I have liked the 2001 Bx that I have so far tried very much, so I was very happy that I got invited to a tasting with some high end examples on show. The wines were half-blind (or single blind if you prefer that terminology) with two fully blind "jokers" added in for good measure.
Blind starter: Schramsberg Brut Rosé 2003 is a great Californian bubbly. Very light coloured rosé. Almost all of us were thinking of Champagne because it was so elegant, and the nose was full of Bl de Noir scents like flowers and figs and earth. The palate was crisp, highly acidic yet still very concentrated. Most of us were thinking it was a prestige rosé Champagne. I am happy to say it is something a fraction of their price! Lovely stuff - though I have been blinded by Schramsberg several times before (and always I have thought it to be Champagne) this was truly exceptional.
Then we had half blind the following wines:
Ch. Kirwan 2001 (this was the first of the two fully blind jokers) I liked the nose: strawberry, slightly animal, deep and earthy and very sweet. The nose wasn't terribly Bx-like (though as an afterthought the strawberryness should have made me think of Margaux), but the palate was: dry, savoury, tannic, refreshing palate. It is leafy and elegant and I really liked it.
Ch. Figeac 2001 had a super sweet nose of coco-powder. Quite disgusting for my tastes (but it was very popular in the tasting - I must have bad tastes, lol!). The palate was better as it showed a savoury nuance and was not all about the oak. Still, I was very disappointed with this wine.
Ch. Palmer 2001 was one of my favourites tonight. The nose was leafy and savoury, classy and elegant, but very masculine and dark toned. I didn't notice any Margaux-like elegance to it even when revealed! The palate also was very masculine and powerful with graphite and dark toned fruit to the refreshing herbal character. Lovely!
Ch. Pontet-Canet 2001 was nice. Not my favourite tonight, but still nice - so I have to eat my words, since I've said bad things about this wine before. I tend to find most P-Cs a bit too "international" (or "modern" or "spoofy" or whatever wording you choose to use) for my taste, but the '98 was rather nice, and this '01 was also very enjoyable. Savoury, herbal, sweetish oak, but classy - a bit brooding at the moment. The palate had lovely balance and didn't seem too oaky though the toastiness has been a complaint in some other vintages I've had. Very nice!
Ch. Latour 2001 was a classic Pauillac, young and brooding, showing much promise but, of course, not giving everything it will have. It is a delightfully savoury style and obviously has much in reserve. It isn't as masculine or magisterial as I thought Latour would be, but rather was a charming and typically classic Médoc. I liked it very much, but it wasn't among my favourites tonight.
La Mission Haut-Brion 2001 was a tough wine tonight. It was a massive blob, indistinct in its features, showing more like a primordial ooze than a finished wine. But there was some very attractive savouryness to it. Despite being very difficult, it did show enough of itself that I am happy to own one bottle.
Ch. Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande 2000 was our second "joker". I have found too many 2000s a bit more ripe than ideal for my tastes, but this has on both previous times I have tasted it been outstanding. And so it was tonight. Leafy, elegant, not at all over-ripe, but still very attractively fruity. Savoury. Lovely.
Ch. Cheval Blanc 2001 was dark toned, herbal, obviously a classy wine but more closed than the others. It showed sweeter than the other wines tonight, it was oaky but not bothersomely so, savoury and prominently tannic. Nice, but rather tought now. It lacked the charm I perceived in the others, but did show promise. This was after the Figeac my least favourite tonight - but I must really like the vintage's style (if you believe in such a thing as "vintage style") if even one of my least favourites is a wine I would love to drink again.
Ch. Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande 2001 was overtly oaky yet not too toasty, it had lovely savoury and floral nuances and seemed as delightfully vegetal and savoury as I am used to with this property. It had nice grip and minerality on the palate, savoury fruit and a long finish. Quite lovely.
Ch. Lafite 2001 was rather sweetly fruity and oaky, nice but a bit simple on the nose. But the palate more than made up for it: savoury, leafy, lovely structure, very Pauillac. It is obviously a lovely wine but is in a bit of a tough phase now.
Then we had a dessert:
Ch. d'Yquem 2001 was oaky and smelled like coconut. It does have bright, citrussy fruit and elegant botrytis, and bright acidity also to balance it, but I still find the cigar-box-like oak too dominant. I often seem to have problems understanding d'Yquem.
Then we had a few more blind desserts:
Disznókö Tokaji 6 Puttonyos 1993 was bright, floral and darkly citrussy. It wasn't as spicy as I expect Tokaji to be. The palate has lovely high acidity and earthy notes. I liked it very much.
Disznókö Tokaji Aszú Eszencia 1993 was more oxidised in character than the 6 Putt - appley, earthy, oxidised and very acidic. Stunning stuff for my tastes.
Disznókö Tokaji Eszencia 1993 has 4,5% abv and over 400g/l RS and smells like Pedro Ximenez sherry! The palate is stunningly complex - more so than any PX I've had and better balanced because of its supremely high acidity. It is very intense and curiously light on its feet despite the massive sweetness. Great stuff, but the Aszú Eszencia is better balanced for me.
This was a really lovely tasting. It confirmed my previous thoughts on 2001 Bx - it really is a vintage to my taste. It is classic and savoury and not overbearing.
-Otto-