Chateau Palmer dinner

[Comte Flaneur]

I was in Paris yesterday, a city that evokes emotions in me, with its boulevards and restaurants, it has a uniqueness and specialness. I was going to meet up with Tim last night but I had a punishing week and he had just returned from a long trip. Little did I know when I boarded the Eurostar back to London at 1843 what was about to happen. An appalling and sickening attack on that vibrant metropolis. Tim I hope you are OK.

The attackers apparently targeted Paris's young progressive core inclined to more liberal and tolerant attitudes. There is no shortage of opinions out there on how to respond and what to do, but mine would be to live life and carry on as normal. 

Thursday night was a memorable one drinking Chateau Palmer with good friends, a dinner I organised at La Trompette in West London.

Chateau Palmer flight one, with:

- Barbecued shoulder of Devon kid with pine nuts, raisins and crushed Jerusalem artichokes 

1964: A Dutch bottle with a white label, stored in Rainer's cellar which is 4m below the garden and rarely gets above 13C. This had a vibrant healthy colour; it looked half its age. It was like a symphony played in low key, nuances of this, nuances of that; delicate and lacey; shy, refined and proper; a good effort from a challenging left bank vintage. After a while it started to fade, albeit with dignity. 88

1978: A promising entry with quite a vibrant floral nose leading into an array of complex secondary notes of mushrooms, truffle, herbs interlacing with dark fruit and Margaux berries. Medium bodied and pleasing on the palate. However rather than open out, this tensed up a bit and became a bit attenuated. I have had better bottles of this. 90

1979: That last observation about the 1978 was made in comparison to the 1979, which initially matched the 1978 then blossomed, pulled ahead and never looked back like a one-sided Oxbridge boat race. This was young for its age and another wine from Rainer's underground treasure trove. It opened beautifully with complex aromas of cedar and berries and a rich expansive palate belying the reputation of the vintage. Whereas its flight mates laboured a bit as the evening went on, this went from strength to strength. A strong year for Palmer and a great bottle. 94

Flight two, with:

- Roast teal (think tweety) with golden turnips, swede, tamarind, livers and roasting juices

1982: Another well stored bottle. An exuberant wine which burst out of the blocks. Full fruity and vibrant, also charming seductive and beautifully resolved with an array of tobacco-ey, herb and spicey notes. It has been written off and criticised for upping the yields but on this showing those jibes seem somewhat unfair. A thoroughly enjoyable wine, even if ultimately it was outclassed by the 1983. 93

1983: Initially this played second fiddle to the 1982 because it took a little while to get going, but once it got into its stride it effortlessly and majestically rowed ahead of its flight mates. It is a wine characterised by great purity, integrity and completeness; it has a wonderful line and a zen-like focus (I had to shut my eyes and put my forefingers on my temples). This was a stunning wine, and as MEK noted whereas the 1982 titilates, the 1983 mesmerises. Well stored bottles of 1983 Palmer are going to provide enormous pleasure over coming decades. I think this will not only turn out to be one of the all-time great Palmers, it will enter the annals of truly legendary Palmers. 97

1988: A textbook Palmer and a revelation. An outstanding example of the 1988 vintage, a wine which shows restraint, but perfect class and pitch. It is refined, with berries on the nose and cool lingering tobacco notes, which waft over the palate. While it may lack the exuberance of the 1982 this is a dream for hard-core claret aficionados. 93

Overall a terrific flight

Flight three with: 

- Loin of Hampshire roe deer with ceps, gratin, marrow, row am and elderberries

2005: Of course this is very young and primary, but it is drinkable because it has such refined tannins. To the extent that I can analyse very young wines, this is faultless. It can even be enjoyed now but its is many years away from secondary development. In 20-30 years I am sure it be profound. Very High Score. 

2006: We drank this at the chateau in May, and we were so impressed by this on so many levels. Thursday's bottle confirmed this, even if it lacks some of the mid-range density and power (torque?) of the 2005. While the 2005 is perhaps the ultimate I would be thrilled to own a case of this for my senior years. The 2006 Palmer will do nicely. 93-95

Wines we tried from Bouteiller (the other table, our table was Duroux). 

