1990 Bordeaux dinner

[Comte Flaneur]

Last night at La Trompette Chiswick, West London.

We got off on the right foot with the first flight. All three smelt fabulous. I was impressed most by the Haut-Bailly (93) which was a complete and perfectly resolved wine and had that textbook gravelly Gravesy attack, with some menthol and licorice thrown in, with a nice mouthfeel and finish that was lacking on the Pape Clement (91). The Pape had a fine scorched earth attack but I think it needs drinking up - it was a precocious wine in its youth. The Clerc Milon (91) also had an intriguing nose, a bit of barnyard, a mature colour. It was a bit wobbly and old school but really fun and reminded me a bit of Mouton 1990. A good start.

I was really looking forward to trying the two Pomerols in the next flight. The L’Evangile (93) I found a bit reticent, but was caressing with menthol notes, refined and long. However, I was hoping for more fireworks. The Trotanoy (95) was more like it: big rich and majestic with some honeyed beehive notes. Drinking well it still has a long life ahead, my wine of the night and the group’s third. The Pichon Lalande (91) was exactly as I expected it to be with the trademark green capsicum entry, and medium palate and medium finish. A really pleasant wine with little ambition. Like Mouton 1990 and unlike Pichon Baron (93) which did not show quite as well as normal I think because I did not double decant it in the afternoon. My bad. On the last two occasions it has scored 2-3 points higher.

My two pre-tournament favourites were the two Leovilles. The Barton (93) had a promising nose, was classically red-fruited and lead-pencilled but did not quite deliver as I had hoped on the palate. Like the 1989 there are great bottles of this and merely good bottles. This was the latter. The Leoville Lascases really did deliver and in this flight it rowed relentlessly away from the others, like Sir Steve Redgrave in his prime, with lead pencil and graphite and a super texture and palate. A quite compelling wine and deservedly the group’s wotn. The two Montroses (both 91) were frustrating. The first which had been near a fire in a storage facility actually had a lovely texture and palate and the second one I think was marred by being a tad warm. The Cos D’Estournel (93) was expansive, full-bodied and open knit. Not the last word in precision but a pleasurable rumbustious wine.

I reluctantly tend to agree with the sentiments of one participant, noted for not suffering anything but exemplary wines, that there were no life changing wines last night, a view echoed by some of the others, but I would say that the two outstanding wines last night were Trotanoy and Leoville Lascases, but both can achieve even greater heights. I would still put the 1990 claret vintage on a rough par with 1989, but below 1982. And there are some outstanding 1990s, for example all of the first growths, bar Mouton, La Mission, Lynch-Bages for sure and I would say Palmer too; and on the right bank La Conseillante, Figeac, Cheval Blanc, Petrus and Le Pin. Angélus made its best ever wine in 1990 too.

[AKR]

props for getting the umlaut over Angelus!!!!

great lineup, my favorite vintage in the history of the Galaxy

[greatbxfreak]

Very interesting!

I had a couple of 1990s 5 years ago - https://www.bordeauxwineenthusiasts.com ... 732#p56732

[JimHow]

Thanks for the report Mr. Flaneur.
Overall sounds like a bit of a disappointment?
What are we to make of 1990?
I've always thought 1989 was significantly better, or just my preferred style.
And then there's the 1990 Pichon Lalande controversy....

[s*d*r]

props for getting the umlaut over Angelus!!!!

I’m in a pedantic mood, I guess.

Uhh, don’t think the language-proud French would like to use the German term.

French. The acute is used on é. It is known as accent aigu, in contrast to the accent grave which is the accent sloped the other way. It distinguishes é [e] from è [ɛ], ê [ɛ], and e [ə].

In linguistics, umlaut (from German "sound alteration") is a sound change in which a vowel is pronounced more like a following vowel or semivowel. The term umlaut was originally coined in connection with the study of Germanic languages, as it had occurred prominently in the history of many of them (see Germanic umlaut). While a common English plural is umlauts, the German plural is Umlaute.

But the French do use that double dot thingy:

Finally, we have the trema: two little dots above a letter. It can be found above an “e”, “i”, or “u”: ë, ï, ü.

[s*d*r]

I reluctantly tend to agree with the sentiments of one participant, noted for not suffering anything but exemplary wines, that there were no life changing wines last night, a view echoed by some of the others, but I would say that the two outstanding wines last night were Trotanoy and Leoville Lascases, but both can achieve even greater heights. I would still put the 1990 claret vintage on a rough par with 1989, but below 1982. And there are some outstanding 1990s, for example all of the first growths, bar Mouton, La Mission, Lynch-Bages for sure and I would say Palmer too; and on the right bank La Conseillante, Figeac, Cheval Blanc, Petrus and Le Pin. Angélus made its best ever wine in 1990 too.

Great report, Ian.

I like the ‘90s too but generally prefer the ‘89s for no obvious reason. But I too usually prefer the ‘82s. I can’t think of any ‘90s that are absolutely thrilling, except maybe Margaux (sometimes), Beauséjour Duffau Lagarrosse (sometimes) and Le Pin (only tasted once). A recent L’Évangile was good but unexciting.

[Racer Chris]

I’m in a pedantic mood, I guess.

Someone had to do it.

[Harry C.]

Interesting. The red flag for my taste is the Lalande getting a 91. It was and always has been a disaster. To each his own.

[stefan]

Great notes as usual, Ian.

Like Stuart, I much prefer 1982 to both 1989 and 1990. I admire the precision and longevity of the 1989, but I love the boisterousness of the 1990s. In general, the 1990s were better for my taste earlier than the 1989s, which I think is not the prevailing view.

