Jekyll and Hyde wine. Excellent or horrid.

[Musigny 151]

Ian’s Las Cases note made me think this might be an issue interesting topic. There a few wines that I have stopped buying because I have no idea which one I will end up with.

Top of the list is
Montrose 1990. Either magnificent or so bretty as to be undrinkable. About half and half with a far better strike rate in Europe.
Leoville Las Cases 1982. Two out of three are not good
Margaux 1985. Last two lost all fruit. Previous bottles were either very good or ok.
Ridge Monte Bello 1991. Large proportion of corked wines.

[JoelD]

Thanks for the tips. I have two bottles each of the Montrose and Las Cases. Had generally planned to sell them. Both from American collections.

I've heard the theory on the 1990 Montrose brett issue is that if the bottles ever got subjected to a certain temp, say 75-80 during importing or shipping then they are likely higher to be bad. That could explain the difference between here and europe.

[SF Ed]

1989 Beaucastel. Was the bottle in the baked shipment to the US or not?

SF Ed

[JimHow]

Believe it or not, 1989 Lynch.
I’ve drunk it about 100 times.
I would say that 90 times it was 100++.
The other ten times it was like 90-95 points.
There seems to be a little bottle variation, perhaps due to all the auction activity.

[robert goulet]

Sounds like every wine Jim

[JimHow]

True

[robert goulet]

I find variation in most wines even bottles from the same case...when I was at Pride my wife (at the time) and we were invited to taste the new reserve wine in the cave with the founder of Sierra Nevada brewery... they even admitted to variations of the same wine from barrel to barrel...our guide took us specifically to a barrel that he declared was "singing."

[DavidG]

Agree with comments about bottle variation, especially with older bottles. But we’re talking about excellent vs. horrid, as in flawed.

I'll second Ed's nomination of 1989 Beaucastel. All the bottles I bought on release in DC and Baltimore (n=12) have been fine. Those bought on the secondary market (n=6) have been a mixed bag.

I’ve also been on the 1990 Montrose Brett roller coaster.

Several vintages of Pegau qualify. It’s one of my favorite CduP, one of the few I still buy, and a touch of Brett is usually a positive for my palate. But the little buggers can proliferate in bottles stored too close to room temperature, turning a Jekyll into a Hyde.

[Harry C.]

I agree with 89 Beaucastel. I would add 1990 PLL. I once served it blind and literally half the tasters loved it, half hated it. I was in the latter group. It was the same wine, but I hated the overt green notes.

[Blanquito]

For me, this category is dominated by red Loire, at least those from the 80’s and 90’s. I’ve had a bunch of the mature Chinon which show all over the place from bottle to bottle. The poster child for this is probably the 1990 Olga Raffault Picasses. Some of the issue is brett, some of the issue is the extended bottling windows employed back then, but I think the biggest issue is the crappy little corks they used back in that era.

[DavidG]

For me, this category is dominated by red Loire, at least those from the 80’s and 90’s. I’ve had a bunch of the mature Chinon which show all over the place from bottle to bottle. The poster child for this is probably the 1990 Olga Raffault Picasses. Some of the issue is brett, some of the issue is the extended bottling windows employed back then, but I think the biggest issue is the crappy little corks they used back in that era.

I’ve had 5 bottles of the 1990 Picasses, and every one so far has been a Jekyll. All from the same case purchased in 2019. Corks frequently wet to within 1/8” of the top but all with good fills. No leakers or duds so far and no out-of-control Brett. Guess I’ve been lucky.

[JimHow]

I agree with 89 Beaucastel. I would add 1990 PLL. I once served it blind and literally half the tasters loved it, half hated it. I was in the latter group. It was the same wine, but I hated the overt green notes.

At the very first BWE convention in Chicago, we did a blind tasting.
As I recall, the wines came out in something like the following order, the original convention attendees will correct me if I am wrong.
I know I have the order of the first three right, I helped fix, er, count the results in good old Chicago style tallying.

1989 Lynch Bages
1990 Lagrange
1989 Pichon Baron
1989 Beaucastel
1982 GPL
1974 Petrus

As I recall, those who tasted the '89 Beaucastel first thought it was absolutely putrid. Those who tasted it later in the evening thought it was the wine of the night.

