Blind Bordeaux Challenge XVI: A Win from Sonoma.

Last night, the 9th June 2010, was our little group's Blind Bordeaux Challenge XVI. For those not familiar, this is a friendly competition among the Vigneron, Stockbroker, Doc and I, held 3-4 times a year (as schedules permit), wherein each of us brings a bottle of red to be served blind and voted on as the best. No restrictions on vintage, price or origin; the idea being that any wine can be brought to challenge this group's Bordeaux-centric palates.

These blind challenges are held over dinners with our wives, the one bringing the winning wine and his spouse get to be treated to the dinner by the non-winners (i.e., the LOSERS), and reigns as "King" over the others until dethroned by subsequent vinous battle. The only non-Bdx wine to have won so far was the Stockbroker's 1994 Dominus in Blind Bdx Challenge XIII.


The usual pre-competition group shot - while everyone is still friends.

The traditional venue is the Old Manila restaurant of the Manila Peninsula Hotel (where all but 3 or 4 of the 16 challenges have been held). Doc won the last Challenge with a 1982 Ch. Grand-Puy-Lacoste, and the rest of us were hot after his crown.


The Stockbroker, Mrs. Doc and the Vigneron.

My wife, unfortunately, wasn't feeling too well after the OMGD 3rd Kaiseki Dinner the night before, so we were only 7 in all for the subject Challenge. By the time I arrived, everyone else was there making headway into the Doc's...



1996 Champagne Henriot - We went through a couple of these from Doc at his place on the 20th May 2010. My notes, still applicable, were as follows:

1996 Champagne Henriot Brut Millésimé - Excellent, full, hefty, robust, yet lively, vibrant and light-footed fruit vintage Champagne from an excellent year. Founded in 1808, Champagne Henriot, to this day, is family-owned and run. Notable ripeness, complexity, indulgent layering and lovely, bracing acidity make for an impeccably balanced and impressive champagne. This bubbly calls to mind wild honey (in the nose), lightly spiced, fat pears, apple, moderately dried apricot and citrus, fresh brioche and hints of underlying milkiness and white chocolate (the latter two from the pinot noir most likely). Excellent verve in this. Love the weight and roundness. Undoubtedly one of the best champagnes I've had the past year together with Bernie's 1988 Dom Pérignon.

NB: Subsequent pours from the decanter showed more pronounced citrus/lemon and fine, white mineral notes. The bubbly seemed to have sharpened its focus as well and become more streamlined.

Doc and Mrs. Stockbroker.


Rabbit Amuse Bouche

Before I even made a material dent in my glass of welcome bubbly, the Doc poured me another of...



2007 Domaine Gilbert Picq & ses Fils Chablis Vaucoupin - Doc's bottle. I've come across the name of this producer a few times, but know nothing about them or their wines - much less have I had any (to the best of my recollection). Doc mentioned as he poured that "this should be your style of Chablis". Indeed, it was. Dry, clean and neat, tense, nervy, subtly minerally, the ripe, steely, flinty, cold limestone-touched, bright, fresh, ripe fruit comes off with remarkable purity and definition, unsullied by much oak (new or otherwise). Acidity is mouth-watering. Lovely Chablis. Definitely my type, and it lent needed cut and lift to my bowl of Lobster Bisque.



At the tail-end of my soup, the Stockbroker poured me some of Premium Wine Exchange's recently available signature Napa chardonnay:



2006 Kistler Kistler Vineyard Chardonnay - The Stockbroker's bottle. What a huge contrast in styles of the same grape. Mouth-filling, big, hefty, notes of creamy vanilla/oak, honeysuckle, some orange blossom, butterscotch and moderate minerality permeate the buttery baked/ripe apple, pear, hint of citrus, with mild underlying orange rind. Heady stuff. The Stockbroker commented that this would be my wife's kind of chardonnay, and he's right.



The table laden with the competing reds, already poured, awaited as we finished our starters.



