Our regular poker game came to my house a little while back, and I served the following wines blind (with some help from generously contributed bottles by a few of the guys).
2006 Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir Summa Vineyard Sonoma Coast. The first wine of the day has a nice dusty, sweet-berried tone to the aromatic profile, with fine underpinnings of forest floor, tree bark, chalk, and spice aromas. It’s controlled and focused, but also soft-edged and inviting. In the mouth, it’s smooth and sappy-textured, with blue and purple berry fruit delivering a gently sweet package of flavor supported by mellow oak spices toward the finish. This has an easy, relaxed and gently-unfolding sort of feel to it that I really enjoy. I thought the wine was a few years older than it actually is, but that’s not a knock on it all. Indeed, I like where it is right now and wouldn’t hesitate to recommend drinking it.
2008 Sojourn Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast. In contrast, this pinot comes across as bigger, bolder and more broad-shouldered—with a nose full of brambly red and black berries to go with scents of new leather and forest greenery. In the mouth, it features a more overtly sweet-berried flavor profile, and really expands out to fill all the corners of the mouth. There are no hard edges here and lots of nice flavors, but I do find the woodsy spices and vanilla-tinged oak character to be playing just a tad too large of a role now. I’d hold off on this another 2 to 3 years.
1993 Emmanuel Houillon (Maison Pierre Overnoy) Poulsard Arbois Pupillin. Descriptors flying around the table for this wine’s (ahem) bouquet include phrases like “chemical solvents”, “downright nasty stuff”, “fermented feces”, “airport-grade driveway sealant” and the like. My notes focus on the aromatic elements such as sweaty horse, strong armpit body odor, septic tank and intense funk. And no fruit really, at all. In the mouth, it’s rather light-bodied, tautly acidic, very dry and linear. However, it also has an interesting mineral transparency and soft twists of strawberry fruit flavors riding atop the obvious funkadelic qualities. I guess you could call it an “interesting” experience to try this wine, but you’d never be able to call it a crowd-pleaser by any stretch of the imagination…
2008 Michel Gahier Trousseau Arbois Grands Vergers. The nose here features mineral, smoke, peat and charcoal overtones in support of the core aromatics of black cherries, tea leaves, brine and lots of fresh-ground pepper. On the palate, it’s earthy and loaded with mineral impressions to go along with some peppery/skunky notes riding atop fresh and substantial fruit flavors of tart cherries, raspberries and cranberries. It’s still a bit rigid in structure, though, so I’m inclined to recommend another year or two of cellaring.
1983 Robert Mondavi Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve Napa Valley. This wine sports a delightful bouquet of red and black currant fruit that still feels a bit youthfully pasty and fleshy—blending together wonderfully with aromas of cigar box, leather, turned earth, fine chocolate, green peppers, limestone and fireplace ashes. In the mouth, it features earthy and savory bottom notes of grilled herbs, earth and leather in support of the core fruit flavors of red currants and black raspberries. The fruit is totally alive and healthy, the acidity is in fine balance, and the earth tones bring it all together in a delicious package.
1989 Chateau Gloria St. Julien. This wine delivers a pretty classic left-bank Bordeaux aromatic profile that is quite likeable, focusing on aromas of clay, dirt mound, green pepper, tobacco leaves, menthol, fireplace ashes, roasted coffee bean and suede leather. In the mouth, it is decidedly Old World and maybe even a bit old-fashioned with its focus on leather, dusty earth, dried currants, black cherry, Belgian chocolate and peppercorn notes throughout. It’s dry in tone, with medium weight, cool acidity and fine framing, and although the texture can still seem a bit tacky or sticky at times, there’s nice flow and a finely-controlled finish to this. It’s just an all-around nice-drinking claret.
1993 Chateau Gruaud-Larose St. Julien. The nose here ratchets things up a fair bit over the ’89 Gloria, with overt and rather lively aromas of black currant, charred earth, menthol, lava rock and horsebarn blending together in a somewhat rich and complex arrangement of scents. In the mouth, one first notices the excellent lift and tangy acidity present that carries along fine flavors of red currants, crushed raspberries, grilled meat, toasted herbs and foresty earth tones. The bright and fresh feel gives it a ticklish character that nicely offsets the fleshy texture and gently grippy tannins. There’s a fair bit going on here and the wine is lively and interesting, as well as finely-flavored. This is well-done for the vintage.
1995 Chateau Lafon-Rochet St. Estephe. I very much like the traditional St. Estephe aromatic profile of this wine, which displays darkly-refined and finely-framed notes of dark soil, black cherries, black raspberries, leather, spices, graphite and pencil shavings that I think are just excellent. On the palate, it’s still a bit tightly-coiled right now--perhaps showing more compact than it will with a few more years’ cellaring under its belt. Nonetheless, I really enjoy the earthy black cherry flavors and find the slinky and slippery mouthfeel to work really well with that profile. It’s bright, it’s juicy, it’s tense and driven, and the tannins only really seem to come in toward the well-balanced finish. On the whole, this was probably my favorite wine in the line-up, even knowing that it’s more than likely a few years away from peak.
1996 Chateau Lafon-Rochet St. Estephe. In contrast, the nose of the 1996 is considerably warmer and more red fruit-oriented in nature, with more stuffing and meatier aromas all around. In the mouth, it’s the same story--delivering a warmer and more obviously generous serving of red fruit with a solid level of glycerin in the texture. For all that, I’d still say this has more tannic structure than the 1995 and will take even longer to find its apogee. I certainly like it, but in this particular battle of 1995 vs. 1996 left bankers, I’ll take the ’95 for its greater sense of cool tension and earthy distinction. Not everyone agreed, of course, but that’s just my take.
-Michael