There was a healthy cross fertilisation between the two tables, and I managed to try all but the 1989 and 1996 from Bouteiller. Having tried the 1996 on a couple of occasions i am not in the least bit surprised that it challenged strongly for top honours on that table.

1970: A good bottle. A true mature Palmer. A grandee. What it lacks is that little bit of vibrancy and magic, that marks out a legendary Palmer. 91

1985: A good example of the 1985 which we have enjoyed frequently in the last few years. This had the pick me up and pizzaz the 1970 didn't have. Good bottles of this are vibrant and truffle-infused. Not so good bottles are haunted by the spectre of the jolly green giant. 93

1986: Like the 1985, the 1986 Palmer experiences enormous bottle variation. Ours unfortunately was corked, so we were thrilled to try some of the other table's, which showed how magical this wine can be. It is characterised by a seductive charm and a dense brooding core which produces waves of unalloyed pleasure. 96

1990 Rausan Segla: A ringer, which came across as modern and exuberant, but it had the Margaux berries...so I guessed something like a young Kirwan or D'Issan. A pleasurable encounter but I preferred the 1990 Palmer. 91

1990 Palmer: By now we were playing in extra time, but I thought this was glorious. I didn't detect any faults - some others thought the finish was a tad stripped - but by now I was running on adrenaline. Certainly a wine which is ready to go. 94

2000 Palmer: I was not surprised that Bouteiller found this tough sledding early on, but I tried a glass after 11 PM and it was stunning. Full, concentrated and powerful, a wine with magnificent potential. Another Big Score. 

2006 Historical: I would say a good wine blighted by the addition of cotes du rhone syrah. John Cleese exasperated voice: 'I mean, what is the bloody point?' It is a bit like Roumier adding Grenache to soup up his Bonnes Mares. 

- Bergamot tart with pain d'epices ice cream

The dessert wine (Yquem 1988) wasn't shabby and Graham's 1985 was a perfect note to end on. Both were splits. 

On Duroux the 1983 was the wine of the night followed by the 1979 and 1982. We lacked any 1990s wines where my Palmer exposure is now mostly concentrated: 1995/96/99. It would have been a lot of fun to have the 1999 in the mix, a wine I have enormous faith in for the future. Likewise the 1995. 

Chateau Palmer? It really is the cat's whiskers.

[stefan]

Great report, Ian, on mostly great wines.

[JCNorthway]

Interesting to read your observations on the various vintages. Not knowing much about Palmer's history in terms of different vintages, I was surprised by the strength of the 1983. It sounds similar to how people experience the 1983 Pichon Lalande as compared to their 1982. I was hoping to see a 1999 in the lineup because that is the only vintage of Palmer that I own - picked up a couple of bottles at a good price back in the day when Sam's in Chicago was still a force.

[greatbxfreak]

Comte Flaneur,

I tasted Palmer 2005- 2001-2000-1990-1988-1985-1979-1967 in mid-October.

2005 -WOTN and close to phenomenal wine.99p.
2001- vivid and flavorful on the palate. Ripe fruit and tannin. Quite complex and with fine depth. Soft finish. 93p.
2000 - agree with your TNs. 96p.
1990 - a great bottle with deliciously ripe fruit, very aromatic and complex, great sweetness of the fruit and sophisticated touch on palate. 94p.
1988 - not as good bottle as yours. 91p.
1985 - OK bottle, not as good as yours. 90p.
1979 - not good example of Palmer - rather light, old style vinification, lacking ripeness of fruit and tannin. 87p.
1967 - dusty, wetty flavours on the nose and on the palate, well past its prime. 84p.

It's always question of provenance.

[JimHow]

Great report, Ian. The 1983 Palmer and Chateau Margaux have been epic Bordeauxs, I've been lucky to have them a couple of times over the years. I remember Werner and I finishing off the dregs of a 1983 Palmer at NYC '03, the finish went on forever.

[tim]

Yes, I'm fine here. Interesting dinner!

[AKR]

A great dinner, on a terrible day. Thanks for posting among the chaos of the times.

Some other friends are visiting Paris and seem to have been caught up in the curfew mayhem last night, far away from where they were staying.

These evildoers would prefer nothing better than people giving up on living their lives.

