WTN: 1995 and older

Notes from last night's blind tasting competition at Decanter featuring wines 1995 and older. Food by Chef Carlo Miguel was excellent as usual. I didn't take notes of all the wines, just those served blind and those new to me.

Huet Petillant Brut 2000 - Light gold. Some bubbles when poured but not making much of an impression in the mouth. Not much on the nose either. Like a mature Champagne, nutty, good depth of flavor and length. Perhaps the storage of this was compromised or the vintage wasn't that good as the 2002 of this I had a little over a month ago seemed much more expressive.

Rolly Gassmann Gewurztraminer Vendange Tardive 2006 - Medium gold. Slightly oily texture. Rosewater, Turkish delight, wood spices - cinnamon and nutmeg. Very good and although I had some misgivings about having it as the white for the salad, it went rather well with the gorgonzola souffle. I wish it were opened earlier as I'm sure it would have been great with the amuse bouche of grilled eel with foie gras and pickled radish.

On to the tasting:

A - Dark. Sweet nose. Hint of cumin. Medium rich. Tannins still a bit firm. Dry. Pine resin. New World? My #3. Group #3. Dominus 1995.

B - Dark. Dried herbs. Rhone? Soft and dry but good fruit here. Good wine but no wow. Group #5 Chateau L'Evangile 1989.

C - Sweet nose. Plum, porty. New Worldy and Californian but time calmed it down revealing more complexity beneath all the dark fruit. Soft. Meaty after an hour or so. Coffee as well. Good complexity. Lovely wine and probably at peak now. My #2. Group #2. Gigondas Santa Duc 1990.

D - Flat and horribly corked. What a shame! Chateau Pichon Lalande 1989.

E - Soft. A little hollow. Sweet fruit but over the hill. Unbalanced, weak finish. Some burnt character as well. Chateau Fagouet Jean Voisin St. Emilion Grand Cru 1988.

F - Minty, slightly medicinal, complex nose. Like a lightly peated Islay whisky among other things going on. Rich. Dry, complex, aristocratic, haughty, confident wine. Could probably use a little more time in bottle but drinking very well now. My #1, Group #1. Chateau Smith Haut Lafitte 1995.

Congratulations to Will on his first win!

[quote="Jay Labrador"]
D - Flat and horribly corked. What a shame! Chateau Pichon Lalande 1989.

E - Soft. A little hollow. Sweet fruit but over the hill. Unbalanced, weak finish. Some burnt character as well. Chateau Fagouet Jean Voisin St. Emilion Grand Cru 1988.

F - Minty, slightly medicinal, complex nose. Like a lightly peated Islay whisky among other things going on. Rich. Dry, complex, aristocratic, haughty, confident wine. Could probably use a little more time in bottle but drinking very well now. My #1, Group #1. Chateau Smith Haut Lafitte 1995.

{quote]

Thanks for the notes Jay.

I've had the Ch. Pichon Lalande '89 a few times last year. In all those tastings, I hardly recall the wine as having endeared itself to the tasters, or at least to the majority of the tasters. I remember it to be one that seems to be all-over-the-place kind of wine. Even as I offer my sympathy about the corked bottle, imho, you didn't miss much with this wine.

I've never had a Chateau Faguet Jean Voisin. With the relatively known-names that were in the tasting, it seems like the intenetion here was to determine if a long-shot no-name brand can beat the big-shots. If I follow your results correctly, it came in 4th and it did beat out the '89 L'Evangile (mission accomplished there) and the '89 Pichon Lalande (expected because it was corked, anyway).

Horray for the '95 Bordeaux winner. I like the '95s.

I've had the Ch. Pichon Lalande '89 a few times last year. In all those tastings, I hardly recall the wine as having endeared itself to the tasters, or at least to the majority of the tasters. I remember it to be one that seems to be all-over-the-place kind of wine. Even as I offer my sympathy about the corked bottle, imho, you didn't miss much with this wine.

Hi, Mon.

In my own experience, I've had many '89 Pichon Lalandes, most of them ex-château, some not. I've found all of them very nice. "[A]ll-over-the-place" is hardly how I'd characterize this wine. Just my 2¢.

Best,

N

Hi Noel,

I'll admit that I heard/read opinions from one extreme (v good) to the other (yuck) on the PL ’89. I like Pichon Lalande, especially those from ’81 to ’86, as well as those from the mid-90’s. Somehow, imho, they may missed out in ’89 and ’90, where the other Pichon (Baron) did very well.

Oh, sigh, I just gotta find my way there and maybe (hopefully) get to participate in one these interesting blind-tasting competition wherein somebody can put in the PL.
I'll probably fare miserably, but it sounds fun.

Regards.

Ramon, you may be confusing the 1990 P Lalande with the 1989. The 1990 is controversial, the 89 not. In my experience, the 89 is lovely, consistently.

Harry, that the 1990 was, imho, not one of the greatest of PL's vintages. Yes, the 89 was the better of the 2, but still did not endear itself to me and was not at par with most of the comparable 89s that I had tasted. It's probably my high expectations that came with wines from this producer.