WTN: '95 Pichon Baron

He who does not err is dead! Not an ideal place to be!!!

What are you an atheist?

Totally double blind (with no verbal hints or questions answered) is really hard. As Mark noted, he second guessed himself and went with a structured Cal Cab (not plonk). I question anyone who thinks double blind they could never mistake a Dunn, Mayacamas, Montelena, older Phelps or Heitz, etc for a Medoc. Similarly, I think most of us could guess CA for many post 1990 Bordeaux (especially things like recent Pavies and Pontet-Canets). I've guessed '98 Right Bank on a '99 Supertuscan, too.

Totally double blind (with no verbal hints or questions answered) is really hard. As Mark noted, he second guessed himself and went with a structured Cal Cab (not plonk). I question anyone who thinks double blind they could never mistake a Dunn, Mayacamas, Montelena, older Phelps or Heitz, etc for a Medoc. Similarly, I think most of us could guess CA for many post 1990 Bordeaux (especially things like recent Pavies and Pontet-Canets). I've guessed '98 Right Bank on a '99 Supertuscan, too.

I believe you, Dale. What makes me wonder, and why I want to answer my question once and for all, is that I have never had a Cal Cab that I liked, even supposedly good ones (but I don't think I have tasted the best of the best - and I have taken notes from your list above). At the same time I adore Bordeaux and have very rarely had a bottle I didn't like, even those of low pedigree. So the idea that I could drink a Cal Cab and think it was a Bordeaux confuses me. However, all kinds of evidence points to the high probability that I could be easily fooled.

However, I have many times on this forum said that I think the taste of a wine is in the mind more than in the glass - that expectations and overtones of personal meaning create the nature of the "taste", so I might have answered my own question and didn't fully appreciate it.

I taste a lot of wine blind and have founbd that there are two sorts of Bordeaux. The first sort screams claret at me before I even taste it - the minute you dip your nose near the glass, you get the typical nose we love. The other sort have a more international sort of nose, so you need to delve into what you find on palate to determine what it is (and even then, the odd one can fool you).

I have to say that I see more of the second type in more recent vintages. Maybe they are a result of Parkerization, or Rollandization, or whatever, but it is like a cookie cutter template they seem to force the wine through that strips off some of the old typicity while (allegedly) making cleaner more modern wine.

I haven't started in on my 1995s much yet, but you remind me that I have some 1990 Pichon Baron that should be nice now (and some 88 I should reallly get into)

[Jenise]

But I don't know what any of this has to do with Mark and his bottle, he obviously loves Bordeaux and understands it pretty well. Most likely this is just about how a particular wine showed on a particular day.

If the Emperor has no clothes, it is high time for me to face it. If I can't tell the difference, then I might as well just pour California plonk into my Bordeaux bottles as I empty them.

Oh, the emporer's not naked--like I said, most of the time the difference is obvious. But there are occasional exceptions for various reasons, and certain wines would be more prone to cause error where others wouldn't 'pass' in a hundred years to an experienced taster. I could pour you two wines made by Michel Rolland, one here in Washington and one at his own estate in Bordeaux, and defy you to tell the difference.

I hate to be the one to break the news but confusing wines on tasting is hardly extraordinary. I recall once Broadbent mistaking a Rhone for a Bordeaux. A young journalist at the tasting asked him, in shock, "Mr. Broadbent, how could you make such a mistake?". Broadbent smiled calmoly at the journalist and said "It doesn't happen often, young woman. Not more than once or twice a day"

Reminiscent of the late, lamented Harry Waugh's quip in response to a question as to whether he'd ever mistaken Bordeaux for Burgundy: "not since lunch." And, for blind tasting feats, how about his tour de force identification of a wine by its structure after losing his sense of smell in a car accident?

Mark Lipton

Oh, the emporer's not naked--like I said, most of the time the difference is obvious. But there are occasional exceptions for various reasons, and certain wines would be more prone to cause error where others wouldn't 'pass' in a hundred years to an experienced taster. I could pour you two wines made by Michel Rolland, one here in Washington and one at his own estate in Bordeaux, and defy you to tell the difference.

Maybe it is time to make a distinction, then, and maybe not call the modern clarets Bordeaux at all, any more than you would call a Monton Cadet a Bordeaux, just because it comes from the region.

Maybe I will come out and visit my favorite colleague, Liebe, who lives in Seattle, and swing by for just that test. One way or the other, I am going to set up a blind tasting with either your Rolland Washington bottle, or one or several of the bottles that Dale mentioned, and see.

I probably flatter myself (probably!?), but it is possible, if unlikely, that I really do have a unique ability to differentiate tastes that many other folks do not. When I was a young man (yes, I was) I used to bet barflies that I could identify different blended whiskeys. I would guess six out of six, etc., poured blind by the barkeep. But I have never been put to the test with my even greater passion, Bordeaux.

[David M. Bueker]

Covert - given that you pretty much drink Bordeaux (at least you've implied as much), you might have an easier time nailing. Most people have more far ranging drinking habits, thus more clutter in their blind tasting database.

Covert - given that you pretty much drink Bordeaux (at least you've implied as much), you might have an easier time nailing. Most people have more far ranging drinking habits, thus more clutter in their blind tasting database.

That's a good point, David. I don't drink any other kinds of red in my house, except Burgundy on rare occasions, which would be hard to mistake for Bordeaux. Any other wine stands out instantly. I only time I drink other kinds of wine is when I am in company where it is served and it would slight folks if I refused. I sip at it a bit and leave most of it.

I could pour you two wines made by Michel Rolland, one here in Washington and one at his own estate in Bordeaux, and defy you to tell the difference.

I find this difficult to believe but I'm very intrigued. If you could recommend two wines that are not too hard to find (I live in NYC) that are not too expensive ($30 or under?) I would be very eager to try this. Perhaps I'll bring this experiment to my next Bordeaux group's tasting.

Matt
I hope so. I have two bottles of the 95 and one older one (a 1985?) and I wasn't expecting to crack the 95s for a few years yet. The reference to tightness and lack of complexity gave me some reassurance that now isn't a good time to open them... but any dissenting views out there?
regards
Ian

Ian

I also have one of the 85 tucked away. I was going to open it next month as part of the big 50 celebrations. I have also pulled together 3 different '59 which I will let you know about posting drinking.

Cheers
Mark

Mark
Happy advance congrats for your birthday!
... and yes always keen to see TN's on older wines, so please post your thoughts whether great or shot.
regards
Ian