WTN: Mann, Guigal, Pesquera, Talbot, Cos, Gruaud, Dominus

2002 Albert Mann Gewurztraminer Steingrubler – showing some colour now, and an atypical nose of tropical fruit – papaya and honey with orange hints – and similar flavours, with good length. Bit of a poser for us as there was little to say ‘Gewurz’ in this wine.

2005 Terravin Hillside Reserve Pinot Noir (Marlborough) – another perplexing wine (and one I’d never tasted before). A sweet slightly candied fruit nose, a tad lean in midpalate, I thought, and then finishing with good acidity and some tannin. Pinot, yes, but from where?!

1994 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline – this special wine, no doubt brought out to celebrate the season, somewhat disappointed the person that opened it. It was slightly cloudy, but had a very decent fruit driven nose with a hint of fish sauce (umami?) that made it more interesting, I thought. Edges showed more red purple, with little sign of lightening, and it had good midpalate flavour, with huge acidity at the end and good length. As luck would have it, I had tasted all 3 of the ‘La-Las’ from 1986 the night before, and I could understand why the owner felt it wasn’t up to snuff, notwithstanding the effusive reviews from usually dependable people like RP. I’d add that this wouldn’t be the first 1994 Cote Rotie that failed to match RPs review. I had a case of 1994 Brun et Blonde that I returned to the seller about 8-10 years ago as it was failing and over the hill. I do not think it was bad treatment – I’d bought the 1995 from the same source and it is still just fine. No idea if this was an issue with the 1994 vintage for Guigal – it may be a coincidence.

1996 Pesquera Gran Reserva (magnum) – good deep red colour, a pronounced dill and plum nose, sweet and slightly warm entry, developing red fruit on palate. Drinks very well now.

1996 Pesquera Crianza – we didn’t have this at lunch, but as often happens, a wine served at the lunch makes me curious, so I went home and pulled a bottle of this to see how it was doing in comparison. It was also in good shape, with not as much complexity in the nose, though more vanilla, I thought, and it was soft and ready, now on plateau with some time to go.

2001 Cuvee du Vatican CNduP – vitamin, a little mint and hints of pepper in this nose, good colour and smooth and tasty in the mouth – no rush for this one.

1989 Ch. Talbot – big herbal slightly funky nose, smooth feel and good length. A good one, now reaching plateau – time to find my stash!

1996 Dominus – this is the one vintage where Dominus fails to emulate a Bordeaux so closely as to be a good ringer. Pretty obviously new world in the big ripe sweet nose, sweet fruit on palate and excellent length. Lovely wine.

1990 Cos d’Estournel – the Christmas spirit was producing more than our usual complement of mature claret today. This wine showed nice briary sweetish fruit, with mocha overtones, a nice balance and clean acidity.

2003 Ch. Boyd Cantenac – dark wine with a currant nose with hints of elastoplast bandage. Huge sweet fruit in the middle, and firm tannin. This one needs time!

2000 Haan Wilhelmus – this Barossa claret blend (cab, cab franc, merlot, malbec, petit verdot) is never going to pass for a Bordeaux (something I’d wondered as this was the first bottle of this I’ve opened). The nose is too sweet, but it has a little warmth and has dill and cedar as well as currants, so the idiom is at least in the ballpark. Tons of fruit in the middle and good acidity with very good length. Not an over bearing typical Aussie jam-bomb, this will continue to develop.

1927 Dom. Joseph Bory Muscat de Rivesaltes – no on caught on to the age of this – it was orange (but not browning) in colour, warm nose of oranges and nuts, (but more like almonds, without the sharpness of walnuts), and a warm fairly dry finish. Recently bottled from a cask sitting since the vintage.

We had some friends having lunch nearby and they sent over a glass of wine for us to taste blind.

1986 Ch. Gruaud Larose – very good nose of cedar and black fruit, and huge still hard tannins that obscure the midpalate fruit so I couldn’t really say whether or not it was adequate (I was thinking this was a 1975, from the unusual combination of high tannin and low, or at least uncertain, fruit). Drying finish. Hope this comes around someday as I have a half case somewhere!

