Angelus and Pavie: the real deal or parvenus?
Posted: Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:06 pm
On Wednesday we had a dinner at the Chez Bruce restaurant looking out on to Wandsworth Common. The purpose of the dinner was to conduct some scientific research. To determine if Angelus and Pavie deserved their promotion to first growth status...specifically to Premier status Grand Cru A in the St Emilion pecking order, to join the illustrious aristocracy that is Ausone and Cheval Blanc.
To commence to mark the 50th anniversary of his passing:
Cuvée Sir Winston Churchill 1996
Stern and taut initially, a wine with a fine line and backbone, it evolves nicely in the glass as it warms up and the fizz wanes, ending with an enticing honeyed complexity. 93
With rabbit lasagne and blanquette with tarragon and grain mustard
Ausone 1995
Does not show much on the nose, but it opens slowly over the evening with the emphasis on understated refinement and class. Still young but it has a good core of (subdued) fruit and should develop well. Coming back to it at the end of the evening it is svelte and refined, one of the best wines of the evening. If I owned this I would be patient because I think it will develop more complexity. 93
Cheval Blanc 1989
Also quite reticent at first, it slowly unfurls. It is quite brooding and dense still, but velvety and refined, with a solid core of discreet dark fruits and restrained power. Long, seamless and satisfying it is a very classy wine. The best is yet to come as it gains even more complexity and moves into its tertiary phase. 94
Angelus 1989
A more flamboyant and exuberant wine with some spices, mocha and plums. It is more impressive on the front of the palate than at the back end. I have had better bottles than this but the modest finish is a common theme. It tries really hard against its more languid flight-mates. 91
Pavie 1989
A wine wine to savour. A cardigan and slippers by the fire kind of wine. It is beautifully resolved and at is apogee. Not particularly intense, but nice and relaxed with fine mineral complexity. I would love to own a few bottles of this. 92
With Bresse pigeon with steamed wild mushroom brioche bun and shallot purée
Cheval Blanc 1998
This was marred by a weird nose, initially high-toned, then burnt rubber, then latrinal. Only at the end of the evening did it start to settle down and show glimpses of its majestic inner core. 90-93?
Angelus 1998
This was more tarted up with whipped cream on the attack. For those of you old enough to remember, think Herb Alpert Whipped Cream Tijuana Brass (google it). Superficially attractive but ultimately boring and uni-dimensional. The best bit is the bouquet. A show pony but also a one-tricky pony. 88
Pavie 1998
This started out well with an enthralling nose, dark fruits and feisty tannins. However it tasted metallic and tinny on the palate, and this became attenuated over the evening. It is better - and more interesting - now than the last time I had it, but I was concerned how it deteriorated over the evening. There was quite a bit of manipulation here in Perse's first wine at Pavie. Not sure where this is headed. 89
Figeac 1998 - mystery wine
Deceptively youthful this showed very well with a magical nose and a complex and lively palate with an array of fruit, cigar, spice and mocha notes. As with the Cheval Blanc 1989 the tannins are very fine. After a while it goes into a lull with some caramel notes. I think this will improve for 3-5 years but it is already outstanding. 94
With roast fillet of beef and sautéed sweetbreads
Ausone 1997
A very pleasant luncheon claret style, but it fell some way behind the 1995 - it lacks a bit of stuffing on the mid-palate - but is well-mannered and pleasantly unobtrusive. 91
Cheval Blanc 1999
Three of us had this recently and none of us were impressed, so we were pleasantly surprised last night by a beautiful wine, which is just beginning to blossom. It has a young colour and some unintegrated oak, but has wonderful dark fruits, earth, spices and truffles. 94
Angelus 2005
The 1989 is good, the 1998 is sailing close to the edge but this is off the reservation. Rather than strawberries and cream you get toffee sundae. This is thick, exuberant, extracted, and has too much of everything...except class and finesse. You wouldn't take this home to meet your mother and it is a wine which has been sexed up in the cellar. I doubt I could drink more than two glasses of this. But you CAN drink it, and there is an element of fun. 87?
Pavie 2005
Whereas the Angelus was opaque this sucked in the light. This had been opened for a day and the nose was giving nothing, neither was the palate apart from some very harsh tannins. It was thick and highly extracted. I was looking for something good to say about this wine and couldn't find it. This comes across as having been administered a maximum dose of steroids in the cellar. No idea how this will develop, but clearly the natural terroir has been obliterated by manipulation in the cellar. NR
With tarte fine aux pommes and toasted almond ice cream
D'Yquem 1988
Resplendent golden with apricots marzipan, crème brûlée and lemon curd. It is dense and powerful in the core but light on its feet and beautifully poised. One of the great Yquems. For me comfortably the wine of the night. 97
We took a vote for our favourite red wines. The Cheval Blanc 1989 was the clear winner. It was favourite for eight out of ten diners. The runner up was the Figeac, narrowly followed by the Angelus 98 and then the Pavie 89 which was favourite for the other two who didn't vote for Cheval 89.
No point in beating around the bush, in my opinion neither Pavie nor Angelus deserve to be ranked alongside Ausone and Cheval Blanc. They were competitive in the first flight of 1989s, less convincing in the 1998s flight and frankly ridiculous in the last flight. In my opinion these two have evolved into absurd - and cynical - wines. Based on what I have experienced their promotion is a travesty and a farce.
However I have to report that my view was by no means shared by my esteemed and illustrious co-diners around the table. Three thought Angelus's promotion was justified and one thought that Pavie's was.
A common theme with Angelus is that the exuberance on the attack flatters to deceive and lulls you into thinking that you might be drinking great wine. You are not, in my opinion.The 1989 is probably as good as it gets. Angelus is a boring wine to drink, and is a one trick pony. In my opinion. This I think reflects the fact that the terroir is not first growth calibre ( unlike Pavie). Lipstick on a pig if you like.
Pavie I think could be first growth material if the terroir was not smothered by manipulation in the cellar and bad winemaking. The 1989 showed us a glimpse of how good Pavie can be if allowed to express itself. Sure the 1989 Pavie could and perhaps should be even better than it is now. But the Perse era wines have no right to "A" status.
To commence to mark the 50th anniversary of his passing:
Cuvée Sir Winston Churchill 1996
Stern and taut initially, a wine with a fine line and backbone, it evolves nicely in the glass as it warms up and the fizz wanes, ending with an enticing honeyed complexity. 93
With rabbit lasagne and blanquette with tarragon and grain mustard
Ausone 1995
Does not show much on the nose, but it opens slowly over the evening with the emphasis on understated refinement and class. Still young but it has a good core of (subdued) fruit and should develop well. Coming back to it at the end of the evening it is svelte and refined, one of the best wines of the evening. If I owned this I would be patient because I think it will develop more complexity. 93
Cheval Blanc 1989
Also quite reticent at first, it slowly unfurls. It is quite brooding and dense still, but velvety and refined, with a solid core of discreet dark fruits and restrained power. Long, seamless and satisfying it is a very classy wine. The best is yet to come as it gains even more complexity and moves into its tertiary phase. 94
Angelus 1989
A more flamboyant and exuberant wine with some spices, mocha and plums. It is more impressive on the front of the palate than at the back end. I have had better bottles than this but the modest finish is a common theme. It tries really hard against its more languid flight-mates. 91
Pavie 1989
A wine wine to savour. A cardigan and slippers by the fire kind of wine. It is beautifully resolved and at is apogee. Not particularly intense, but nice and relaxed with fine mineral complexity. I would love to own a few bottles of this. 92
With Bresse pigeon with steamed wild mushroom brioche bun and shallot purée
Cheval Blanc 1998
This was marred by a weird nose, initially high-toned, then burnt rubber, then latrinal. Only at the end of the evening did it start to settle down and show glimpses of its majestic inner core. 90-93?
Angelus 1998
This was more tarted up with whipped cream on the attack. For those of you old enough to remember, think Herb Alpert Whipped Cream Tijuana Brass (google it). Superficially attractive but ultimately boring and uni-dimensional. The best bit is the bouquet. A show pony but also a one-tricky pony. 88
Pavie 1998
This started out well with an enthralling nose, dark fruits and feisty tannins. However it tasted metallic and tinny on the palate, and this became attenuated over the evening. It is better - and more interesting - now than the last time I had it, but I was concerned how it deteriorated over the evening. There was quite a bit of manipulation here in Perse's first wine at Pavie. Not sure where this is headed. 89
Figeac 1998 - mystery wine
Deceptively youthful this showed very well with a magical nose and a complex and lively palate with an array of fruit, cigar, spice and mocha notes. As with the Cheval Blanc 1989 the tannins are very fine. After a while it goes into a lull with some caramel notes. I think this will improve for 3-5 years but it is already outstanding. 94
With roast fillet of beef and sautéed sweetbreads
Ausone 1997
A very pleasant luncheon claret style, but it fell some way behind the 1995 - it lacks a bit of stuffing on the mid-palate - but is well-mannered and pleasantly unobtrusive. 91
Cheval Blanc 1999
Three of us had this recently and none of us were impressed, so we were pleasantly surprised last night by a beautiful wine, which is just beginning to blossom. It has a young colour and some unintegrated oak, but has wonderful dark fruits, earth, spices and truffles. 94
Angelus 2005
The 1989 is good, the 1998 is sailing close to the edge but this is off the reservation. Rather than strawberries and cream you get toffee sundae. This is thick, exuberant, extracted, and has too much of everything...except class and finesse. You wouldn't take this home to meet your mother and it is a wine which has been sexed up in the cellar. I doubt I could drink more than two glasses of this. But you CAN drink it, and there is an element of fun. 87?
Pavie 2005
Whereas the Angelus was opaque this sucked in the light. This had been opened for a day and the nose was giving nothing, neither was the palate apart from some very harsh tannins. It was thick and highly extracted. I was looking for something good to say about this wine and couldn't find it. This comes across as having been administered a maximum dose of steroids in the cellar. No idea how this will develop, but clearly the natural terroir has been obliterated by manipulation in the cellar. NR
With tarte fine aux pommes and toasted almond ice cream
D'Yquem 1988
Resplendent golden with apricots marzipan, crème brûlée and lemon curd. It is dense and powerful in the core but light on its feet and beautifully poised. One of the great Yquems. For me comfortably the wine of the night. 97
We took a vote for our favourite red wines. The Cheval Blanc 1989 was the clear winner. It was favourite for eight out of ten diners. The runner up was the Figeac, narrowly followed by the Angelus 98 and then the Pavie 89 which was favourite for the other two who didn't vote for Cheval 89.
No point in beating around the bush, in my opinion neither Pavie nor Angelus deserve to be ranked alongside Ausone and Cheval Blanc. They were competitive in the first flight of 1989s, less convincing in the 1998s flight and frankly ridiculous in the last flight. In my opinion these two have evolved into absurd - and cynical - wines. Based on what I have experienced their promotion is a travesty and a farce.
However I have to report that my view was by no means shared by my esteemed and illustrious co-diners around the table. Three thought Angelus's promotion was justified and one thought that Pavie's was.
A common theme with Angelus is that the exuberance on the attack flatters to deceive and lulls you into thinking that you might be drinking great wine. You are not, in my opinion.The 1989 is probably as good as it gets. Angelus is a boring wine to drink, and is a one trick pony. In my opinion. This I think reflects the fact that the terroir is not first growth calibre ( unlike Pavie). Lipstick on a pig if you like.
Pavie I think could be first growth material if the terroir was not smothered by manipulation in the cellar and bad winemaking. The 1989 showed us a glimpse of how good Pavie can be if allowed to express itself. Sure the 1989 Pavie could and perhaps should be even better than it is now. But the Perse era wines have no right to "A" status.