I never had a good bottle of the 1990 Pichon-Lalande.

[DavidG]

Nice report Ian.

All this discussion of phonetics reminds me of one of the more interesting wine dinners I had in Chicago years ago, at Schwa. https://schwarestaurant.com

Happy to hear that the 1990 LLC is still going strong. It's the only bottle of 1990 Bordeaux left in my cellar. Thought I had drunk it but I found it hiding in the back row behind a bottle of 1989 VCC.

[Musigny 151]

Interesting. The red flag for my taste is the Lalande getting a 91. It was and always has been a disaster. To each his own.

I scored it 88 at a large Pichon vertical. Not as bad as we expected, but dwarfed by every other wine we tasted.

[AKR]

well if the language proud French don't like umlauts, maybe they should not have let Marshal Blücher, womp their butts at Waterloo! of course the Iron Duke claimed all the credit, and got the dinner named after himself. So unfair!

we named our GSD after the cavalryman and the furry fellow is quite insistent that spelling/pronunciation are correct.

[Blanquito]

Great stuff Ian. I am definitely of the opinion as well that 89 is overall superior to 90. But there are some amazing 90s out there, if you get the good bottles. I’ve only had it once (at a Fabio’s night), but I was enthralled by the 90 Montrose. The 90 Figeac is a stupendous wine when on. It’s been ages but I loved the 90 Lynch back in the day and the 90 Cos might be the “best ever” from there for my mileage.

[Nicklasss]

Thanks for the great report comte flaneur. I'm always happy when i read that Léoville Las Cases performs well.

For my part, i have a tough time telling if i prefer 1989 or 1990, as both vintages produced great wines. Let say that from the wines i sampled, they are equal, even if different in style. I've always considered 1989 more classic and 1990 classic too with a more exotic edge.

Many superb duos for these Châteaux: Lynch Bages, Léoville Barton and Las Cases, La Conseillante, Pichon Baron, Rausan Ségla, Pape Clément.

A 1990 i would like to try is Trotanoy, even more than Montrose!

[JoelD]

My two pre-tournament favourites were the two Leovilles. The Barton (93) had a promising nose, was classically red-fruited and lead-pencilled but did not quite deliver as I had hoped on the palate. Like the 1989 there are great bottles of this and merely good bottles. This was the latter. The Leoville Lascases really did deliver and in this flight it rowed relentlessly away from the others, like Sir Steve Redgrave in his prime, with lead pencil and graphite and a super texture and palate. A quite compelling wine and deservedly the group’s wotn. The two Montroses (both 91) were frustrating. The first which had been near a fire in a storage facility actually had a lovely texture and palate and the second one I think was marred by being a tad warm. The Cos D’Estournel (93) was expansive, full-bodied and open knit. Not the last word in precision but a pleasurable rumbustious wine.

Great notes, Ian. I'm a fan of 1990, probably ever so slightly over 1989. Hard to say though, it really seems to be producer by producer on which vintage that I feel is better.

What was your score on the Las Cases? I've had a few very quality bottles of this over the last 2 years. I just acquired an 89 to try as well.

Also, did you have two bottles of the 1990 Montrose? And both were disappointing?

[Comte Flaneur]

Hi Joel
My score on the LLC was 95 but upon reflection that is a little conservative. I voted for Trot as my wotn but upon reflection LLC probably was.
There was a fire at a London wine storage facility a few months ago which was quite fishy - could have been arson - and the first bottle of Montrose came from that storage and was initially covered in soot. It wasn’t quite right so we had a backup which frustratingly was served too warm. I don’t think a perfect bottle served at the perfect temp would have bettered the LLC.
Just a note on the Pichon Lalande - it matched superbly against the duck dish. As I said it my note, in isolation, it is a very pleasant wine. It lacks ambition, and suffers in comparison with other wines like Baron. Every wine we had that night you would be happy to drink.

[JoelD]

Hi Joel
My score on the LLC was 95 but upon reflection that is a little conservative. I voted for Trot as my wotn but upon reflection LLC probably was.
There was a fire at a London wine storage facility a few months ago which was quite fishy - could have been arson - and the first bottle of Montrose came from that storage and was initially covered in soot. It wasn’t quite right so we had a backup which frustratingly was served too warm. I don’t think a perfect bottle served at the perfect temp would have bettered the LLC.
Just a note on the Pichon Lalande - it matched superbly against the duck dish. As I said it my note, in isolation, it is a very pleasant wine. It lacks ambition, and suffers in comparison with other wines like Baron. Every wine we had that night you would be happy to drink.

That makes sense. I've felt the same about the 1990 Las Cases each time i've had it. Works its way up towards the top of the night for me. Although I think the 1990 Lynch Bages that MichaelP brought in March edged it out just slightly.

On another note, I felt almost exactly the same as you about the 1990 L'Evangile. However, I got to revisit it more as I was ignoring the VCC's at the Pomerol dinner. It crept into my top 3 somehow, even though it started in the middle of the pack whereas the 1989 did not. No fireworks but subtle, improving notes and balance across the board. I hope to try the 1990 Trotanoy sometime in the near future.

[Comte Flaneur]

Yes Joel, I had the 1990 Lynch a few weeks ago and I rated it 96, so it would have been up there with the LLC….both <<FG>> quality in 1990. So is Baron, I was just so maxed out at work I didn’t have time to DD it which was in hindsight a bad. I would have loved to have an evening just with the L’Evangile and the Trot. The sort of wines that sneak up on you and weave their charms around you.