1994 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline – this special wine, no doubt brought out to celebrate the season, somewhat disappointed the person that opened it. It was slightly cloudy, but had a very decent fruit driven nose with a hint of fish sauce (umami?) that made it more interesting, I thought. Edges showed more red purple, with little sign of lightening, and it had good midpalate flavour, with huge acidity at the end and good length. As luck would have it, I had tasted all 3 of the ‘La-Las’ from 1986 the night before, and I could understand why the owner felt it wasn’t up to snuff, notwithstanding the effusive reviews from usually dependable people like RP. I’d add that this wouldn’t be the first 1994 Cote Rotie that failed to match RPs review. I had a case of 1994 Brun et Blonde that I returned to the seller about 8-10 years ago as it was failing and over the hill. I do not think it was bad treatment – I’d bought the 1995 from the same source and it is still just fine. No idea if this was an issue with the 1994 vintage for Guigal – it may be a coincidence.

I tried a 1994 La La and was not impressed ....and that was a few years ago, too!

Hi Bill, Thanks for the note on the 86 Gruaud LaRose. I bought a case in 1990 and still have 4-5 left. One I last tried on 2010 at MoCool was finally resolving its tannins and making for a very enjoyable Bordeaux. Your storage is probably cooler than mine.

[Jenise]

2002 Albert Mann Gewurztraminer Steingrubler – rich nose of flowers and grapefruit that signaled 'Alsace' before the first sip. On the palate, surprisingly sweet with a cloying spiciness that reminded me of the first bottle of perfume I ever got when I was a kid, called Tabu. I thought it more likely to be a Tokay PG than a Gewurz, but wasn't as surprised by the latter as you were.

2005 Terravin Hillside Reserve Pinot Noir (Marlborough) – raspberry and red beet with a bit of iodine on the nose, but green on the palate with a handful of fresh dirt in the dry finish. Not resembling any pinot I've had from anywhere else, but like a few I've had from New Zealand so I had no trouble pegging the origins of this wine. Not a producer I'm otherwise familiar with.

1994 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline – Fabulous complex Northern Rhone nose--spicy, floral earthy, bacon, pepper, funk, but yes slightly unbalanced toward acidity. In addition to your comments about the owner's reaction to this wine, it should be noted that this is the fourth bottle he's opened from a case of this, and the other three were all much more youthful and to his liking. Still, spectacular.

1996 Pesquera Gran Reserva (magnum) – what you said, though the fruit was more black currant to me. Identical to the very first Pesquera I ever tasted, so what I always think it *should* taste like. Nice wine.

2001 Cuvee du Vatican CNduP – initially Italianish raspberry fruit with vitamin, but lacks the usual acidity so Southern Rhone was the next guess even though it's a bit backward/undeveloped right now and lacks even that typicity. Needs more time to develop interesting secondary nuances.

1989 Ch. Talbot – Very perfumed nose, fantastic on the palate. Should have been able to guess Talbot but honestly didn't even think of it until Coopie mentioned it.

1996 Dominus – What you said. One of the my favorites of the day.

1990 Cos d’Estournel – Initially vitamin-rich on the nose, rustic yet noble on the palate. A very masculine wine that was easy to peg as St. Estephe--the only question was, was it Cos or Montrose? My last bottle from the first stash of Bordeauxs we ever purchased, in Alaska.
This was a fine way to close the door on that chapter.

2003 Ch. Boyd Cantenac – fresh and ripe but not overripe, and obviously Bordeaux so a vintage like '03 was a good and easy guess. Very nice; needs time but to my tastes drinks better now than the Cuvee de Vatican above.

2000 Haan Wilhelmus – In the ballpark? May I disagree? Categorically, no Barossa wine is ever in that ballpark, so even if it's the right grapes the sweetness and obvious American oak put a lot more than a parking lot between this wine and that ballpark. That off my chest, yes a good wine and not overbearing. Properly placed in order by our sommelier after the other wines and before dessert.

1927 Dom. Joseph Bory Muscat de Rivesaltes – Made the same year Lindbergh made his first transatlantic flight to Paris, this wine showed absolutely no hint of its age. The first guess at our table was "10-15 years", and ditto another table we sent a glass to. Golden tan in color with some figgy Madeiraish flavors, but brighter and lighter than that would be with honey-lemon tea, clove, cinnamon, and a shot of brandy in there too. My bottle, and I was most pleased!

1986 Ch. Gruaud Larose – I love 86 GL, but couldn't place this wine. That drying finish seemed more reminiscent of a 60's vintage than the 86's I've had, which have been drinking well for years.

