TNs: 86 L'Arrosee, 89 Pichon Lalande

[Michael Malinoski]

A little while back, I got together with 2 friends to enjoy a range of wines with some casual take-out food. We started out with some Champagne and cheese in the kitchen before moving into the dining room for the reds.

1990 Henri Germain et Fils Champagne. We started with this Champagne, which is brightly gold-tinted in color, with very slow, languid bubbles. Aromatically, it’s richly-styled--with plush dense aromas of dark yellow fruit, quince paste, ginger, dark butterscotch, toasted bread and pie crust providing nice appeal. In the mouth, it’s decidedly vinous, with loads of red currant and blueberry-tinged flavors supported by notes of ginger, toasted orange peel and dark spices. It feels overt, plush, rather driven and long, but without much fizziness remaining. It’s interestingly winey and tastes quite nice, but I would suggest drinking up.

1996 Henriot Champagne Brut Millésimé. This is much lighter-colored and considerably foamier than the previous wine. It smells of bright-toned grapefruit and lemon, white pepper and herbs. On the palate, it’s bright and zesty, tangy and lifted. It feels somewhat lighter-bodied, with a wiry framing and some still-youthful tacky texture to the flavors of light caramel, pithy lemon, ginger, white pepper, pear and apple. It’s tasty and has a good deal of life left.

1986 Château L'Arrosée St. Emilion. This wine delivers up a classic nose of dusty earth, tobacco leaf, red currant, sweet red cherry, grilled herbs, old leather and rusty nail. Later in the evening, it starts to tail off a bit and pulls in some distracting notes. In the mouth, it is rather forward, soft and accessible, with gentle flow and yielding tannins. It’s medium-weighted, maybe a bit dilute in the center-palate, but still showing lovely classic flavors of red currants, baked earth and iron that are toothy-textured and lifted. There’s not a lot of layering and it feels past its peak at this point, but I certainly enjoy the earth-to-fruit ratio and the easy, giving flavors of the wine.

1989 Château Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande Pauillac. This comes across as a bit strapping yet truly lovely on the nose—smelling of creamed cherries, raspberry jam, mocha paste, cocoa powder, clean earth, charcoal and limestone scents that feel classic and youthfully-controlled but captivatingly beautiful and lively at the same time. It’s still mildly tannic on the palate without any decanting time, but the balance and refinement are immediately apparent. The flavors of smoked cherry, cranberry and leather are delicious, well-structured, long and pliant. I like it a lot, but definitely recommend decanting it.

1987 Beringer Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Private Reserve Napa Valley. I find this wine to be deeply sexy on the nose, with enticing aromas of spiced blueberries, plums, black currants, vanilla bean, leather and wisps of toasty oak. It’s dense and delicious in the mouth, with loads of spice notes atop driven flavors of melted chocolate, vanilla paste, spiced blueberries and black currants that are creamy and luxuriant yet cool, earthy and lifted in their own way. It’s a great combination of factors resulting in a holistic wine drinking great now but in no hurry, either.

1990 Bernard Burgaud Côte-Rôtie. This is just tremendous on the nose, showing off fantastically savory and earthy layers of wild berry, cherry, stripped evergreen branch, cold bacon grease, animal fur, leather, grilled meat drippings, cracked peppercorn, dried sweat and hickory smoke aromas with maybe just a hint of band-aid brettiness starting to creep in late in the evening. Still, I really dig it and find myself returning to it quite often throughout the night to see what else I might find in its aromatic profile. In the mouth, it’s savory, smoky, tangy and just beautifully etched across the palate with its mid-weight flavors of red currant and black cherry fruit atop meatier, earthier sensations. It shows subtle, classy acidity, a sense of easy confidence and melted tannin, and just gets better and better with each sip, seemingly. I thought this was the wine of the night.

1989 Chateau St. Jean Johannisberg Riesling Special Select Late Harvest Alexander Valley. This was from a 375 ml bottle. It pours surprisingly dark mahogany brown in color and looks rather thick and viscous. It’s amazingly sweet and sexy on the nose, with dense, rich, plush aromas of spiced figs, prunes, toffee, candied nuts, praline and blueberry liqueur. It’s bracingly alive in the mouth with great lift, power and cut but it’s also immensely rich and unctuously mouth-coating with its flavors of prunes, baked apricots, blackberry compote, fig paste, caramel candies and blueberry cake. It’s thick and heady, luscious and lively—finishing the night on a high note.


-Michael

[AKR]

Nice wines. I've had the 86 l'arrosee a few times. I don't know why but its never excited me much. 89 PL seems to continue to be a real winner. Haven't had that in a long time.

I've got one of those 99 Burgauds waiting for the appropriate moment. I only open Northern Rhones when other wines geeks are around. They are too unusual for the California trained palates the comprise the usual visitors to our casita.

[JimHow]

I don't know if I've ever had a l'Arrosee, from any vintage.
It always seems to get high scores from Him but is nonetheless usually priced rationally, I wonder why?

[AKR]

It's more of a delicate, finesse styled wine.

They are oenophile oriented wines, that should be enjoyed without comparison to louder St Emilions.

I used to work with a guy who always swore by this estate.

[stefan]

I like L'Arrosée. The '86 was quite good, but I have not drunk a bottle for maybe 8-10 years.

[Comte Flaneur]

Mark G aka Musigny 151 rates 1989 PLL above all the Medoc first growths, including Lafite.

[JimHow]

I'm inclined to agree with Musigny 151, I think the '89 PLL beats out most other Medocs except the '89 Lynch and maybe '89 Montrose.

[Blanquito]

1980's era l'Arrosee are terrific, old-school claret. Of course, that's true of many chateau in that era, but still...

[AKR]

I seem to remember the 95 and 98 being ok too, true to type.

The 96 was a poorly thought out acquisition.

I didn't understand at that time how much difference it made in the vintage quality from one side of the river to the other.