1985 Bordeaux 30 years on
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 7:53 pm
Last night 15 of us ventured to La Trompette, a consistently dazzling gourmet restaurant in West London specialising in wine events, to taste some 1985 clarets blind. On our table of seven we had Ducru Beaucaillou, Palmer, Leoville Lascases, Chateau Margaux, L'Eglise Clinet, Pichon Lalande and Gruaud-Larose.
Whereas the other table chose to reveal the wines at the end of each flight I successfully lobbied to have the wines only revealed at the end of the last flight of reds (btw we had a couple of champagnes to start a JJ Prum and A 1985 Raymond Lafon for dessert, but we were very focused on the clarets, and in trying to figure out what they were.)
Wine 1
Simply glorious in every way. It has a resplendent maroon colour and a magical nose of cedar, tertiary earthy mushroom-truffly notes with a judicious lick of funky barnyard. It has a glorious mouth feel, with some grip, density and richness on the mid-palate but at the same time it is light on its feet. There is nothing forced and it is beautifully resolved. It has perfect pitch. I immediately recognised it as Gruaud-Larose, with high conviction, the wine I contributed. 96 . It was indeed Gruaud-Larose.
Wine 2
Another thrillingly good and resolved wine, this had a slightly darker maroon colour, a thicker texture and slightly more body and density. It wasn't quite as deft over the palate and it had a note of woodiness that one sometimes experiences in 80s Ducrus. But there was a merlot note too which suggested that it could have been Pichon Lalande because it was otherwise more like a left bank. One or two pegged it as a right bank. 93. It was Ducru Beaucaillou.
Wine 3
This wine was more translucent, medium bodied, had some rough edges (at least in comparison with the first flight) and residual raspy tannins, but it really was fun, with a certain earthiness, chewiness, capsicum overtones and slightly more pronounced red and black fruit I would associate with Pauillac. So I put this down as Pichon Lalande, and number 2 as Ducru. Whereas others liked this more I liked this less than the first two. 91. This was Pichon Lalande.
Wine 4
This had a surprisingly pronounced new oaky note as if it still was not integrated, which made me lean towards L'Eglise Clinet. That view was reinforced by the sumptuous palate of spices and plums in a medium-full bodied format. Still youthful, and most enjoyable. 92. This was L'Eglise Clinet.
Wine 5
A darker more brooding colour, with notes of iron, lead, mineral and tobacco. Bracing, riveting and really poised and refined on the palate. Still quite brooding and stern with a bit of edginess and tension, like a Stradivarius. This was either the Leoville-Lascases or the Margaux, and once the remaining wines were poured it became clear it was the former. It is similar to the 1988 LLC except it has more power and density on the mid palate, but it is more accessible than the 1982 and 1986 'scases. Like wine 1 it is a nigh on perfect glass of claret. 96. This was Leoville-Lascases.
Wine 6
I picked up Margaux berries so it had to be Margaux or Palmer. Then this really starting to sing with a to die for nose of berries and cigar box. The main reason why I pegged it as Palmer was because it was very similar to the brilliant bottle we enjoyed in Paris with Tim in March. It was similarly lush on the palate with none of the green vegetal notes that you sometimes get on lesser bottles (it is a wine that suffers from a lot of bottle variation). A fabulous bottle this, the front end dominated but the mid-palate and finish were refined, svelte, and a wine you can't resist. 95. This was Palmer.
Wine 7
Initially broody, dark and not showing much. With coaxing you get some violets on the nose leading into a dense powerful inner core. A riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, it gradually began to unfurl after a couple of hours but by then it was time to go home. I was confident that this was Margaux because I had a similar experience 2-3 years ago, and none of the others would have been this backward. I think this wine needs to be held for another five years, but unlike last time I am convinced it will develop into another superb Chateau Margaux. Drinking window: 2020-2060? 95+. This was Chateau Margaux.
The other table had on paper possibly an even better line up with Haut-Brion, Latour and La Conseillante among them, but the star on the other table was...wait for it...Lynch-Bages. I tried some and it was indeed very lovely. My first question was did it have a green note? The answer was in the affirmative but this time the green note was beautifully integral to the equilibrium of the wine, like a well groomed and trim middle aged person with distinguished grey. It was the best example of this wine I have tried for 20 years, and a reminder that Lynch really was a worthy super second in the 1980s. Latour came up trumps too but that didn't surprise me.
The bottom line is that 1985 is a brilliant vintage for current drinking, arguably one of the very best. The only wine that I thought might start to fade on a five year horizon was Pichon-Lalande. The Gruaud is a much better wine in my opinion, but that view was not shared around the table.
A strong performance by Palmer on the day, but I would much rather own Leoville Lascases. The two wines which were not on show yesterday were Lafite and Mouton, my candidates for wine of the vintage based on my most recent experiences.
