The 2014 Chateau Ducru Beaucaillou has been uncorked and other ramblings....

[JimHow]

I've been in this strange mindset lately questioning whether Ducru is overrated -- other than the 1961, which Ducru has ever blown me away? -- thought I'd uncork one of these puppies with some wild Alaska Coho salmon....

[JimHow]

I've been ordering a dozen of these six ounce cuts of Sockeye and Coho Alaska salmon from wildalaskancompany.com every two months, I've been very impressed! (Not an advertisement, but I recommend you check it out.)

[JimHow]

It was great to see JC last week. He's a good man, a true BWE spirit.
I swung up to the Berkshires the next day to pick up a stash of 2019/20 Phelan Segur, 2019 d'Armailhac, and other goodies from Saratoga Wine Exchange, then dinner in Pittsfield, Mass., with my 91 year old Uncle Ray -- my mother's kid brother, chemistry Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins, instructor at Deerfield Academy for decades, still sharp as a tack -- and my beloved Aunt Diana, a lit major Bates College gal, former NYC book editor -- the last of the aunts/uncles, they don't make them much better. We uncorked one of the 1988 Pichon Lalandes -- baby doll, everything you expect from that wine from that vintage -- and a tight-as-a-witch's-ass 2014 Montrose -- it hurt so good....

Off again to Southeast Asia at the end of next week, life is good!

[JimHow]

This '14 Ducru seems almost a little sour, mouth-puckering... definitely "bigger" than the beautiful '14 Branaire from the other night.... But there is substance here, I think it needs some oxygen.

[JimHow]

I do remember liking that 1982 Ducru in the Anonymous Benefactor's tasting in NYC in 2003. They really did go through a rough stretch there, I think the general consensus is 1988 to 1990, but I think a lot of us think the problem existed at least far back as the second half of the 1970s.... By 1994 though it seems to have been cleared up. Boy didn't we stir up a hornet's nest in 2015 when Ian broached the issue with the winemaker during our visit in 2015. "Nonsense! Robert Parker found nothing wrong in a blind tasting!" (As interpreted through Nicola.). Hey, all I can do is account for my own experiences, even I, JimHow, he of a terrible nose for cork, recall multiple bottles from the era that were often ragingly corked....

[JimHow]

Mmmm wild Alaska salmon and St. Julien Bordeaux... does it get any better than that....

[JimHow]

I have to admit I got a little choked up yesterday, David, I've been waiting 50+ years....

[JimHow]

Godspeed to the international crew of Artemis. Translunar injection burn scheduled within the hour....

[Nicklasss]

That visit at Ducru Beaucaillou in 2015 was… i can’t find the right word… let say different, a bit like Angine de Poitrine.

While i think Haut Brion is one of the most consistent top Bordeaux, i would say that Ducru Beaucaillou is less consistent with very high highs, and some wines that you can’t figure out why they are so blaaaa.

Looking forward you final comments and rating of that 2014 Ducru Beaucaillou.

[JimHow]

I’ve gotta say, Nicola, I’ve had the 2014 Ducru 4-5 times now, it just does not grab me. It may be too young. But I’ve had young Bordeaux that has enthused me, like the 2014 Calon Segur. I’ll give this a place holder score of 90 points for now. I have 13 more bottles in the cellar, I’ll keep hoping it shows more over the next decade or two.

[Nicklasss]

By the way, i did not won the lotery, but i have a doctor! Lastbtime i saw a doctor (elseehere than in emergency mode at the hospital) was when i was 20 or 21 yo…

First meeting with my new doctor this morning, many test and blood/pee/poop samples and pressure, heart measurements to do a good assessment of my status… consulting AI all the time during the discussion… and i had the new talk, the new truth, the reason, the speech about the fact i have to drink less alcohol, as new studies say so. Hum? I told the doctor i prefer to die before the end of the World, than die during the end of The World. Ask your AI what it thinks about that?

[JimHow]

I met with my heart doctor yesterday, my numbers are all great. I’ve lost 24 pounds, I feel great. Just drink in moderation. Take a few days off from time to time. I’ll be fasting for most of the next three weeks as I head off to Asia. The liver and kidneys are very resilient, they just need a little rest from time to time.

[stefan]

>>
I think a lot of us think the problem existed at least far back as the second half of the 1970s.
>>

Indeed. The taint is in many bottles from 1975 and 1978.

>>
While i think Haut Brion is one of the most consistent top Bordeaux, i would say that Ducru Beaucaillou is less consistent with very high highs, and some wines that you can’t figure out why they are so blaaaa.
>>

I could not have said it better.

Nic, early detection of health problems is the key to avoiding making Marie Claude a young widow. Annual visits to your doctor accompanied by blood and urine tests are a must at your age.

