2 Champers, 95 Yquem, 01 Trot, 98 Latour & 82 L'Evangile

[AlexR]

Hi,

I usually don’t do this : serve a bunch of name wines at the same dinner. For one thing, I ‘m not rich, and, for another, I like to lead up to great (or supposedly) great wines to put them into perspective. But I was welcoming wine-loving friends from England who had done me a very good turn years ago, as well as a wine writer.
There were 8 of us altogether.

For information, the meal consisted of foie gras with the Sauternes, paupiettes de canard with the reds and the cheese platter, and damson tart with the Port.

As a host for this dinner, my notes are rather brief. I did not exactly have the time to write down any detailed impressions.

Delamotte Blanc de Blancs : a crowd pleasing, good value Champagne

1999 Clos des Goisses, Phipponnat : 65% Pinot Noir, 35% Chardonnay. Lovely understated nose and restrained power on the palate. Long aftertaste. Very fine wine that will gain from further ageing. I had a picture to show the guests of the vineyard and its reflection in the river, which form the shape of a Champagne bottle.
http://vinoblog.free.fr/blog/pages/Phil ... es-Goisses

1995 Ch. d’Yquem: Still young and does not have the depth of a great vintage, but the trademark characteristics are all there, especially the suave, faultless development on the palate. One guest asked if I had decanted the wine. I had never thought of this for a Sauternes…

2001 Ch. Trotanoy: My experience with this château is limited, but I often come away feeling that it is not quite the impressive experience I was hoping for. This 2001 had a lovely, characteristic nose, but was on the weak side in terms of body – and I’m a great fan of the 2001 vintage! I have two bottles of 2000 Trot in the cellar. Hope they will be better.

1998 Ch. Latour: Although fine, this did not quite have the substance and presence I was expecting. The aftertaste saved what had been a so-so showing on the palate up until then. This finish showed the authority and class of Latour, but this is a good, rather than a great vintage (*my* appreciation, couldn’t give a fig if the pundits agree or disagree).

1982 Ch. L’Evangile: This was fascinating, with completely resolved tannins and fine, nuanced, tertiary aromas. Soft and caressing on the palate. The sort of wine you imagine sipping by the fireplace. As nice as it was, I would have preferred it a little younger.

20 year-old tawny Port from Quinta do Tedo: impressive amber/orange/red color and great balance. I visited this winery in May. It was bought by a member of the Bouchard family from Burgundy. Fine way to end a meal and very different from the Port my friends and I usually drink (good ruby, LBV and vintage).

Best regards,
Alex R.

[jmccready]

great lineup and notes that I can believe and understand. JM

[stefan]

Great collection of wines, Alex.

I agree with you on '95 d'Yquem. On the other hand, '82 L'Evangile is perfect IMO. In '98 I bought a few Lafite but passed on Latour and haven't tasted either for a decade. Their prime time should be several years in the future.

[RDD]

I'm drooling.

[JimHow]

Your disappointment with the Latour does not surprise me, as I have indicated previously it should be lowered to second growth status. I too have never been blown away by a Trotanoy. '95 d'Yquem, on the other hand, has consistently blown me away.

[Chasse-Spleen]

I'm still waiting for my Latour epiphany. A very old bottle ('50s? '60s? '70s?) that I had with Ian once was very good, however, and I kept thinking about it for days afterwards. I think it is a difficult wine to understand and needs a lot of time. I wouldn't expect a '98 to be drinking so great right now. On the other hand, its a First Growth, dammit!