TN: 1999 Château Lynch-Bages (France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac)

[jal]

• 1999 Château Lynch-Bages - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (1/29/2009)
  Nice nose of cedar and cassis, color is dark and shiny with no clearing. The entry is a bit dusty but gets smoother after a while. No mid palate and the finish is watery. A decent showing for the vintage but a little disappointing considering the pedigree. (88 pts.)

Posted from CellarTracker

[Jay Winton]

I've still got a few of these-maybe time to drink up?

[tim]

Its interesting, I've found that many Lynch have been way off in off years. While the best years are truly exceptional, the so-so years are not particularly kind to the wine.

[jal]

I've still got a few of these-maybe time to drink up?

I also have a few left, Jay. I thought it was ok but a little too simple to go with meat dishes. Try one to check.

[PhilR]

Has anyone had the '97? I liked that, sort of a pure and well-made kind of wine but quiet.

[jal]

Its interesting, I've found that many Lynch have been way off in off years. While the best years are truly exceptional, the so-so years are not particularly kind to the wine.

Tim, at the risk of being pelted by Jim with corks of 1995 Lynch, I will say that in the last 20 years, there may be only five vintages of Lynch Bages that stood out: 1988,1989, 1990, 1996, and 2000. I haven't tried the 2005 yet. I totally agree with your assessment.

[cellartracker]

1982 and 1985 Lynch are awfully tasty as well and seem to have stood the test of time.

[Houndsong]

Has anyone had the '97? I liked that, sort of a pure and well-made kind of wine but quiet.

I had it once. While there was some "there" there, I thought it tasted like they left out the grapes. I know someone else here also liked it well enough, as you did.

[DavidG]

'88 Lynch is also excellent - better than expected from a non-vintage of the century. It showed very well at the BWE Lynch tasting in NYC.

[JCNorthway]

David,

I agree on the '88 Lynch. I bought a half dozen several years back. The last one I opened was about 3 years ago. It was decanted for 2-3 hours and it seemed to be really coming into its own. Reminds me that I probably need to try out another one soon.

Jon

[ericp]

Jay I certainly don't think the 99 is getting any better. I don't think there's any rush to drink them, but in 5 yrs I'd drink em up.

[alchemeus]

I popped a 1998 Lynch-Bages a week or two ago. It was great, Huge redberry fruits wafting up from the glass. Excellent with the lamb stew I made. Left a little than two glasses for the next day.

Next day it was dead. Some fruit but more acid than fruit or backbone. Drinkable but a downturn from the previous night. My passive cellar generally ranges from 59F to 67F over the course of a year.

A controlled cellar SHOULD produce a better wine.

I don't have a 1999 to compare, but my vintage was kinda trashed on the left bank as I recall. I'd honestly and respectfully disagree.

Can't wait to pop those $75 1998 Chateau Palmers.

But heck, could be disappointed.

[Rick]

At my Lynch vertical last yr we found a number of very good Lynch in not so great years
Interesting how the bottles can be so different
rick

JonNorthway notes
I wanted to post some thoughts after the dinner last night, but had some work to get out of the way before this morning. So here are some reactions from my palate, in the order we drank them.

1980 - Nice, gentle fruit aromas on the nose. Actually one of the more interesting to smell of the evening. The flavor profile was light, but still enjoyable. It had a fair amount of what I would describe as secondary flavors - cedar, cigar box, mushroom were all words I heard around the table. This is not a wine that bowls you over on its own; you sort of have to engage it in the dance.

1991 - Jay had said we might be surprised by this one, and I, for one, was. There was more fruit here than I would have expected. And it did not seem tired at all. It was actually quite pleasant to drink.

1981 - This wine had a really reticent nose. I could hardly coax anything out of it, and I think others had a similar experience. On the palate, it was a little better, but still somewhat muted. For me both the 1980 and 1981 were interesting to taste for the experience, but they are not wines I would seek out to drink again.

1982 - Now this is a wine that I would seek out. But for my tastes, I'd wait another 5 years before going after it. As this was poured, sniffed and tasted, the comments at the table were along the lines of "Alright, now we are in a different class of wine." This is a big wine with a lot of fruit, and surprisingly to me, still a fair amount of tannins. To my palate, this wine is still somewhat closed. I don't think it has reached its peak yet. I also got a bit of barnyard on the nose. It seemed to lessen over time, but as I commented to the group, unlike some folks, that is not an aroma that I care for, even in small amounts.

1983 Suduiraut - A brief detour to the world of sweet and white to accompany the foie gras course. This wine had a lovely nose; I think the nose was more enjoyable than the taste. It was still very nice, just a little light on the palate.

Somehow an unannounced 1988 Climens Sauternes emerged at the table (thanks to Rick's friend Harvey). This was a very nice wine. Wonderful nose and a palate that gave almost as much pleasure. This had a lot of life for a 20 year old Sauternes.

Then an unannounced 2001 Talbot Blanc (again, thanks to Harvey). He felt the wine might be past its prime. I did not experience it that way. There was still a good aroma and nice fruit flavors. We drank this with a salad of greens, poached pears, and roquefort cheese - it made for a nice pairing.

Now we were getting to the main act, served with sirloin and ostrich. I think this was the first time I had ostrich, and the preparation worked nicely with these big reds. First the 1985 Lynch was disqualified from competition. It was an off bottle. There was some discussion around the table as to whether it was corked, cooked, or otherwise oxidized. Harvey, probalby the most knowledgeable in such matters at the table thought it was slightly corked. I was in the cooked or oxidized camp. Regardless, it was not drinkable - at least by this crowd.

The 1988 Lynch showed very well on this occasion. Even though it had been opened at noon, and decanted shortly before serving, I felt it was a bit closed at first. It has very good fruit and nice balance; the tannins were noticeable at first. I set the glass aside and came back to it later. It definitely was improving with time. And by the time we finished the bottle, it was in almost everyone's top 2 or 3 wines.

1989 - This wine has been discussed so much on this site that it seems there is little left to say about it, other than, "Great wine." This wine was singing on this evening. We had two bottles from different cellars. The consensus was that the second one we tasted was better than the first. But it was not a big difference to my taste buds. I would drink either bottle anywhere, anytime. A really great wine. It may be about at its peak. My comment was that the 1989 is more advanced than the 1982. I don't know that everyone agreed with me, but that was my impression.

1986 - What a great wine to have at the end of the meal (with cheeses and house made truffles). This is a blockbuster if I can borrow an RP term of art. Incredible depth of fruit, and really really dark coloring. The light was dim, but I certainly saw no thinning or bricking at the rim of the glass. Given the reputation of this vintage for being tannic and backwards, this was a surprising pleasure the drink.

For me, the 1986 was the clear WOTN, followed by 1989, and 1988 not far behind. The 1982 was near there somewhere. I just wish I had been able to save some to try at the end of the evening.

This was a really enjoyable experience for me. What's especially nice is that there is no other way that I would get to drink all these wines. So a big thanks to Rick for organizing and his wine contributions. Also, thanks to his friend, Harvey who provided several of the wines.