Mrs. Vigneron jokingly raised the issue of the wives getting smaller pours than the husbands. Doc assured her that everything looked "equitous" to him.



The reds were finally served. The Stockbroker and I lost no time in analyzing before the main courses were served so as to avoid the aromas of the latter from interfering with the wines' respective bouquets. I was well into my second pass at the reds before my 400gm Grilled Rib-Eye Steak arrived.



Leaning away from the table and food aromas, most all of us finished our notes, filled in our ballots and submitted them to Mrs. Vigneron for tallying (4 points for 1st place, 3 points for 2nd place, 2 points for 3rd place and 1 point for 4th place).

My own hastily scribbled notes on and rankings of the competing wines (made throughout 5 passes):

Wine # 1: Toast, fullish body, smooth, soft cherry, raspberry, smooth, long finish. I ranked this 3rd place. It turned out to be a 2001 Château Figeac (the Vigneron's wine).

Wine # 2: Initial scents of rust, plum, smoky cedar, lightest in body amongst the 4 reds, light on its feet. Aggressively herbaceous notes and bell pepper emerge later. Medium finish. I ranked this 4th place. It was later revealed to be a 1992 Dominus (the Stockbroker's wine).

Wine # 3: Dark chocolate, crème de cassis, violets, black cherry. Notes of wet tea leaves develop later, emerging past mid-mouth and into the finish. Full-bodied, lush and moderately generous. Good harmony and balance. I eventually ranked this 1st place. It turned out to be a 1995 Château Mouton Rothschild (my wine, decanted for aeration for 2½ hours at home then returned to bottle for transport to the evening's venue).

Wine # 4: Minty, smoky cedar, dark plum, cassis. Good acidity. Full-bodied. Fresh blackcurrant, vanilla/oak. Licorice notes, subdued at first, came on just a tiny bit too strong as the wine was "worked" in the mouth - making me rank this 2nd place. It was a 1994 Peter Michael Les Pavots (Doc's wine).


Post-analysis time.


Mrs. Vigneron tallies the votes as always.

The Results:

1st Place - Doc's 1994 Peter Michael Les Pavots with 22 points (3 votes for 1st place, 3 votes for 2nd place 0 votes for 3rd place and 1 vote for 4th place).

2nd Place - My 1995 Château Mouton Rothschild with 21 points (2 votes for 1st place, 3 votes for 2nd place, 2 votes for 3rd place and 0 votes for 4th place).

3rd Place - the Vigneron's 2001 Château Figeac with 14 points (1 vote for 1st place, 1 vote for 2nd place, 2 votes for 3rd place and 3 votes for 4th place).

4th Place - the Stockbroker's 1992 Dominus with 13 points (1 vote for 1st place, 0 votes for 2nd place, 3 votes for 3rd place and 3 votes for 4th place).

NB: both the Stockbroker and Vigneron identified the Figeac as St-Emilion; the Stockbroker identified his wine and ranked it 3rd place; both the Vigneron and I mistook the '92 Dominus for an aged St-Estèphe; the Stockbroker noted that the '95 Mouton Rothschild could possibly be a Napa and the Vigneron guessed it to be a '90 left bank.


The Competing Reds


The Post-Competition Shot

Well, it was another victory for California that night (this time from Red Knight Valley Sonoma), the second time in all 16 Blind Bordeaux Challenges. It doesn't sound like much - a 12.5% batting average - but, significantly or not, only 3 bottles of California reds were ever entered and 2 have come out as winners - both times beating a 1st growth*. Not a shabby track record, come to think of it. The Vigneron seemed slightly bemused. For sure, he will have something else up his sleeve next time.

*In Blind Bdx Challenge XIII, the Stockbroker's '94 Dominus tied in points with my '99 Latour, so, per our rules, in such cases, the less expensive wine prevails.

Noel, Hi.....

Just a quick note to say that (a) I enormously enjoy your posts as they are full not only of pith but of joie-de-vivre;
(b) you sound much like a person who knows how to enjoy the better things of life; and (c) I hope that one day we meet for two meals - one in your country and restaurant of choice with my wines and another in a country and and restaurant of my choice with your wines.