[Blanquito]

Fantastic notes, Ian. You somehow capture the character of the wine while enlivening the read with narrative and flourish. Glad you left Paris before the madness and tragedy ensued.

Palmer has become a unicorn wine these days (for me at least), given the astronomical pricing... Maybe seen, but never tasted. Without confirming my impressions, it really seems like Palmer is the most pricey super-second by quite a good margin, perhaps La Mission Haut Brion can give it a run for the pricing.

[Comte Flaneur]

Interesting to read your observations on the various vintages. Not knowing much about Palmer's history in terms of different vintages, I was surprised by the strength of the 1983. It sounds similar to how people experience the 1983 Pichon Lalande as compared to their 1982. I was hoping to see a 1999 in the lineup because that is the only vintage of Palmer that I own - picked up a couple of bottles at a good price back in the day when Sam's in Chicago was still a force.

Jon I wished we had a 95, 96 and 99 in the line up too...not least because this is where my exposure is concentrated in unopened cases. There was a gaping hole in the line up.

Regarding The Pichon Lalande comparison, are you sure about that? The 1982 Pichon Lalande is probably the greatest ever super second ever made, after 1961 Palmer (assuming Palmer is a de facto super second and not that I have tried 61 Palmer) while the 1983 Pichon Lalande needs drinking...there is a big gulf between the two.

Conventional wisdom says there is a big gulf between the 1982 and 1983 Palmers only the other way round. In 1982 Palmer upped the yields to match their neighbours, and the wine was viewed as being a significant underachiever in the context of the vintage. For such an underachiever it is drinking beautifully today, and has lasted well.But there is no doubt that the 1983 is in a different league, and the yields were reduced.

[Comte Flaneur]

Comte Flaneur,

I tasted Palmer 2005- 2001-2000-1990-1988-1985-1979-1967 in mid-October.

2005 -WOTN and close to phenomenal wine.99p.
2001- vivid and flavorful on the palate. Ripe fruit and tannin. Quite complex and with fine depth. Soft finish. 93p.
2000 - agree with your TNs. 96p.
1990 - a great bottle with deliciously ripe fruit, very aromatic and complex, great sweetness of the fruit and sophisticated touch on palate. 94p.
1988 - not as good bottle as yours. 91p.
1985 - OK bottle, not as good as yours. 90p.
1979 - not good example of Palmer - rather light, old style vinification, lacking ripeness of fruit and tannin. 87p.
1967 - dusty, wetty flavours on the nose and on the palate, well past its prime. 84p.

It's always question of provenance.

Absolutely Izak, and the bottle variation out of the same case can be quite marked.

About four years ago MEK and I shared a case each of the 1985 and the 1986, and there was huge variation. At its best the 1985 is a truffle-infused exuberant rock star, a bit of a Mick Jagger in his prime. Less good bottles are greener than the jolly green giant. Good bottles of the 1986 are stunning, but we have had some mediocre ones too, and ours was corked on Thursday.

The 1964, 1979 and 1982s that we had on Thursday had been stored in cold cellars up disturbed since release.

I would love to own some of the 2001.

[robertgoulet]

I only own the '08...was hoping it would be in the lineup, but still way too young to even consider I assume.....but wow what an epic event.

[Nicklasss]

Very nice report Comte.

I confess that i have a soft spot for Palmer, but never bought a bottle. So thanks to all people that gave me a glass in the past, and the ones who will in the future.

It is a wine that I would call "marvellous", from the small sample I had up to now (1970, 1983, 1995), and reading comments of Bordeaux lovers on that wine, it would be super to attend à tasting of a few same vintages of Palmer and Margaux. In my case, it will remain a dream.

Nic

[Claret]

At a long ago BWE Palmer vertical in NYC the 89 and 83 stood out for their quality. Arv, were you there?

[AKR]

At a long ago BWE Palmer vertical in NYC the 89 and 83 stood out for their quality. Arv, were you there?

I don't seem to remember that one.

[Tom In DC]

The '83 and '89 certainly stand among the best Bordeaux of that amazing decade, while the '78 and '79 were solid performers in that mostly under-whelming decade.

I have a '73 in the basement, waiting for someone to call for a Holy Grail-themed tasting..."Bring out yer' dead...bring out 'yer dead..."