Positive 2003 PC data point and some other notable Bdx

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Have been running amok in the surf lately and while I've been keeping up in my drinking and following along here composing/posting TNs has seemed choresome by comparison. But a confluence of important factors prompted me to open up several bottles of wine New Year's Day to share with some paddling pals and while these notes are skimpy even by my standards I thought I'd share them.

As for the confluence of factors: First, to my regret, it looks like we'll be coming back to Colorado about six months earlier than I thought. The bottom line is my wife doesn't care much for Hawaii and is going to take the earliest opportunity to retire. With that we'll be shipping back probably in the May timeframe. I can't say her reasons aren't valid; I share some of them but unlike her I have found compensating factors - actually they weigh heavily to the plus side - and were it up to me I'd opt for staying longer or perhaps even setting up a permanent abode, perhaps having a presence in both places. But Colorado is not hardship duty so I'm resigned to just a couple of weeks a year here from now on, in all likelihood. Luckily I have plenty of places to stay.

Second, present company excluded of course I couldn't imagine a better group of friends with whom to open up these wines (this is one of the compensating factors for staying put). Frankly it was just yet another feeble justification to gather the usual crowd. I know that that is what actually motivates us ultimately to get together for the various conventions and dinners; the friendship and camaraderie; I'd say in fact the wines are actually intrinsically unimportant by comparison.

Third, and this gave me the germ of the idea, one of my friends had a mainland visitor who has her level-2 sommelier thingy. She came to the Christmas party we hosted two weeks before and that's when I decided to do this but let her carry some of the lifting so I could avoid appearing didactic or worse pretentious (that may in fact be impossible). It was pure genius in the event.

I splashed decanted the five or so better-reputed wines a couple of hours before the event; I meant to do the same for the other older wines just beforehand based on experience to blow off any fuzziness but ran out of time and they were popped and poured. None of these seemed compromised in any way.

2003 de Fargues. I was looking forward to this with pate and Roquefort and yet this disappointed. It was sweet but seemed flat. Some overripe bananas going on. It also didn't strike me as terribly dense. Maybe it's the vintage. I froze about half of it and will revisit it at my leisure.

1988 Beychevelle. Well this wine did have the benefit of the poll position of the main event and it did a creditable job exploiting it. It might have gone the distance (maybe it did) but for a couple of stretch runners. This was complex and lively with decent weight and some nice claret flavors. I was mildly surprised how well this was received by this mainly Cali/New World/Shiraz-Zin crowd. Got a couple of barnyard comments, not sure if that was just putting me on but it was true anyway. I'll just add that this wine has not disappointed me since I bought a case three or four years ago. Not a weak bottle.

2000 Beychevelle. Next up, I thought this would be at least instructive (didactic?) about vintage comparisons and aging but this bottle at least was not up to its older brother. This surprised me because from release this had always impressed me as a wine that was quite pleasing and easy to appreciate. This had a nice bouquet and seemed softer than the 88 but lacked the vitality, nervosity, whatever. Perhaps interestingly, 24 hours later, I sampled the three ounces or so that had been abandoned in the open bottle at room temperature and I thought it was better. Still a little less concentrated but more open. Certainly not flawed. Could have been the bottle or maybe it's undergoing transformation.

1988 Meyney. Tried push the 1988 button again but this one, although drunk up, was a bit meh also. Got a couple of "metallic" comments out of the crowd and that did resonate with me. The 88 Meyney had not to that point failed me. This was by no means DNPIM, just a little weak.

1996 Leoville Poyferre. I think I envisioned this here from the start but after the 88 Meyney I thought a younger and presumably more vigorous wine was also indicated. As an aside, as I decanted this earlier I really thought it was going to win going away. Sure enough, this got a favorite vote or two, and my sommelier and others called out raspberry, blackberry and cherry notes. This has it all going right now, including just a nice, solid but approachable structure and some very pleasing flavors. By the way, I'd had a 96 Lagrange about a week before and it was also excellent - maybe better than this.

2002 Lafite. Of course I had run down the wines with the sommelier before hand and she was dutifully impressed. I poured this with the same casual, just the facts introduction, but she indiscreetly did let on among other things that it cost "$600" (which of course was not true); nevertheless only one end of the lanai was in on this as the other end was blissfully absorbed in their own conversations. Which made it all the more interesting that both ends thought this was a sort of step up. Everybody loved it although I'm not sure why exactly. Yes it had some complexity, elegance and to my taste that sort of vinous "drive" and curious weightless density that more than anything as mundane as flavor seems to separate the some wines from the rest, but it is nowhere near its optimum. I thought the overall impression, absent the extra "drive" was similar to the 88 Beychevelle with a little more cool polished marble. Still it was enjoyable.

1990 Semeillan Mazeau. This did not suffer following the Lafite. This was also well-received, and I would say it might have been the most favorably resolved wine of the night. The 1990 vintage showed through and though still firmly recognizable as "red wine" this had a sweetness of brown sugar plus a citrus orange peel thing, it was light on its feet and pleasing with mild structure though full and persistent aftertaste.