As for the 1990 Pichon Lalande, no one will ever convince me it is anything other than a flawed effort. Something went wrong that year. Even the "good" bottles I've had have been no better than 88-89 points.

[JCNorthway]

Jim, I have no official records of the evening, but I think your list is correct. I know 89 Lynch was first, and the Lagrange was next. And the Petrus was a surprising last place. I don't really have recollections of the wines because I had a cold that night. But even if the Beaucastel was a good bottle, it was probably way too young that night. I attended a Beaucastel vertical that former poster Rick Julien organized several years later, and the 1989 was still very youthful in that tasting.

[Nicklasss]

You're exactly right Jim. And the 3 first wines were separated by 1 point (example: LB 100 pts, L 99 pts, PB 98 pts).

As for Jekyll and Hyde wines, Ducru Beaucaillou wines from 1983 to 1990 are in that category.

With the super high expectation that come with that wine called Petrus, i did not had it often but mixed results.

2003 is kind of a Hyde vintage for Bordeaux, while 2016 is totally Jekyll.

[Comte Flaneur]

Good topic Mark

Think Montrose 1990 is a good candidate but I have never had a ‘wow’ bottle of it. I have had merely good bottles, and terribly bretty ones.

Ducru is mainly a disaster from 1986-90 - very few good/great bottles but I have had some good bottles of 86, 88, 90

As far as LLC 82 and Margaux 85 are concerned for me the issue is more that they tend to incredibly backward wines, but my last two encounters with each quite recently have been oh so encouraging

So my nomination for Jekyll and Hyde wine goes to Ch. Lagrange (St-J) 1996. At its best it trades blows toe-to-toe with LLC 1996…but it can under-deliver frustratingly…I ended up selling the remains of my case a while ago.

[Blanquito]

In my experience, Sociando has a lot of bottle variation too. Doesn't seem to be an obvious issue with brett though.

[Blanquito]

Think Montrose 1990 is a good candidate but I have never had a ‘wow’ bottle of it. I have had merely good bottles, and terribly bretty ones.

I've only had the 90 Montrose once, and it was sensational.

You were there too, but no doubt it doesn't stand out for you like it does for me, since you've had it multiple times:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2467&p=17438&hilit= ... bio#p17438

[Comte Flaneur]

Think Montrose 1990 is a good candidate but I have never had a ‘wow’ bottle of it. I have had merely good bottles, and terribly bretty ones.

I've only had the 90 Montrose once, and it was sensational.

You were there too, but no doubt it doesn't stand out for you like it does for me, since you've had it multiple times:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2467&p=17438&hilit= ... bio#p17438

I forgot about that Patrick. Reading it kindles memories or a super dinner back in 2010. Sign of getting old. I should quality everything I write with iirc. So I take back what I said - we had two bottles of it at the same dinner here a couple of months ago. One was slightly heat damaged and the other one not particularly remarkable. So this really does qualify as a J&H wine.

[Claudius2]

Guys
My early drinking experiences included many reds from the Hunter Valley, which is a few hours’ drive from Sydney.

The traditional weakness of the region was Mercaptans and they were often batch problems and not bottle variation. However some of the cases of Hunter reds I bought some decades ago were bizarre. A few were fine and typically the rest were anywhere from vaguely drinkable to disgusting. While Mecaptans were a regional special at the time, some were bretty or had VA or in some cases, a combination.

The other beef I had was with White Burgundies starting from 1992 or so and it continued for many years. The dread randox killed many a bottle of white Burg at all price points. The pain of another destroyed wine simply got worse the higher the price. While some bottle variation was evident some entire cases were ruined.

I’ve had 82 LLC a few times and it was fine other than glacial development. Agree with Ducru B - I bought a case of 88 and after one tainted bottle it was sent back to auction which is where I unfortunately got it. I’ve written about this in some detail over the years. It was apparently caused by a fungicide in the Chais which clearly was intended to prevent taint and not cause it.

Not sure how many of you drink Grange but older vintages are risky and there can be a lot of variation though storage in Australia was always an issue.