WTN: Chateau Pontet-Canet 1989

Paulliac.

Decanted about 30 minutes before supper.

Good, dark red color in the glass.

Herbs, black olives and wood on the nose.

Charred, smoky, moderate weight, soft and round in the mouth, light cherry fruit, plummy, bitter chocolate.

Very drying on the finish.

Bruce,

Jenise likes Pontet-Canet and might like to respond to this post. She might not have seen it because it got pushed to the second page pretty fast. Or she just didn't feel like adding anything. But by responding myself, I shall push it back a little in time. If Jenise hadn't seen it, she might this time, especially with my name on it. She probably rightly thinks I have run dry of anything to say about wine and might take a glance just to see if I had regained any of my previous interest and vigor. I haven't. Sorry. But I am interested in Jenise enjoying any conversation about one of her favorite properties.

Covert

[Jenise]

Covert, your previous interest and vigor has been replaced by work. You've become a suit. When you once again have time to relax and enjoy being human again, you'll no doubt come back. I have every faith in you.

But you're right I didn't see the post, and you're right that Pontet Canet is one of my favorite properties. I love the way these wines taste when they age, and its possible I love the nose even more. 66 and 75 and 85 were all fantastic. And yesterday I was shopping in Anacortes and came across a 73 for only $45. The shop owner, a guy who ended up opening a wine shop when he ended up with way too much wine and whom I trust, said this was acquired as part of an estate collection he bought in the very first Sotheby's wine auction back in the early 80's. He finally started drinking through it this year and every bottle has been "stunning". Since I have yet to have a crappy PC (where I've had crappy bottles of venerated 1st growths) and the price was so low, I bought it. We'll see.

Bruce, your description is so clinical and devoid of personal reaction that I can't tell if you actually enjoyed the wine. Well?

Bruce, your description is so clinical and devoid of personal reaction that I can't tell if you actually enjoyed the wine. Well?

Hmm, well I guess that is just the way I write TNs.

Upon reflection I can't say that I really enjoyed the wine in the traditional sense of the phrase. I don't have a lot of experience with drinking older or mature wines, so I guess I found it interesting from the perspective of drinking an 18-year-old bottle of wine, but I wouldn't say it was a wine that brought immediate and obvious drinking pleasure.

Hope that ramble makes sense.

[Jenise]

Nah, your TN's are usually a little more expressive than that so I figured something has to be wrong. Wonder if you had an off bottle, one of those that's not weird, just lesser. Haven't had the 89 myself but based on a number of other 89's I've had, I would have expected a good bottle of this wine to have something impressive about it even to someone well used to drinking wines, even if not particularly mature wines.

I had the '89 last summer:
1989 Pontet Canet
Again, too cold at first. Even as it warms it's still a bit tight. But lots of ripe blackcurrant fruit, firm tannins, good potential. B+

Jenise, while I'm a believer in "off" vintages and have had several Pontet-Canets that were better than their rep during that period, you are braver than I to chance $45 on a '73. You should share this with Mr. Spohn.

Bruce, your description is so clinical and devoid of personal reaction that I can't tell if you actually enjoyed the wine. Well?

Hmm, well I guess that is just the way I write TNs.

FWIW, Bruce, I don't think I completely agree with your assessment of your TNs. I can usually tell whether you liked what you had or not. I got a sense this time you were disappointed but reserving judgement. I've had only one Pontet-Canet that I can remember (very hazily), but that memory makes me wonder whether your bottle may have been mistreated at some point during its life.

I ordered two or three bottles of 2002 Pontet-Canet as futures. Should I hold them until 2017 or do you think that is a vintage that will be approachable sooner?

[Jenise]

Jenise, while I'm a believer in "off" vintages and have had several Pontet-Canets that were better than their rep during that period, you are braver than I to chance $45 on a '73. You should share this with Mr. Spohn.

Dale, the bottle will at least achieve two things. I'll now be able to say I've had a wine from that vintage, which I had not before, and I'll be cured (alas, only temporarily) of this urge to buy wines without looking into them first. Trouble is, so far I've only been nicely rewarded for such behavior, like that 66 Pontet Canet we had a month or two ago. Or maybe I'm just such a necrophiliac that there's just good and better.

Good to hear you're a fan of P-C, Jenise. I bought the 1995 on the back of some pretty decent reviews and was very disappointed in the wine, Tried on two occasions, only a few years ago, I just couldn't hack the overt tarriness or the dry, blocky firmness. Does P-C need extended aging to reveal some form of hidden beauty?

[Jenise]

David, I haven't had the 95, so am unable to speak to that specific wine, but I have had 98 and 99 in the last year and would tend to say, YEAH. I see no sign of what I've loved about the 86 and prior vintages in the younger wines, but I'm confident that it will be there based on the way the old wines were reviewed when young. With big hopes, I keep putting them away.

JC, I haven't had or purchased the 02 myself, so I'm not up on what the CW is re that wine.

Jenise, you're a winner every way!
But comparison with '66 is a bit off -I'd certainly chance $45 (or $75)
on a '66 PC in good shape. '66 is a pretty solid vintage
for Medoc, if not a superstar- I've not had a bad one that I remember -Mntrose excellent
Ducru, LLC , and Forts de Latour (yes, a 40 yr old second wine) good
Mouton ok if lost in a night of great wines
If anything, the rap on '66 was it was like '75- would fruit outlast tannins? As opposed to '73 which was I think considered very light/dilute.
I'm not saying it'll definitely be dead. Just my calculations would not lead me to spend $45. Offhand if fill is good and no seepage I'd say :
1% chance wonderful mature wine
9% chance pleasant mature wine
20% tired but enjoyable wine
20% tired but drinkable wine
35% chance a very tired wine, not actually undrinkable but no real
pleasure, other than saying you had a '73
15% chance of really foul -total DOA (include 5% chance of corked)

As those choices are worth $100, $65, $45, $25,$5 and negative $1 respectively, I'd not pay more than about $20 (I love making up figures on the spot from no real data)*

Personally, for bargains I'd rather take chances on either a wine that apparently underperformed in a big vintage and got iffy Parker points (your '66 P-C) or a consistent overperformer in an iffy vintage (DDC, HB, LLC). Wines like Pontet Canet that did well every few years ('75, '82, '89) are not imho good candidates to outperform the vintages.

But as always proof is in the bottle. I look forward to your notes!

Dale
* while I did make this up on the spot, on some less formal level that's how I calculate what I'll pay for older bottles). I'll also note that in general my estimates are based on a generally more optimistic view on

[Jenise]

Personally, for bargains I'd rather take chances on either a wine that apparently underperformed in a big vintage and got iffy Parker points (your '66 P-C) or a consistent overperformer in an iffy vintage (DDC, HB, LLC). Wines like Pontet Canet that did well every few years ('75, '82, '89) are not imho good candidates to outperform the vintages.

Fully understood, and I'd have applied that logic to almost any other wine except for Pontet Canet which I have so loved in so many other vintages. That said, when I bought this I knew why I haven't had any 73's to date so my expectations weren't high, and I'd have never bought it unseen (fill's perfect, bottle's pristeen) and without some kind of vouching for provenance. Honestly, I won't be disappointed if it's no better than "tired but enjoyable".