Whatever it is you are doing, keep on doing it!!

Best
Rogov

Many thanks, Daniel.

The meals you propose would be both great honors and pleasures. Please let me know if/when you make it to my little corner of the world; I shall, of course do the same should I find myself in yours.

All the best,

N

Loved reading the post as we often do something similar to this once in a while ourselves, (without the associated penalties for the non-winners though).

Some California wines (and the Michaels was certainly along that line) that I think you should try to get your hands on that are good representations of Californian wines for those with a Bordeaux preference (and by no means do I mean that these are copy cat wines without their own message, these are good wines)

(1) Cain 5, especially one with a few years on it (I jsut finished my 1996's and they were fab)
(2) Heitz Martha's Vineyard (especially the 2004 but it might be a bit closed now)
(3) Kamen (especially the 2004)
(4) Clos du Val, Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon.
(5) Osoyoos Larose.....just joking....(but hey I happen to like this wine,.... )

I'm sure there are plenty others and I've not included those that you've tried (Dominus, etc) but I'm ure that yo know of most of those as well.

Loved reading the post as we often do something similar to this once in a while ourselves, (without the associated penalties for the non-winners though).

I'm glad you enjoyed reading, Michael.

Some California wines (and the Michaels was certainly along that line) that I think you should try to get your hands on that are good representations of Californian wines for those with a Bordeaux preference (and by no means do I mean that these are copy cat wines without their own message, these are good wines)

(1) Cain 5, especially one with a few years on it (I jsut finished my 1996's and they were fab)
(2) Heitz Martha's Vineyard (especially the 2004 but it might be a bit closed now)
(3) Kamen (especially the 2004)
(4) Clos du Val, Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon.
(5) Osoyoos Larose.....just joking....(but hey I happen to like this wine,.... )

I'm sure there are plenty others and I've not included those that you've tried (Dominus, etc) but I'm ure that yo know of most of those as well.

I've tried a 2005 Cain 5, actually, during Valentines Dinner 2009, but it was very, very young. Still, it impressed me with its very civilized character:

2004 Caine Five Napa - My bottle, a gift from Rocky and Apple Villadolid. The only Spanish red I had at home at the time was my old reliable 1996 Beronia Rioja Gran Reserva which I didn't bring since I had already made the Doc try it not long ago. I figured I'd give this young Napa from a heralded vintage a try just to see how it is. Due to its youth, I decanted it for 3 hours before serving.

This wine is so named because it is an à la Bordelaise blend (except for the malbec) of 5 kinds of grapes: 47% cabernet sauvignon, 25% merlot, 21% cabernet franc, 4% petit verdot and 3% malbec. Eric and the Stockbroker were able to detect the relatively hefty use of cabernet franc, of which, I've read, the winemaker, Chris Howell, typically uses even higher percentages thereof.

This is a sultry, civilized, earthier type of Napa red. Not aggressive even in youth, with sweet-supple tannins, good concentration, judicious ripeness, to its primary black fruit, black cherry, cassis, ripe dark plum, cedar, touches of dark spice and moderate vanilla/oak. Surprisingly approachable and, to me, enjoyable, even at this very early stage. This speaks well of its balance. I think harmony, balance and confidence (without being over-the-top) are what struck me the most in this Bordeaux-esque Napa red. Eric guessed it to be a BV Georges de Latour - I can well understand why actually - such maker also having a Bordeaux slant to its general style.

While I've had Heitz Martha's Vineyard a few times, I can only find my notes on the 1999 during a Napa-loving friend's birthday dinner on the 8th September 2009. My notes at the time were as follows:

I had the 1999 Heitz Cellar Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon "Martha's Vineyard" with my meat course. I know I've had wine from Heitz at least twice before (once long ago from Napa head Paco Sandejas, if I'm not mistaken) but cannot, for the life of me find any of my notes thereon (maybe I didn't write any). In any event, Don had decanted this 100% cabernet sauvignon for around 2 hours previous to service, and it was surprisingly suave for a 14.2% abv bruiser.

Rich, ripe and dense (though not at all syrupy), it presents a nicely layered, self-possessed profile of ripe dark fruit, dark plum, touch of licorice, dark chocolate, smoky cedar, bit of violets, dark minerals. There is a good dose of oak, that's to be sure, but, somehow, the wine could carry it well. Good power and restraint, this didn't shout out like many higher-end Napa cabs do. A bit of a creamy texture mid-mouth and past; Napa heft and muscle, but not ponderous. Actually, it was nicely streamlined for its size. Confident wine.

The Clos du Val I've had many times because one of my closest friends who lived in California for many years always has some around at his house. Unfortunately, they are consumed very casually so I have no notes on them. I do recall though that they are always very easy, friendly and "dialed-down" compared to most Cali cabs I've had (a good thing for me). I've never had or heard of the Kamen though. Should keep an eye out for that one.

On a different topic, I've attended a few Napa cult cab dinners. Most all of those wines are just too big and forward for me - the notable exceptions (that I recall) being Araujo and Maya. I also tend to like Bryant Family wines amongst that lot.

The Screaming Eagle, well, I've had 3 vintages (2 of them twice), and I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why anyone would pay so much money for those. Here are links to a couple of those dinners with Spreading...I mean Screaming Eagle: here and here.

As regards the Osoyoos, no comment. Heh heh heh.

Best,

N

Although I wasn't at the dinner, it doesn't really sound like a clear win for Napa to me.

You've got two fully mature Cali Cabs pitted against two Bordeaux that are way too young. I think that puts the 1 point victory within the margin of "tossup". Did you check for hanging chads?

Although I wasn't at the dinner, it doesn't really sound like a clear win for Napa to me.

You've got two fully mature Cali Cabs pitted against two Bordeaux that are way too young. I think that puts the 1 point victory within the margin of "tossup". Did you check for hanging chads?

The rules of this group's friendly competitions are what they are. Each of us were free to bring whatever we wanted (at our own risk) and so we did. The victory under our rules was clear. I would be happy to win, but normally toss-ups are for ties in score, are they not? Under our rules, in case of a tie in scores, the cheaper wine wins. Anybody can bring a mature 1st growth - that just takes money - but that's hardly the point.

Many top growth Bdx with a bit of age on them from good/very good vintages have made our line up through the years (e.g., '61, '79, '82, '85, '86, '89, '90, etc.), some were more successful than others. Just for the record, when the '94 Dominus won in our Blind Challenge XIII, the other wines were 1985 Léoville Barton, 1989 Lynch Bages and 1999 Latour.

[David M. Bueker]

Beating out 1989 Lynch Bages is a success for any wine. I've only had the '89 Lynchtwice, but I loved it both times.

I can certainly see how people might mistake the young(ish) Mouton for California. Mouton is so flamboyant that one has to look more at the underlying structure to get a sense of what it really is. The problem - and it's a very good problem indeed - is that all that gorgeous perfume and front palate layering holds the focus so well. That flamboyance and opulence within a Bordeaux structure is why Mouton is my favorite of the 1sts.

Beating out 1989 Lynch Bages is a success for any wine. I've only had the '89 Lynchtwice, but I loved it both times.

I can certainly see how people might mistake the young(ish) Mouton for California. Mouton is so flamboyant that one has to look more at the underlying structure to get a sense of what it really is. The problem - and it's a very good problem indeed - is that all that gorgeous perfume and front palate layering holds the focus so well. That flamboyance and opulence within a Bordeaux structure is why Mouton is my favorite of the 1sts.

I agree, David. The '89 Lynch Bages is a fine wine indeed. I've had this many, many times and, while the odd bottle may not be as good as the others, I've never been disappointed with this. Coincidentally, last night, we had a short discussion about '89 and '90 Lynch Bages. Doc and the Stockbroker said they prefer the '90, I prefer the '89 myself.

This reminds me of the first time I met J-M Cazes, the 4 of us were together (the Vigneron is a family friend of the Cazes family), Doc asked J-M what his favorite vintage of Lynch Bages was and J-M replied "the '89". So we're in good company. The '86 is pretty darn good too.

Re: favorite 1st growths, mine used to be Latour until around 2006, then I began switching more and more to Margaux. Thing is, ironically, I still wind up drinking more of the other 1sts than Margaux.

Best,

N

Noel,
Just adding to the others' comments, I really enjoy your posts and your vivid descriptions of these events. Were I to insert a California Cab into such a formidable lineup or Bdx, I'd look to older Dunn Cabs (maybe more Napa than Howell Mtn), Ridge Monte Bello, Laurel Glen, older Phelps and Corison Cabs. In all cases, I feel that one needs serious bottle age on any of these wines before they'll appeal to a Bdx-centric palate.

Mark Lipton

Noel,
Just adding to the others' comments, I really enjoy your posts and your vivid descriptions of these events. Were I to insert a California Cab into such a formidable lineup or Bdx, I'd look to older Dunn Cabs (maybe more Napa than Howell Mtn), Ridge Monte Bello, Laurel Glen, older Phelps and Corison Cabs. In all cases, I feel that one needs serious bottle age on any of these wines before they'll appeal to a Bdx-centric palate.

Hi, Mark,

I've only ever tried 2 Dunns:

1. The 1995 Dunn Vineyards Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon ( in magnum) over dinner around 6 months ago - late December 2009 (it probably doesn't qualify as one with "serious bottle age" though, especially since it was a magnum). That said, it was, indeed, quite an appealing Napa red indeed and went well with beef onglet with caramelized onions. My notes then were as follows:

1995 Dunn Vineyards Napa valley Cabernet Sauvignon (Magnum) - ...In any event, this wine is smooth, velvety, dark, with a serious/somber character in its quietly full-bodied, somewhat brambly, well-ripened blackcurrant, crème de cassis, bit of black cherry, cigar tobacco, and underlying black coffee flavors. Toffee/cinnamon/toasty oak-vanilla notes are more readily apparent towards the back and in the finish, but are not at all obtrusive. Nice balance. This is a very good Napa cab - one I definitely liked and that went very well with the beef Onglet - easily matching the dish's power, yet in a subtle manner. Good show.

2. Thereafter, during a Flannery steak dinner on the 6th February 2010, I had the...

1993 Dunn Vineyards Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon Howell Mountain - Doc's bottle, and the 2nd Dunn I've had from him, the other being a magnum of 1995 Dunn Vineyards Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon over dinner at Je Suis Gourmand on the 21st December 2009. Like the Montelena, this had a somber, serious character to it but to a lesser extent and not as earthy as the former. In addition, the two Dunns I've had so far had a sort of brambly slant to its smooth, very concentrated dark fruit, tobacco, black cherry and pronounced black coffee underneath. The wood also seems to be materially more apparent. Big, unabashed, masculine, powerful. Macho Napa cab. No need to rush this, it has a long life ahead of it.

[David M. Bueker]

Noel,

You are correct that mid-90s Dunn is not really aged. I think for those of us who drink the wines we probably consider the '87 to be just hitting its stride. I don't get to try them often, but 20+ years seems to be required.

Noel,

You are correct that mid-90s Dunn is not really aged. I think for those of us who drink the wines we probably consider the '87 to be just hitting its stride. I don't get to try them often, but 20+ years seems to be required.

From my admittedly non-glacial, passively cooled cellar, the '90 Dunn Napa was quite fine two years ago, showing plenty of secondary nuances. My guest, from a family of vignerons in Fleurie, thought that it resembled a good St. Estephe, which coming from him was high praise. From cooler cellars, one would have to look at '80s versions for any signs of maturity -- but his winemaking in the '80s may not have lent itself to wines that actually developed with age.

Mark Lipton