[JimHow]

I second what Stefan says, Nicola. At your age you should be getting a full panel of blood tests annually, liver, kidneys, prostate, thyroid, cholesterol, pancreas, etc., etc., etc., I'm assuming you've had at least one colonoscopy, blood pressure monitored, etc. I have two doctors here, one for primary care and one for heart health. Yes you have to fight through insurance and bureaucracy, but you have to make sure you get screened EVERY year. If you are getting administrative push back then you need to be a dink and make a scene about it until you get in for your tests. And, yes, you need to check your alcohol consumption. The best advice a doctor gave me was years ago, probably when I was around your age, I expressed concerns about alcohol, it seems pretty obvious and not very profound: "Jim, just exercise moderation." It's really not that hard. The liver is very forgiving. But trust me, and I know this painfully from personal family experience, you don't want to push it past the point of no return. The bad result is a very, very difficult ending.

[Comte Flaneur]

I bought some of 14 Ducru after your note Jim some years ago. I have tried it twice and think it is a great wine and a great Ducru, at or close to first growth level. But it did come across as being very young. I think it may now just be closing down for a while. I have a six pack in storage and won’t think about releasing it for another decade or so.

Regarding the problems in the cellar at Ducru 1988 to 1990 were supposed to have been the worst years, but my case of 1986 was horribly afflicted and I had bad luck with the 78s and only a 50% hit rate with the 82s. I have one 82 left.

[Claudius2]

Guys
I visited DC once before BWE existed and this wine was for some years one of my very favorites. I have not bought it since 1995.

I started drinking Bordeaux in the 70s and I found the wines of St Julien to suit my palate. DC, the Leovilles, GL, Branaire etc seemed fruitier and easier for my Australian palate to fathom. By 1985 I had somehow become concerned. Things were somehow going wrong with DC. The 85 was okay but too earthy and a bit odd.

In a drunken moment at DC one of the staff there told me the unofficial story. The Chais was apparently painted with a fungicide meant to prevent the wine from going off. Before that, some of the wine was tainted and thus fungicide was used to prevent further issues. Yeah that worked…

Apparently the product used affected the fermentation and maturation of the wine leading to off wine. I found the 86, 88 snd 90 to be something of a disaster and stopped buying it. The wine wasn’t corked, it was just off.

Since then there have been various explanations as to why the wines were badly affected by something, whatever that is. The wines from 86 to 90 were a disaster. Sure not every bottle was ruined but the cases of 86 88 and 90 I had bought EP brought tears to my eyes - and for the wrong reason. Initially they seemed corked. But after a bottle or two, it did not seem corky. Something was a batch issue not a cork taint.

So few seemed to accept the story I was directly told. So bring once bitten twice shy, I did not but DC until the 1995 vintage and somehow just lost interest as the bottles of tainted wines saw my mood flatten.

Some of the very best wines I have ever sipped wee from DC. It was rather heartbreaking to try tainted wines again and again.

I don’t have a single bottle of DC now but have nsny vintages of LLC, LB, Branaire, GL, and a few of LP, Langoa Barton, Talbot and Clos Marquis. I still have much love for St Julien.

I think this reminds me of white Burgundy randox which wasted a lot of my cash for several years. All sorts of theories were espoused for it. I’m somewhat unconvinced.

Cheers
Mark

[s*d*r]

I second what Stefan says, Nicola. At your age you should be getting a full panel of blood tests annually, liver, kidneys, prostate, thyroid, cholesterol, pancreas, etc., etc., etc., I'm assuming you've had at least one colonoscopy, blood pressure monitored, etc.

Well Jim, not all of these tests are required for routine screening for people of average risk. What we really want to know is blood pressure, blood sugar (diabetes) and heart attack risk, which is determined from the level of various lipids (blood fats) with follow-up as indicated. And cancer risk, which for men is colon cancer screening. Prostate cancer screening is controversial.

Other tests routinely included in yearly physicals in the past, such as chest X-ray, urinalysis and ECG as well as some blood tests, have not been shown to useful for predicting or improving future diseases.

Of course if you have symptoms or a strong family history of certain conditions, more intensive testing is indicated.

A personal relationship with a primary care doctor is very helpful to decide exactly what you need.

[DavidG]

What Stu said.

Ignoring periodic checkups and recommended screenings is risky. Too much testing can also be a problem, and sometimes we just aren’t certain about what is and isn’t helpful (e.g. PSA for prostate cancer screening).

Since many of us are different from the statistical average described in most studies, the best advice is Stu’s last recommendation: establish a relationship with a primary care physician.

Long live all BWEs.

[JCNorthway]

As a prostate cancer survivor (diagnosed at age 53), I'm not really a supporter of that decision to back off PSA testing. Look at Joe Biden; he apparently was tested according to the new protocol, and ended up with metastatic prostate cancer that would have been caught several years earlier with regular testing. I think the issue that surfaced with the recommended yearly testing was that some cancers were treated with more severe methods than they should have. But there is other testing that can be done to determine the aggressiveness of prostate cancers so doctors can decide how best to treat it. and that is what was lacking in some cases.

[stefan]

Docs, is there any downside in doing an annual urinalysis? The cost is low, and there are a number of possible problems that might be caught.

[DavidG]

Jon, I happen to agree with you and still get a PSA annually, even though there are two different schools of thought on that.

