TN: Ducru 1990

[Musigny 151]

This was a gift from a friend and the second bottle I tasted from a case that was bought as a future. The first bottle was at a group tasting, finishing in the top three wines we tasted, solid but this one was considerably better.

For those who are not familiar with the problems at Ducru, starting in the mid eighties, there was bacterial spoilage which resulted in a decent percentage of undrinkable bottles. The problem seemed to have been resolved in the mid nineties, and I am confident in anything from 1995 on.

Back to this 1990, which was bottled in the middle of this era. Opened early, there was not a trace of anything unpleasant in the nose. In fact the nose was quite lovely, with hefty aromas of fruit, licorice, leather and a thin streak of green. The palate showed much of the same, with the addition of brick dust. Blind I would have gone for Graves, and s good one at that.

The finish unfurled over time, and a couple of hours in was long, layered and pretty. I would not recommend buying this wine, as I have poured a few bottles down the sink, but if you are lucky enough to find a good bottle, you will find a lovely, lovely wine.

[JoelD]

This situation has always been very interesting to me. I'd always heard it boiled down to 85-90 then also as far back as 82. Have you heard of any commonalities between original release wines in terms of where they were imported? (Like the 90 Montrose being better from Europe)

Obviously the late release cellar bottles have been great. But I'm just curious about this original issue and if there's any rhyme or reason to it.

[AlexR]

I have one bottle of this wine.
You make me want to open it soon.

AR

[Claudius2]

Guys
The only vintage I’ve had that was badly affected was 88 though I gave up buying this wine from 88 until 95 as a result. Pity as DB was a regular buy and a personal fav in those days. So were a few other seconds such as PL and Cos but well times have changed.

I got some inside information on what caused the taint in the wines. There was a fungicide used in the chais which created spoilage - albeit unevenly - for at least five vintages. I don’t think 1985 or earlier vintages were affected (I did consume a case of it some years ago) and i think it was resolved after 1991. The hard part here was that it took a long time to diagnose the problem. Not sure if there was ever commercial litigation after the fact but it must have taken out many cases of wine.

I do recall the 88 - of 12 bottles I wasn’t sure if any bottle was sound - by far the majority were spoiled and maybe a few were drinkable though not great. I almost bought a case of the 1990 and decided against it. Later a wine tasting I attended found the 1990 to be out of condition as well.

I did try the 1992 and 1993 at tastings and both were sound (just unremarkable due to the poor vintages) and I’m pretty sure that the source of the taint was sorted out by 1991.

Cheers
Mark

[Comte Flaneur]

I have encountered the odd wonderful bottle of 90 Ducru too. Very much the exception to the rule though.

[AKR]

I don't have the experience others above have with D-B, but I found 1993 and 1994 vintages to be fine. Maybe 30% flawed rate with the 1985-1990 era. Never tried the 1991 or 1992 though.

Fortunately, I'm not overly TCA sensitive (probably average) so I'm sure the James Laube's of the world would dispute my observations.

[Harry C.]

This is why I stopped buying this producer, as they were aware after a vintage or two (or were completely inept) and yet nothing was done to protect the customers. I am also sitting on a 1989.