But If you crave after some 1985 my advice would be to seek out some well stored Gruaud-Larose with good provenance. It really is an under-rated wine and slap bang in the middle of the estate's 1982-88 purple patch.
Whereas the other table chose to reveal the wines at the end of each flight I successfully lobbied to have the wines only revealed at the end of the last flight of reds (btw we had a couple of champagnes to start a JJ Prum and A 1985 Raymond Lafon for dessert, but we were very focused on the clarets, and in trying to figure out what they were.)
Wine 1
Simply glorious in every way. It has a resplendent maroon colour and a magical nose of cedar, tertiary earthy mushroom-truffly notes with a judicious lick of funky barnyard. It has a glorious mouth feel, with some grip, density and richness on the mid-palate but at the same time it is light on its feet. There is nothing forced and it is beautifully resolved. It has perfect pitch. I immediately recognised it as Gruaud-Larose, with high conviction, the wine I contributed. 96 . It was indeed Gruaud-Larose.
Wine 2
Another thrillingly good and resolved wine, this had a slightly darker maroon colour, a thicker texture and slightly more body and density. It wasn't quite as deft over the palate and it had a note of woodiness that one sometimes experiences in 80s Ducrus. But there was a merlot note too which suggested that it could have been Pichon Lalande because it was otherwise more like a left bank. One or two pegged it as a right bank. 93. It was Ducru Beaucaillou.
Wine 3
This wine was more translucent, medium bodied, had some rough edges (at least in comparison with the first flight) and residual raspy tannins, but it really was fun, with a certain earthiness, chewiness, capsicum overtones and slightly more pronounced red and black fruit I would associate with Pauillac. So I put this down as Pichon Lalande, and number 2 as Ducru. Whereas others liked this more I liked this less than the first two. 91. This was Pichon Lalande.
Wine 4
This had a surprisingly pronounced new oaky note as if it still was not integrated, which made me lean towards L'Eglise Clinet. That view was reinforced by the sumptuous palate of spices and plums in a medium-full bodied format. Still youthful, and most enjoyable. 92. This was L'Eglise Clinet.
Wine 5
A darker more brooding colour, with notes of iron, lead, mineral and tobacco. Bracing, riveting and really poised and refined on the palate. Still quite brooding and stern with a bit of edginess and tension, like a Stradivarius. This was either the Leoville-Lascases or the Margaux, and once the remaining wines were poured it became clear it was the former. It is similar to the 1988 LLC except it has more power and density on the mid palate, but it is more accessible than the 1982 and 1986 'scases. Like wine 1 it is a nigh on perfect glass of claret. 96. This was Leoville-Lascases.
Wine 6
I picked up Margaux berries so it had to be Margaux or Palmer. Then this really starting to sing with a to die for nose of berries and cigar box. The main reason why I pegged it as Palmer was because it was very similar to the brilliant bottle we enjoyed in Paris with Tim in March. It was similarly lush on the palate with none of the green vegetal notes that you sometimes get on lesser bottles (it is a wine that suffers from a lot of bottle variation). A fabulous bottle this, the front end dominated but the mid-palate and finish were refined, svelte, and a wine you can't resist. 95. This was Palmer.
Wine 7
Initially broody, dark and not showing much. With coaxing you get some violets on the nose leading into a dense powerful inner core. A riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, it gradually began to unfurl after a couple of hours but by then it was time to go home. I was confident that this was Margaux because I had a similar experience 2-3 years ago, and none of the others would have been this backward. I think this wine needs to be held for another five years, but unlike last time I am convinced it will develop into another superb Chateau Margaux. Drinking window: 2020-2060? 95+. This was Chateau Margaux.
The other table had on paper possibly an even better line up with Haut-Brion, Latour and La Conseillante among them, but the star on the other table was...wait for it...Lynch-Bages. I tried some and it was indeed very lovely. My first question was did it have a green note? The answer was in the affirmative but this time the green note was beautifully integral to the equilibrium of the wine, like a well groomed and trim middle aged person with distinguished grey. It was the best example of this wine I have tried for 20 years, and a reminder that Lynch really was a worthy super second in the 1980s. Latour came up trumps too but that didn't surprise me.
The bottom line is that 1985 is a brilliant vintage for current drinking, arguably one of the very best. The only wine that I thought might start to fade on a five year horizon was Pichon-Lalande. The Gruaud is a much better wine in my opinion, but that view was not shared around the table.
A strong performance by Palmer on the day, but I would much rather own Leoville Lascases. The two wines which were not on show yesterday were Lafite and Mouton, my candidates for wine of the vintage based on my most recent experiences.
But If you crave after some 1985 my advice would be to seek out some well stored Gruaud-Larose with good provenance. It really is an under-rated wine and slap bang in the middle of the estate's 1982-88 purple patch.