TNs: 88 Gruaud, 86 Montelena, 93 Insignia, 96 Dominus

[Michael Malinoski]

Gerry had me and Andy over to his place for dinner about a month back and cooked up some huge steaks and a bunch of tasty sides for us. In addition, he also dug into his cellar to put together a really interesting and delicious flight of blind wines for us to drink. It was a relaxing and fun evening that featured some great wines along the way.

Starter whites: I brought a small mixed plate of cheeses and a duck confit rillette that we tore through pretty well while working up our appetites for the main course. We enjoyed two whites to go along with these.

2003 Peter Michael Chardonnay La Carriere Knights Valley. This wine features a nose redolent of seashells, wet chalk, river rocks, minerals, lemon rind, chopped herbs, white pepper and a little overlay of soft oak. It is not really much about fruit, rather focusing on the chiseled minerality aspects of its personality. In the mouth, the wood is more noticeable up front, with bits of toasted barrel spices and cool smoke. Deeper down, though, and what really comes out in the expansive mid-palate, is a luscious ball of yellow fruit and baked spiced apples that are at the core of the wine. Although not quite as rich as some Peter Michael Chardonnays I’ve had recently, this is beautifully layered and creamy smooth with a lot of complexity and a fine lasting finish of minerals and spices.

2006 Francois Chidaine Montlouis-sur-Loire Les Tuffeaux. There is a vibrant gold color to the wine I brought to the show and it gives off classic Chenin aromas of lanolin, wax, copper and wool, along with light caramel, steel and granite. In the mouth, it comes across as more rich-toned and fuller-bodied than the nose would suggest. Everything is in its place and feels effortlessly holistic, including the lovely twist of sweetness. The soft acidity and limpid glycerol levels work real well within the context of the flavor profile of sweet lemon ball, white peach pit, citrus peel, sweet cream and brown spices. Those looking for a lot of acidity will not find it here, but the wine totally works. I will look for more.

Blind reds: These were drunk with the steaks and all of the sides and we were able to spend a good long while with each bottle.

1988 Château Gruaud-Larose St. Julien. This wine sports a beautifully-aged bouquet of worn leather, menthol, funky dirt and lots of other earthy notes that are mellow and nicely-layered but full of life and aromatic presence. It is also outstanding in the mouth, featuring soft cherry fruit and a bit of tart cranberry around the edges. It is really well-balanced, with no hard edges and good freshness of acidity—ending on an even keel with the menthol notes coming on strong. Overall, it is medium-weighted, resolved of tannin, showing fine resolution and really complex and funky in an engaging and tasty package with good staying power and freshness. It is a delight on its own or with the steak. WOTN for me.

1986 Château Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon The Montelena Estate Napa Valley. There is a cooler and darker bouquet to this wine—with a denser and more powerful feel overall. It sports a good deal of leather, tobacco, scrabble dirt and peppercorn aromas to go along with abundant amounts of black cherry and currant and a more subtle hint of menthol. It is rich and dense on the palate and really fills all the corners of the mouth. It has a ton of rich mixed red and black fruit and seemingly has no holes to it whatsoever. It is full-bodied and creamy, with some fuzzy tannins still hanging around that give it a youthfully-knit feel from time to time. It is complex and expansive, but slowly starts to firm up over time, showing more of its structure and allowing the tannins to come forward a bit. It is an impressive wine with plenty of life left. Indeed, I thought it was significantly younger than wine #1. In a very odd twist, though, we all came back for a second glass later in the evening to find the wine taking on a stewed fruit and VA-ridden set of aromas. I can’t ever remember liking a wine so much only to find a second glass so distorted from the original. That was rather perplexing and detracted a bit from the memory of what would likely have been my WOTN.

1993 Joseph Phelps Insignia Napa Valley. The bouquet of this wine is tighter-knit than either of the previous two, with a fudgier sort of profile featuring aromas of dark cherry, leather, baked clay, baking spices and red fruit paste riding above dark forest floor and green pepper skin notes. In the mouth, this is more obviously tannic than any other wine this evening and shows some wood influence in the way of toasted barrel spices. Otherwise, though, this is full of delicious dark cherry fruit, dark chocolate and fudge flavor that gets creamier and creamier the longer one stays with it despite a nice spine of acidity running through its entirety. Also, the tannins start to melt away after a while and one is left with a nicely rich and full-bodied wine that pumps out very nice flavor and shows no let up at all over the course of the entire evening. This is an impressive wine and my runner-up WOTN.

1996 Dominus Estate Napa Valley. Stylistically, the last wine seems the most removed from the other three on the table. The nose features candied aromas of red fruit, red licorice, cherry cream, cinnamon stick and leather strop. It is similarly more candied in the mouth, with a more obviously modern or California feel to it—which is kind of funny given the Dominus reputation. The wine comes across as rather youthful at first in its tart acidity and full-blown mixed berry fruit flavors riding above sprinklings of cocoa powder, spices and classy wood. Still, the tannins can hardly be said to be much of a factor, so perhaps this isn’t as young as I first thought. Still, the wine shows a lot of drive, good grip and a dry finish that shows a bit more layering and complexity than the wine otherwise affords the taster through the middle. My suggestion is to hold this one a bit.

While still blind, my guess was that the wines were served in order from oldest to youngest. That 1986 Montelena felt much younger than the 1988 Gruaud-Larose, but otherwise that pretty much held to form. I also felt certain that the Gruaud was a Bordeaux from the late 70’s or early 80’s, but would not have pegged it as a 1988—it just had no hard edges. I also guessed the Montelena and Insignia to be Bordeaux, but clearly had the Dominus pegged as a California blend. I thought both the Montelena and Insignia to be much younger than they were and was duly impressed by each wine’s ability to age with ease and evolve beautifully.

With dessert:

2000 Orosz Gabor Tokaji Aszu 6 Puttonyos. Andy supplied the delicious dessert and this very nice sweet wine that smells of apricots, honey, baked apples, orange marmalade, mace and crème brulee topping. It is not overly viscous or heavy on the palate—as I was sort of anticipating—but it is plenty rich and full-bodied with a ton of creamy orange marmalade and nectarine flavors kept well balanced by an airier acidity. What a great evening--my thanks again to Gerry for his hospitality and generosity!

-Michael

[JEP_62]

Thanks for the notes Michael.

Gerry, what can I say but wow. That was very generous of you. I had a great time and it was so great to spend an evening with the wines like that (and with you guys).

I believe I pegged the Gruaud Larose as Bordeaux and the others as California. I too thought they went from old to young.

The Insignia was the real shocker to me when it was revealed. I've tried a few young Insignia and they just didn't impress me that much (at least not for the price tag) That '93 sure did. I think I called that as a Montelena before they were revealed.

Thank again Gerry,

Andy

[JCNorthway]

Great line-up guys. I would love to taste any one of those bottles. I'm curious, based on your experience with the 1993 Insignia, which sounded more youthful than I would have expected, what would be your thoughts on where the 1997 Insignia would be in its evolution? I have one lonely bottle that has been cellared since the time of it's release. I was guessing it might be time to pull it out, but based on your 1993, I'm wondering if I should continue to wait.

Jon

[JimHow]

Ho hum, yet another 1988 Bordeaux prevailing as wine of the night.

Perhaps the most underrated vintage since '82 along with '96L?

Great notes Michael.

[Michael Malinoski]

Jim, I like the 88's a good deal. This Gruaud-Larose was right up there with a few I remember quite fondly, including in particular Certan de May and Sociando-Mallet. I also have had really nice bottles of Meyney and La Lagune. In cases like the Sociando and La Lagune, those elements of cut and some might say austerity actually work really well in the overall personality of the wines and they walk a narrow line just right. This Gruaud was the least typical 1988 I can recall having, but I am not complaining!

-Michael

[Claret]

I scratch my head when folks on other boards refer to 1988 as an "off vintage". I guess in their view if it is not a vintage of the century then it is an off vintage.