The argument against routine testing is that it leads to more morbidity and complications from false positives and unnecessary biopsies than it prevents by early detection. That might be true on a large population basis but there are different ways to analyze the data and come to a different conclusion. And population statistics don’t really have much meaning when applied to an individual. As in your case and the examples you cited, a 1% risk is 100% if you happen to be the one. So individual health care decisions, while informed by population statistics, really are individual decisions.

I might stop at some point when I get older since most prostate cancers are slow growing and something else will likely get me before developing metastatic disease.

Stefan, I have to plead ignorance to your urinalysis question. My PCP doesn’t have me do one but there might be reasons to do so based on presence of some chronic conditions or past history.

[stefan]

>>
since most prostate cancers are slow growing and something else will likely get me before developing metastatic disease.
>>

That is a good argument for opting out of surgery if you strongly suspect that the cancer is low grade, but isn't a biopsy is needed to determine whether the prostate cancer is high grade?

[DavidG]

>>
since most prostate cancers are slow growing and something else will likely get me before developing metastatic disease.
>>

That is a good argument for opting out of surgery if you strongly suspect that the cancer is low grade, but isn't a biopsy is needed to determine whether the prostate cancer is high grade?

Yes, a biopsy is needed in that situation.

The original question, though, is a step earlier in that chain, before you know whether there is any cancer there: Is yearly PSA testing in asymptomatic individuals beneficial?

Analysis of the percentage of high PSAs leading to a biopsy, the percentage of negative biopsies, and the percentage of complications associated with those biopsies, when compared with the percentage of positive biopsies leading to early detection/reduction of high grade cancers, is what lead some (many?) experts to conclude that yearly testing of asymptomatic individuals is a net negative for the population.

There are some assumptions and value judgments baked into that analysis which not all experts agree on, and which don’t necessarily apply uniformly to everyone considering whether to be tested. Which is why the most common recommendation is now (I think, Stu can correct me if I’m off) for people to discuss the advantages and disadvantages with their PCP or urologist and come to a shared decision on testing.

At my age, I’d rather take the risk of a false positive and a complication from a biopsy that is negative for cancer than take the risk of letting an undetected low-grade tumor become high-grade. Even if the math says the latter risk is lower. There’s a certain amount of personal choice involved in choosing which risks one is more comfortable with. Kind of like deciding what percentage of your retirement nest egg to put into equities vs. bonds vs cash.

[stefan]

Reviewing my test history, I see that my last PSA test was five years ago even though I had high grade bladder cancer in that interval with PCG treatment afterwards and many follow up tests. I'll correct that next time I have blood work done. (For the non docs, people who have bladder cancer have 19 times the risk of developing prostate cancer that normal males have.)

[s*d*r]

PSA Screening:

This is from "UpToDate," a comprehensive medical information source.

Benefits and harms of screening – The best available evidence from randomized trials found that screening has at most[ a small benefit in reducing prostate cancer mortality and the risk of developing metastatic disease.

The potential benefits of screening must be balanced against the potential harms to quality of life, including the risks of false-positive tests, prostate biopsy, anxiety, overdiagnosis, and treatment complications. (See 'Benefits and harms of screening' above.)


https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f6mbpwrv ... s22e5&dl=0

So it's a lukewarm recommendation for men between ages 50 to 69 of average risk but not beyond.

But if you are high risk like Stefan, these guidelines do not apply.

The reason is because the great majority of prostate cancers are very slow growing (decades) and usually do not affect the individual at all. Unfortunately, we lack a perfect test to determine which ones are not, short of biopsy.

David has enumerated the disadvantages of screening. In addition, there is the risk of side effects from radiation, androgen deprivation therapy or chemotherapy from treatment of cancer destined to be indolent.

[s*d*r]

Docs, is there any downside in doing an annual urinalysis? The cost is low, and there are a number of possible problems that might be caught.

Well, as you say, there is minimal risk. But also minimal gain.


Indications for testing (UpToDate)

When to perform a urinalysis — A urinalysis may provide diagnostic insight in the following settings:

●In a patient with an acute or chronic reduction in the glomerular filtration rate or unexplained albuminuria.
●In a patient with suspected kidney disease. Kidney disease may be suspected on the basis of clinical findings (eg, edema) or because of a concurrent illness or condition that is commonly associated with kidney disease (eg, systemic lupus erythematosus, small-vessel vasculitis, newly identified hypertension).

Though frequently performed in the United States [1], a urinalysis is not indicated as part of routine screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria prior to nonurologic procedures [2]. (See "Preoperative testing Average-risk population — Evidence of the efficacy of screening for bladder cancer is lacking. There are no randomized trials or case-control studies that assess outcomes in screened versus unscreened populations. Most evidence on bladder cancer is from observational studies, which show mixed results. However, observational studies are of limited usefulness because they are subject to multiple confounders as well as to lead-time bias and length-time bias.

Once again the presence of symptoms, especially blood in the urine or painful urination for example clearly require a urinalysis for evaluation.

[stefan]

Thanks, Stuart. That is excellent information.