1998 Latour. Supposedly this is a weak Latour. This was probably my favorite wine. No, I would not say this was "powerful" in a certain sense nor did it have the same level of taut drive of the Lafite yet it had a persistent, resonant taste of sweet tobacco. Heard a couple of comments about licorice/anise. Would love to have lingered over a half-bottle of this with a roast anything. This was well-received, but I don't think most people rated this above the general average of the evening. There were some slightly grainy tannins perhaps, but as mentioned, I liked this a lot.

2003 Pontet Canet. I thought this showed very well both in the company and in relation to the other two or three bottles of this I've had. The vulgar power and heat this showed on release have toned down quite a bit, it does not seem clenched and harsh as my last bottle. This has opened up a good bit and the flavors are very dark, somewhat like the Latour. Though still fairly tannic, besides that it feels fairly easy - though weighty - in the mouth, probably this is lower in acidity than some of the other wines. When I tasted the rest of this - 2 ounces or so, about 90 minutes later when we headed down to the beach it was even better. Based on this bottle I'm looking forward to enjoying a whole (or half) one in the next year.

2004 Bruno di Rocca, Vecchie Terre di Montefili. Gave everyone a break from the relative austerity of the lineup with this Super- (or mini-Super-) Tuscan. When I decanted this I also felt this would be a winner and to me it was. My sommelier called out fruit bomb but I would not say that at all, at least not as I'm used to the term, but it was a change from the ordinary. This was plusher and more mouthfilling but it is also oriented to the darker, earthier flavors and is not candied; nor did it seem more alcoholic or hot than the previous wines. I could not recall the cepage but thought it was 60-40 merlot-cab. To me that was the mouthfeel - like a nicely settled ripe wine. Actually now I'm recalling the 2004 Ch. Magdelaine. It's actually 60-40 Cab-Sangiovese. Whatever, this is just really fine stuff for the type and great drinking now.. I hope I have one more bottle back home. As an aside, about two ounces left standing for 24 hours in the open bottle tasted really nice.

2008 Gazin. Yikes. This was decanted ahead of time. Still this is as big, hard, hot and dry as I recalled. This lacks vinousity out of the gate, it seems really oaky and dry. It will not roll around in the mouth at all. My sommelier says she can't drink hers. The rest of the crew acknowledge this is a different kettle of fish but they are troopers and also quite experienced in overindulgence and the bottle is drained. To be fair revisiting this about an hour later gave me some hope or maybe I had just steeled my palate. This needs a lot of time in the cellar. I should say this bears a similarity to the 2008 Ch. Fonroque, which also struck me as hot and hard for an 80 or 90 percent merlot wine. I have no recourse for this but to trust to time.

2008 Heitz Napa Valley Cabernet. I just picked this up locally thinking it would be a fair contrast and perhaps more like what these peeps were used to. I guess this is maybe aged a little longer in barrels or held back for a little later release or something. I thought it was interesting but not what I wanted at the time. Certainly it was in no sense the antidote or cure to anything. It's expansive, supple and fairly sweet but in a toned-down and not candied way. There is no missing this, it seems to have double the volume if not exactly the weight or density of the most of the previous wines. It is not "powerful" or overly concentrated as I would expect (rightly or wrongly) of a the stereotyped Cali Cab. I'm not sure what happened to my full pour, I think I probably canned it for the remains of the PC. Of course this was put to good use by the rest.

Anyway that was it. One valuable takeaway from me for this is I guess that except for some very old or fragile wines, it's almost impossible to decant (aerate really) too long ahead of time. At least those smaller 24-hour old samples tended to bear this out. Occasionally I have thought some young wines tended to tighten up with air time; maybe that happened to the Gazin. It was also interesting to note there was not a lot of dispersion over which wines had it and which lacked it. Funny.

I've had a couple of other Bdx of general interest lately that I will mention in another post, just to clear out the backlog.

[Rieslingfan]

That PC note is very useful. Thanks.

2002 Lafite didn't cost $600 on release but it does now!

[JimHow]

Welcome back to the continent, Hound, and thanks for the updates on some of my favorite wines!

[DavidG]

Thanks for the notes, Art. Your Pontet Canet showed better than the one I had 2 months ago with the DC BWE contingent. Though I think it is starting to come around, I figure on waiting another 5 years before opening another:

2003 Pontet Canet (11/2/2013): Stored since release, perfect fill and cork. Loved this wine immediately after release but a bottle in 2010 was hot and alcoholic, not showing much fruit. Time to revisit at age 10. Dark red/purple with minimal lightening at rim. Dark berries and cassis with some road tar on the nose, but there's that alcoholic heat. Medium to full bodied on the palate, ripe fruits, more California than Bordeaux, no real complexity, and would benefit from more acid and less alcohol in the balance department. Four hours in a decanter reduced the impression of alcohol but otherwise this didn't develop much. Better than the bottle 3 years ago. I'll wait another 5 years to open the next one and hope it will develop more interest over time but right now this is no more than very good.