Just to prove I do read your notes.....see comments below.

reminded me of the first bottle of perfume I ever got when I was a kid, called Tabu.
Is that the equivalent of the Brut or Old Spice that young men are given when they think they might have to start shaving? Don't recall smelling Tabu...

1994 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline – Fabulous complex Northern Rhone nose--spicy, floral earthy, bacon, pepper, funk, but yes slightly unbalanced toward acidity. In addition to your comments about the owner's reaction to this wine, it should be noted that this is the fourth bottle he's opened from a case of this, and the other three were all much more youthful and to his liking. Still, spectacular.

I liked this less than you did, maybe because I'd had three really good La Las the night before. I agree that the nose was pretty decent, but the fruit wasn't up to what I think it should have been and the acidity was higher than I thought it should be. Agree, not a 'bad' bottle, but surely not the icon that people like RP (who rated this 96-98) would have it, certainly not compared to the lower rated 86, for instance.

1989 Ch. Talbot – Very perfumed nose, fantastic on the palate. Should have been able to guess Talbot but honestly didn't even think of it until Coopie mentioned it.

COOPIE???? As in the doll, presumably. Better start manning up, Mr Coop, your reputation is teetering!

2000 Haan Wilhelmus – In the ballpark? May I disagree? Categorically, no Barossa wine is ever in that ballpark, so even if it's the right grapes the sweetness and obvious American oak put a lot more than a parking lot between this wine and that ballpark.

Ahem. 100% French oak only on this one, which makes it a closer ringer than many for a French wine, although I'd agree this one wasn't as close as I'd thought it might be from other reviews. Need to get that oak detector recalibrated, my dear!

1986 Ch. Gruaud Larose – I love 86 GL, but couldn't place this wine. That drying finish seemed more reminiscent of a 60's vintage than the 86's I've had, which have been drinking well for years.

Yeah, but the high tannins were more like 1986 or 1975, and the apparent lack of fruit (don't get me wrong, I readily admit it may be lurking, but the tannin levels conceal it very well) would tend more to the latter.

"2001 Cuvee du Vatican CNduP – vitamin, a little mint and hints of pepper in this nose, good colour and smooth and tasty in the mouth – no rush for this one".

I've seen criticism that the oak is overbearing on this wine. Since neither you nor Jenise comment on that profile, is it safe to assume the oak may be finally coming into balance?
Bill

[Jenise]

is that the equivalent of the Brut or Old Spice that young men are given when they think they might have to start shaving? Don't recall smelling Tabu...

No, much better than that, the comparison wasn't meant as a complaint.

1994 Guigal Cote Rotie La Mouline – I liked this less than you did, maybe because I'd had three really good La Las the night before. I agree that the nose was pretty decent, but the fruit wasn't up to what I think it should have been and the acidity was higher than I thought it should be.

Very understandable.

2000 Haan Wilhelmus Ahem. 100% French oak only on this one, which makes it a closer ringer than many for a French wine, although I'd agree this one wasn't as close as I'd thought it might be from other reviews. Need to get that oak detector recalibrated, my dear!

Embarrassing error! I had no trouble accurately picking it up on the earlier Pesquera.

1986 Ch. Gruaud Larose – Yeah, but the high tannins were more like 1986 or 1975, and the apparent lack of fruit (don't get me wrong, I readily admit it may be lurking, but the tannin levels conceal it very well) would tend more to the latter.[/quote][/quote]

It was the lack of fruit that made me think '66; I don't have your experience with 70's vintages to make that comparison. Just a lot of experience with 86 GL (it's the 86 I had more bottles of than any other), and this wasn't what I'm used to. Though I certainly enjoyed it!

Yeah, the 86 Gruaud sure wasn't what I was hoping either. I note that I have 6 of these and will be in no rush at all to open them, hoping that with time the tannin will abate and reveal more fruit underneath. Or maybe that the one we tasted wasn't typical - I'd go for either one!!

And as for American oak, I repeatedly think I detect it in the 1978 Margaux, and repeatedly fail to detect it on older Beaulieu cabs, wrong both times, of course!

[Jenise]

And as for American oak, I repeatedly think I detect it in the 1978 Margaux, and repeatedly fail to detect it on older Beaulieu cabs, wrong both times, of course!

Just a BTW, but yesterday I read Coop's TN on your wine, and see he noted a dill character as well. Now I don't feel so bad about assuming American oak.