I am seriously considering auctioning off my lone bottle of Lafite in a Hong Kong auction with the hope of some high bidding on this lucky '88.

Glenn

[aimeedogdogdog]

I think these '88 bordeaux have a lot of personalities, individually. This is a charming vintage for those who look into terroir and want to know the wine on a quiet night. I will need to look for more bottles.

Thanks for the notes, Michael.

Werner

[JEP_62]

Great line-up guys. I would love to taste any one of those bottles. I'm curious, based on your experience with the 1993 Insignia, which sounded more youthful than I would have expected, what would be your thoughts on where the 1997 Insignia would be in its evolution? I have one lonely bottle that has been cellared since the time of it's release. I was guessing it might be time to pull it out, but based on your 1993, I'm wondering if I should continue to wait.

Jon

I'm not an expert on Insignia (nor do I play one on TV) so take this with a big grain of salt.

I would wait. I didn't taste the '93 when it was young, but if it was anything like the more current releases, I would definitely give a '97 some more age to let all the oak quiet down and let some of the complexity come out. The '93 really didn't show any signs of going over the hill, so I doubt the '97s are in danger, but who really knows. Before that night, I would have never thought that an Insignia would beat a Montelena and a Dominus.

[Michael Malinoski]

Man, all of this talk about 1988 literally FORCED me to go out and buy some 1988 Calon Segur today. Anybody tried that one recently?

-Michael

[Gerry M.]

Man, all of this talk about 1988 literally FORCED me to go out and buy some 1988 Calon Segur today. Anybody tried that one recently?

-Michael

No, but I'd be happy to try it with you !

It was my pleasure to host that night. I really had no idea that those ribeyes would be that huge! I know the flight seemed a little obvious of moving from older to younger years but in the end I think it still left you with some things to think about, especially which Cali wines we usually reagrd as more "Brdx like"

I was pretty confident that the 88' Gruaud would be a winner and we've all had the 86 Montelena previously which I thought of as a ringer in some ways. I knew that Andy had never had an older Insignia so I was qurious to get his reaction while in the company of these other wines. The 96' Dominus has always been a puzzle for me and have never really been able to put my finger on its' personalty after trying it at least a half dozen times all from the same case. The only consistancey has been that in various ways it has always seemed at an awkward stage, not quite coming together but showing signs of promise that better things would come to those with enough patience. I guess my patience ran out since it was my last bottle. I guess I was always hoping it would eventually be nearly as enjoyable as the 97' which is still the most enjoyable year I've tried. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that in a few years the 01' turn out as good.


We can always count on Michael supplying a varied and interesting assortment of great cheeses. He's spoiled me to the point that Trader Joe's doesen't cut it anymore as my primary source. I'm always keeping my eye open for new cheese shops to try as a result.The Tokay that Andy brought was very interesting and fun to try. I've only tried a true Tokay a handful of times so it was a real treat.

[JEP_62]

I think calling that just "hosting" is the understatement of the year.

BTW, I thought the Ribeyes were just the right size

Thanks Again,

Andy

[JimHow]

Joe Belmaati's group had a tasting of 1988 Bordeaux once and they were amazed at how good they were.

[Claudius]

Guys,
I've had the 88 Gruaud Larose on numerous occasions over the last 15 years. Last was a year ago, and the tannins were largely resolved, but for my palate, maybe it was a bit too funky and earthy? I tried it first in 1996 and as a young wine, it was tannic and brooding with a distinct tobacco leaf character and dark fruit. At 20 years, it was still fruity but very earthy, a character I associate with the wine, but I preferred the 85 and 86.

[JimHow]

Of the successful 1988, 1989 and 1990 Gruaud Larose triumvirate I liked the '89 best, although I think most people prefer the '90.

[JCNorthway]

Sadly, I owned one bottle of the 1990 GL that I drank way too young. I think I paid about $30 for it. Wish it were still available for that price!

Jon