The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

WTN: 2 Bordeauxs Blind

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

Jay Labrador

Rank

J-Lab's in da house!

Posts

1351

Joined

Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:34 am

Location

Manila, Philippines

WTN: 2 Bordeauxs Blind

by Jay Labrador » Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:34 pm

Dinner last night with the Usual Suspects and some visiting Japanese friends and wine merchants. It's always fun when these guys show up as they always bring interesting bottles for blind tasting.

Wine #1 - Very dark. Pretty ripe on the nose. Black fruit and cedar. Based on the nose, seemed like Napa although a bit more air made me change my mind to Bordeaux. A taste showed sweet fruit, a ripe year, but rather lean mouthfeel with a good dose of acidity. Cabernet I would guess but not rich enough to be California. Firm tannins. Very nice. We were given a hint - initially rated 96 by Parker, he recently upped his score to 100. My guess was a Pauillac from 2005. At least I hit Bordeaux and got the year right. Larcis Ducasse 2005 from St. Emilion.

Wine #2 - Deep, leather, tobacco notes. Fairly deep color. A good amount of tannins. Very dry. Cabernet acidity. Bordeaux was the obvious choice but some discussion led a few of us to conclude it might be Super Tuscan. Pressed for an answer, I guessed Graves 2001. Again, got the general region but way off on the year. This was a remarkably well-preserved Chateau Latour 1974.

Many thanks to Hiro-san for these excellent wines!
Last edited by Jay Labrador on Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Three be the things I shall never attain:
Envy, content, and sufficient champagne.
no avatar
User

Tim York

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

4972

Joined

Tue May 09, 2006 2:48 pm

Location

near Lisieux, France

Re: WTN: 2 Bordeauxs Blind

by Tim York » Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:46 pm

An interesting couple of Bordeaux. Since the millenium, Bordeaux, especially the right bank, have been becoming much more Californian. Is this due to chasing high Parker points (successfully here) or to the warmer climate or to a bit of both?

IIRC, 1974 was classed as a "bad" vintage. So much for vintage generalisations!
Tim York

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], ClaudeBot, Google AgentMatch, iphone swarm and 0 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign