2017 BWE SF: Thursday

Post Reply
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

2017 BWE SF: Thursday

Post by Nicklasss »

Normally, I'm better than that, but for this convention I did not took a lot of formal notes. So these are from memory, more impressions than full formal notes.

Thursday night 1989 Bordeaux dinner, no corked wines. In general all great wines on their own, representing well the vintage. From the three 2002 Champagne to start, i would rated them in the same order as presented. The Ruinart BdB was really exotic fruit, confit fruit, expressive nose, nice bubble, creamy and saline mouth. Very nice, i would say a 92-93. For the Pol Roger BdB, mineral nose, some light bread crust, a bit more restrained than the first Champagne. In mouth, richer, still with that nice minerals, little bit of honey and nuts too. Need more time to me. Tn: 92. For the Pommery Louise, a pleasurable Champagne, with a ligther nose but showing some light red berries with the fruity and bread crust aromas. In mouth, i felt less the bubbles, but the balance was great. Tn: 90-91.

I only took a second small poor of the Ruinart. For the red wines, the 1989 Pichons and Lynch would be opened minimum an hour before tasting. We started with the 1966 Chateau Haut-Brion, with it gorgeous Graves nose, and still lively mouth. Tn: 90. The 1983 Chateau Ducru Beaucaillou was really good but after a good air contact. The weedy tobacco start was replace by nice dark red berries, tobacco and rasberries nose. In mouth, still a dense wine for 1983 Saint-Julien, with good fruit and wood tones. Tougher to grade, i would go with a 90. The 1989 Chateau la Conseillante and Chateau Trotanoy were kind of opposite Pomerol. The very invading expressive nose of the Conseillante was great, with exotic wood and spices, prunes, dark red berries, cookie dough, chocolate. Super. The mouth was also rich, long with a good structure. That complex mixture of integrated oak, ripe fruit. All in all, an excellent wine, but I thought it was not reaching the full qualities of the 1990. Tn: 92-93. The Trotanoy was having a more restrained nose, it just needed more air, with some black licorice, truffles, earth and rasberries. Also some blackberries. In mouth, very dense, masculine, tasty, with the same type of flavors as on the nose, with great clay minerals and tannins. Maybe just a bit of forest floor too. Liked it very much. Tn: 93. The 1999 Chateau Palmer and Chateau Margaux were both really young, not having developped the Margaux berries yet. Bot noses were similar, with some slightly more concentrated aromas in the Palmer, but basically some flowers, some basic (not blossoming) fruits and light spices. In mouth, thr Palmer was less define than the Premier, and surely less balanced and less long. Both were having lots of tanins, more rustic on the Palmer. I would have liked to have more time with the two Margaux, but now i would give the Palmer a 90-91 and the Margaux a 92-93.

For the main event, i will go in the order from my best, but all wines showed very well. I clearly preferred the 1989 Chateau Pichon Baron, for it very strong ripe Pauillac character. Strong nose of blackcurrants, rich fruits, minerals, light spices, more black and blue fruits. Invading nose. In mouth, rich, balanced,ripe structure, with defined flavors of blackcurrants, graphite, and that very long aftertaste. A glorious wine. TN: 96. I put the 1989 Chateau Lynch Bages second, as the wine was also very Pauillac to me with blackcurrants but lower level. There was also some mineral notes and maybe cardamom notes. Mouth was fruity but also oaky, and it was the first time I tasted oak in the 1989 Lynch... Some vanilla flavors mixed with ripe dark red fruit and blackcurrants. Lenght was there too. Tn: 93-94. The 1989 Chateau Pichon Lalande was having an expressive nose, with strong dark red berries, minerals and also something like green cedar and smoke. In mouth, balanced but to me less concentrated mouth and less sheer fat. A bit harder tannins, but don't get me wrong, a beautiful wine. But there are bad sides to always comparate. Tn: 93.

For the 3 Sauternes, the 1995 Chateau d'Yquem was as usual complex, sweet, botritized, fresh, complex, a top wine of roasted botritys, apricots, flowers, rich sweet quince and honey vanilla. Tn: 95. The 1986 Chateau Climens seemed older to me that the one I had in Charlotte in early 2016. More orange skins or marmelade, still good core of peaches in syrup, spicy sweet vanilla, and a thick mouth that is long. Finally, not that far behind the Yquem. Tn : 92-93. Unfortunately, i had a pour from the lighter half bottle of 1976 Chateau la Tour Blanche, but still young with acacia flowers, light peaches and apricots. Tn: 87-88.

We went after for a quick beer but as everyone was exhausted, ended the day shortly after. Mores were to come.

Nic
User avatar
Tom In DC
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Colorado Foothills
Contact:

Re: 2017 BWE SF: Thursday

Post by Tom In DC »

For someone who didn't take notes, your observation skills seem superlative, Nic. Thanks for keeping us informed of the goings on!

Delighted to see that the traditional "cleansing ale" was observed.
User avatar
Winona Chief
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:11 pm
Contact:

Re: 2017 BWE SF: Thursday

Post by Winona Chief »

Great notes Nic but my are you a tough grader. I would probably add 3 to 6 points to each of your scores.

Chris Bublitz
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: 2017 BWE SF: Thursday

Post by Nicklasss »

I know Chris, it might look worst than reality.

The problem is that I had very different pours size, and different time to judge/analyze each wine. Example, the three wines in the blind tasting, we were having good pours and more time. For the 2 Margaux, very small pours for me and short time to analyze.

Also, I already choose the 5-10 red wines I preferred this weekend, and finally, my favorite was the 1982 Chateau l'Évangile, but I would give it 97-98, so other wines will have have lower score.

But don't worry, I rate you company a 100!

Nic
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 22 guests