TNs: "Bring a great, blind bottle"

Our host opened a Ch. Musar 1988. It was absolutely brilliant. Bright and red toned, not very much funk, but a nice lifted nose, very classic Musar aromatics. Sweet and bright red palate. Unending aftertaste. Glorious.

I brought Ch. Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande 1996 because I know that our host loves the property. Dark and primary colour. The nose is quite lovely and surprisingly open for such a young wine, but it is very primary in its fruit notes. Baked beans, vegetation, floral/purple in aromatics, but not obviously oaky (which is nice). Savoury, well structured, a bit inky, but refreshing and lively. Very good but very young.

One of the guests brought Ch. Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande 2000 because he knows that our host loves the property. It was leafy and very elegant, didn't show the aromatics of a very hot vintage, and had an almost Cabernet Franc-like greenness to it which I loved. Well structured palate, but also very fruity. Surprisingly open now, despite being very young. A great wine.

The fourth of our merry gathering also knew that our host loves Pichon Lalande as she brought Ch. Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande 1990. I can't remember ever reading a positive note on this wine, but served blind I liked it very much. The nose was gorgeous: green, savoury, classic Claret aromas, with an exotic floral quality, quite a bit of Cabernet Franc -like herbaceousness to it. I didn't sense any of the huge ripeness I have found in other 1990's, but neither did I find it under-ripe. The palate wasn't so beautiful, but was more than acceptable in a greenish, lean but elegant way. I enjoyed this bottle tremendously, but also can understand why some people find this a weak vintage for the property.

I knew our host also is a fan of Portuguese reds so I brought along a recent arrival at our monopoly Quinta de Chocapalha 2005 (Estremadura; 14,5% abv; 19,82€; from Sandra Tavares da Silva). 75% Touriga Nacional, 25% Tinta Roriz. Dark red. Lots of sweet red fruits on the nose, oak (but not as much as 19 months in 80% new barriques would imply). Very full bodied, berried, tangy palate, strong tannins, refreshing despite its size. Not bad at all, though I wouldn't mind a bit less overt oak.

Despite lots of food and huge quantities of water, I am not looking forward to going to work tomorrow morning.

-Otto

Otto, thanks for the notes. I was just wondering about the '96 Pichon-Lalande, as it has been proposed for a tasting we're doing next week, along with the 1983. What is your advice for decant time?

-Michael

Otto, thanks for the notes. I was just wondering about the '96 Pichon-Lalande, as it has been proposed for a tasting we're doing next week, along with the 1983. What is your advice for decant time?

It is a very primary wine. This bottle was in the decanter for 5 hours and didn't change very much during that time. Though it is open aromatically now, unless you prefer your Bordeaux infanticidal, I would wait a decade before opening one.

Thanks for notes. Host is lucky to have guests who look out for him!
I really like the '96 PL, but it is infanticide now. I'm in the camp that finds the '90 an underperformer for the vintage. I thought it lacked depth and length for a 1990. Not a bad wine, but nothing to seek out.

Otto

Interesting notes as always and since Pichon Lalande is a personal favourite, also useful.

As I mentioned tangentially in your ‘Tuesday’ thread concerning the 82 Talbot TN I have been lucky enough to have drunk the 82 Lalande a dozen times over the past 10 years which of course made the wine an extremely attractive prospect thereafter.

The 1985s were next for me [unfortunately missed the 83s]; very nice, easy wine. Clearly from the same stable but not in the same race but then not many are.

I don't have the 90 but based on the many tasting notes I have seen and the quite different ratings from top writers from the very start, I guess that bottle variation will have played a part although [perhaps] the aging process might be working its sometimes unpredictable magic. Some recent TNs like yours have been enthusiastic but possibly for the very reasons you articulated. It certainly sounds atypical but not unattractive.

I thought the 94s were pretty good too and mine are all finished but others have found the green streak you mentioned in the 1990.

I have the 96 and, based on my first marker, it along with quite a number of other 96s [although there are exceptions] will benefit from time in the cellar as you have noted. My 95s are closer to ready [also very good] but there has been some argument over timing for that vintage too. All I cab say is that my 95s are ahead of my 96s.

No 2000s opened yet but your note may well prompt an early bite. I will probably open my 2003s before them since more and more I feel this is a vintage that may dry out. I really shouldn't have bought them and lots of others [mostly half cases] since 2000 should have been my last en primeur vintage on the grounds of age and a reasonable expectation of consumption at an appropriate time.

I am glad to say that I was more or less completely controlled in 2005 where the prices have also served as an effective anaesthetic. They really should have in 2003 too.

[David M. Bueker]

I don't get to drink Pichon Lalande as ofen as I would like. Right now only 2001 and 2002 are in the cellar, and they won't see the light of day for many years yet.