by Dale Williams » Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:02 am
Matt called for an offline of 1982s, I was happy that he aimed midlevel, as I wouldn't have been able to come up with an entrant if he was going for the Firsts, LLC, P-lalande, etc. We had a great lineup of respected Bordeaux. Arv arranged for dinner at the Park Avenue Cafe, they did a nice job. I enjoyed my cavatelli with black truffle & mushrooms, and my main course of braised shortribs and filet mignon. Sides were especially good- French fries with truffle mayo, sauteed wild mushrooms, creamed potatoes, asparagus. Food was a tad better than last time I ate there (and we didnt get seafood tower).PAC does no corkage if not on their list.
The starters:
NV Henriot "Souverain" Champagne
Warm apple fruit, very bready. Fairly full-bodied, but with zippy acidity, I like a lot. A-/B+
Mystery white starter
Oak overlying sweet apple fruit, this is in a Bordeaux-shaped bottle and I ask Matt if he switched bottles, as I'm thinking Chardonnay. Nope, it's the 2003 Vergelegen (Stellenbosch), which Matt says is blend of white Bdx varietals (I'd guess heavily weighted towards Semillon). A bit too oaky for me, but nice fruit B/B-
On to the reds, most in flights of 2 (as noted before, I'm not a consistent grader, probably all of these but 1 would have gotten an A or A- at my dinner table, but I spread it out to show the mostly minute differences in how much I liked):
1982 Ch. Pavie (St Emilion)
I liked this a bit more from a past bottle, this is herby with some still raspy tannins. Nice Bordeaux earth, but a bit underripe feeling (I hadn't felt that before) B-
1982 Ch. Le Bon Pasteur (Pomerol)
Not as lush as say the '90, but pretty medium-bodied Pomerol with sweet black plum fruit and a little cocoa. B+
We voted on each flight, LBP carried this one 9-2
1982 Ch. Magdelaine (St Emilion)
A little funky at first, but settles in nicely. More acidity than most wines tonight, I found this rather elegant. Red plum and currant fruit, tobacco and cedar, fine length. A-
1982 Ch. Figeac (St Emilion)
Also good acidity, very bright and young. Red fruit with just a (Pleasant) hint of green pepper, good length, very nice. B+/A-
Figeac edges Magdelaine, 6-5
1982 Ch. Sociando Mallet (Haut-Medoc)
Also a touch of initial funkiness (though this one was in decanter a while due to a cork crumble), but finds its stride. A little more mature than the mag we had last year, but not at all old. Dark brambly sweet fruit, cigarbox, a bit of herbs and smoke. A-
1982 Ch. Talbot (St Julien)
Rich creamy texture, a touch of Cordier funk, sweet fruit, nice wine but not as complex as the stars. Thought it very Merlot for a traditional Medoc estate. This is one 1982 I like a bit less than its 1986 counterpart. B+
SM by a hair, 6-5
1982 Ch.Leoville Barton (St Emilion)
Big and rich, great length. Deep dark fruit, complex aromas of forest floor and cigarbox, best showing I've seen of this. A
1982 Ch. Leoville Poyferre (St Emilion)
Lovely sweet cassis fruit, tobacco, earth. Nice length. A-
Two lovely wines, missed the vote?
1982 Ch. Pichon Baron (Pauillac)
Nose of cocoa and earth, big and dense on the palate, young- I mean young. Lovely bruiser of a wine. A
1982 Ch. Grand Puy Lacoste (Pauillac)
Sweet fruit, nice pencil shaving notes, just not as long as its flightmates. Could easily be WOTN with other lineups. B/B+
1982 Ch. Lynch-Bages (Pauillac)
Good nose of earth and cedar, lovely blackcurrant fruit, fresh and young.
A-
Lynch got 6 votes, Baron 4, GPL 1.
1982 Martinez Vintage Port
Decanted before dinner, an ok Port from a year few declared. Lighter body and texture, warm red fruit, moderate sweetness. B
Top vote getters (3,2,1 system) for WOTN were Leoville Barton (21 votes), Lynch Bages (15 votes), Leoville Poyferre (12 votes), and Pichon Baron (11 votes).
Excellent lineup, nice group of winegeeks, good food, fun night. Thanks to Matt and Arv for their work.
Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.