there: the 2011 Pauillac, the 2008 Forts de Latour, and the 2004 Latour. The Pauillac was very attractive, Les Forts lacked some richness and concentration, but was still quite nice, and the Latour proved to be lovely with fine textured tannin. It is also quite enjoyable to drink now. No, you don’t always have to wait decades to drink these wines, even if that is the case in great years.

After Latour, I went with half the group to Château Gruaud Larose. This was a wonderful visit. It started out with a trip up a steel tower that has just been built to house an observation post and a visitor reception center. This affords a fantastic view of the estate and the surrounding countryside, including manicured grounds and gardens. We were taken around the cellars by winemaker Stéphanie Lebaron Bouchonneau. As always, it’s the person and not the surroundings, however luxurious they may be, that makes visiting a wine estate memorable. Stéphanie is charming, relaxed, funny and, above all, extremely competent. She poured us a number of wines. 2014 Sarget (the second wine) was simple and nice, 2014 Gruaud Larose quite tannic and promising, 2006 GL a little too oaky, and 1998 GL – 17 years old – perhaps a little dry, but at its peak and very enjoyable. It is a treat and a rarity to drink a wine that old when visiting a Bordeaux estate.

Afterward, we went to Château Léoville Barton, where Liliane Barton welcomed us warmly, despite the fact that we were not on time… Liliane’s family have owned Langoa and Léoville Barton since the 1820s, and are definitely part of the Médoc aristocracy. However, Llilian is a relaxed, down-to-earth person and very much a philosopher in her own way. Trends come and go, but the Bartons have nearly two centuries of experience in making fine wine, and so are very circumspect. For instance, Liliane is against green harvesting because she feels that what works one year complicates things the following year. We started out by tasting the other Barton estate, 2011 Château Mauvesin-Barton, which I have talked about elsewhere on the blog. We then sampled 2012 Langoa Barton which, like some other wines from this vintage, was already showing very well. The 2014 Léoville Barton was sweet and seductive on the nose, lacking perhaps just a touch of weight and richness to back up the structure. It is nevertheless a fine, classic wine.

The final château that day was Léoville Poyferré, where we were welcomed by the bubbly Anne Cuvelier, who speaks good English and clearly enjoys explaining the ins and outs of winemaking. The group had dinner at the newly-refurbished château (a recurring theme, as you can see).

If you have read this far, please note that all of the above was in just one day, which is about the maximum anyone could possibly fit in!

We tasted the wines at dinner rather than beforehand. The 2014 Moulin Riche was light, fruity, upfront and – unsurprisingly – less serious than the grand vin. The 2012 was better than expected and I am not far from thinking that 2012 may actually be better than 2011 in many instances in the Médoc. The 2008 Léoville Poyferré had a fine ethereal nose and lovely blackberry flavors on the palate. The 2007 was light and refreshing and the 2005 was deep and classic, with rich berry fruit.

An unforgettable tour of top-flight châteaux: day two

This day was enjoyed at a more relaxed pace.

We started out at Château La Conseillante in Pomerol. And, yes, they had redone the cellar there too. The facilities are rather spiffy for such a small estate, and the vat room is not only functional, but round and very attractive.
La Conseillante’s trademark purple color is everywhere.
Estate manager Jean-Michel Laporte began the tour with a long explanation in the vineyard, which was highly useful in order to situate the vineyard and to talk about geological influences.
We tasted the 2006 vintage. The nose was sleek, but closed, and the wine was very suave and elegant on the palate with an almost Margaux-like elegance and no impression of alcohol.
M. Laporte is leaving La Conseillante because as he frankly admits, he had “strategic divergences” with the owners. But I have little doubt that he will resurface in short order at another top-flight estate. He had done great things at La Conseillante and came across as a gifted professional.

We went from there to Château Corbin, where we were taken around by owner Anabelle Cruse-Bardinet, member of a famous Bordeaux wine family. Anabelle also began the tour in the vineyard and is a very hands-on manager. She explained how she had to fight to keep the estate and has thrown herself wholeheartedly into running Corbin, where she looks after far more than paperwork and public relations. Corbin has maintained its grand cru classé ranking through the various classifications, as opposed to some of her neighbors.
We tasted three wines. The 2014 was pure, fresh, and classy, if somewhat short. The 2012 was very interesting and worthwhile, and the 2010 stole the show. Anabelle says this is the best wine she has ever made.
Corbin is attractively priced and is going from strength to strength. We were very grateful to have visited and to have heard Anabelle’s explanations in excellent English.

We did not visit Château La Dominique, but had lunch at the restaurant there, La Terrasse Rouge. This is run by the team from La Brasserie Bordelaiss, a popular restaurant in Bordeaux. There is something of the New World here, with long communal wooden tables and plate glass windows offering a great view, including of the new cellar at Cheval Blanc, just a stone’s throw away.
The bistro-style food is simple, good, and not too expensive. I recommend La Terrace Rouge when in Saint-Emilion. It is also open on Sunday.

After lunch, we went to Château Figeac. There is change in the air here. The former manager, Éric d’Aramon, left in 2013 and was jointly replaced by the previous Technical Director, Frédéric Faye, and Jean-Valmy Nicolas of La Conseillante. It is rumored that this came about because Figeac was not promoted to Premier Grand Cru Classé “A” status in the 2012 classification. Be that as it may, Figeac has always enjoyed a loyal following and I have the highest regard for the wine, which features a highly unusual blend of grape varieties: 35% Cabernet Sauvignon, 35% Cabernet Franc, and just 30% Merlot. The high percentage of Cabernet Sauvignon is due to the part of the vineyard with gravelly soil, more reminiscent of the Médoc than Saint Emilion.

We tasted the 2011 vintage. My notes read as follows:
Color: beautiful and brilliant
Nose: subtle oak and dark fruit
Palate: good acidity and tangy tannin. Nevertheless round, going into mineral. Very well-balanced. Light on its feet. An intellectual wine.

Next on the itinerary was Château Canon, a peer of Figeac (Premier Grand Cru Classé “B”). This turned out to be a delicate exercise because Saint-Emilion has often been described as a gruyère, i.e. a Swiss cheese, due to the numerous underground galleries dug out of solid rock. In fact, there are no fewer than seven levels of these galleries! What this means is that it is forbidden for a bus to go along certain roads because there is danger of their collapsing! We nevertheless drove close enough to Canon to arrive more or less on time… Canon is yet another estate undergoing large scale renovation and the château looks like a major building site. We were taken around the underground cellars, which go on for miles, and also saw a cross-section of the soil. This was very instructive. There is much talk of clay-limestone soil, but it speaks volumes to actually see the solid rock with veins of clay, and the vine roots that push through the latter – a wonderful illustration of terroir.
We tasted 2006 Canon, which looked a little older than its 9 years. The nose was very tertiary with deep cherry aromas. The wine was more expressive on the palate, but seemed austere and not overly user-friendly.

We played tourist in the lovely medieval village Saint-Emilion for an hour, inevitably visiting wine shops (Bordeaux Classique and http://www.vignobleschateaux.com/eng/accueil) and doing some further tasting, including a very fine 2010 Château de Cambes, an expensive but very good Côtes de Bourg from François Mitjaville, owner of Tertre Roteboeuf in Saint Emilion.

Then it was time for dinner at Château de Ferrand, newly promoted to grand cru classé status in 2012. The château belongs to the family of Baron de Bich, whose fortune was made with Bic pens, lighters, etc.
We were taken around by an 18 year-old apprentice sommelier who acquitted himself very well in English. The château is quite impressive and the cellars are lovely. Ferrand also has an unusual sales policy, keeping back old vintages and not selling them for any more than the release price. For instance, they were just finishing off sales of the 1998 at a very reasonable price (twenty some-odd euros).
Bordeaux is well and truly waking up to wine tourism, and Château de Ferrand has embraced this trend. The meal we were served was catered by the Michelin-starred restaurant La Cape in nearby Cenon. We were served a series of vintages and asked to which wine which went best with each course, although I did not take part in the competition.
Having tasted several vintages, I unfortunately cannot say that Ch. de Ferrand is one of my favorite Saint Emilions, but I nevertheless appreciated my evening there and the warm welcome we received.

An unforgettable tour of top-flight châteaux: day three

Château La Mission Haut Brion has risen remarkably in the firmament of Bordeaux wines over the past couple of decades and is now sold at the same price as its illustrious sister château – and first growth – Haut Brion. A visit to La Mission is a great pleasure. Things start out in the vineyard, which is surrounded by apartment buildings and suburban houses. In fact, it is a miracle that the vines were not wiped out by urban sprawl. We also saw Château La Tour Haut Brion, a former great growth in its own right that is now incorporated into either La Mission or their second wine, La Chapelle de la Mission Haut Brion, depending on the plot.
The château is a treasure trove of religious art, and they have rare original prints by Albecht Dürer in the tasting room. The ancient chapel is lovely, and no one would guess that the cloister was only recently built.
We compared 1997 Haut Brion and 1997 La Mission side by side. Opinions were evenly divided as to which was “better”. As usual, I preferred the elegance of Haut Brion, which is not to say that La Mission was anything less than delightful.

With a 10 o’clock appointment at La Mission and a 2 o’clock appointment in Sauternes, 45 km. away, fitting in lunch was not an easy affair. After checking Trip Advisor, we decided to book at the Langonnais restaurant in the small city of Langon. They did us proud, managing to serve us a fine, reasonably-priced meal in good time.
One of the group members brought out a wine to taste blind with the meal. We were all puzzled. It was obviously very old, and rather good, but no one guessed its pedigree. Lo and behold, it turned out to be a 1934 Pétrus! Looking at the cork and thinking about the wine, I am convinced it was genuine.
And very fine it was, too.

We miraculously arrived on time at Château d’Yquem, where we were shown around by Anne. The tour began in the vineyard here too. This was much appreciated since Yquem offers such a commanding view of the region. We tasted the 2011, which I thought was tremendous. Comparisons were made with the 2001. While I wouldn’t go quite that far, this is clearly a fine Yquem.

Next stop was Chateau Coutet in Barsac. This is quite a historic estate, dating back to the English period, with a wonderful little chapel and the longest cellar in all Bordeaux. We tasted the 2013 which corresponded to everyone’s fine opinion of the château. It also had the acidity and minerality typical of wines from its appellation.

The day ended at Château Smith Haut-Lafitte. We were surprised to be greeted by a large number of police and gendarmes because the president of Singapore was staying at the Sources de Caudalie hotel-restaurant next door to the château.
Smith Haut Lafitte is a very slick operation. The original château has been embellished and is very geared-up to wine tourism. There are works of art here and there, and the underground cellar is quite impressive.
Florence and Daneil Cathiard greeted us before the tasting and we had dinner at the château along with Cellarmaster Yann Laudelho.
While I certainly like Smith Haut Lafitte, I am actually more partial to the white than the red wine. The 2009 red we tasted was nevertheless outstanding (Mr. Parker gave it a score of 100 points).