The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

WTN: Bordeaux Blind Tasting 1964-2004

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

Bill Spohn

Rank

He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'

Posts

10525

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:31 pm

Location

Vancouver BC

WTN: Bordeaux Blind Tasting 1964-2004

by Bill Spohn » Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:21 pm

Notes from a Bordeaux themed blind tasting

2015 Duckhorn Sauvignon Blanc – tropical fruit nose with a crisp, clean finish. Appealing wine.

2014 Cos d’Estournel blanc – more complex nose of citrus, a hint of sage and apple, and on palate it was even crisper with very good length. I preferred this (before I knew what it was) but can understand some going for the Duckhorn.

2010 Doisy Daene sec –more colour to this wine, and nose of light vanilla and pear, rich, smooth and balanced on palate. Very nice. Unlike some dry wines from Sauternes producers (Y-grec is a notable one) this had no hint of sweetness nor botrytis in the nose.

1964 Leoville Las Cases – amazing wine that seemed younger than it was. Pale garnet colour, mature nose of cassis and cedar, and long balanced on palate. This wine had a short life in the glass (usually a mistake to hold an old one in case it improves as they usually head the other way) but it was delightful while it lasted.

1976 Croizet Bages – had to work at this one to get the vintage until finally by mentally eliminating everything it could be but for various reasons wasn’t, this vintage came to mind. Mature colour and nose, fading a bit, and cloudy, but there was still some appeal there.

1993 La Fleur Petrus – this was my wine brought because I figured no one would think it was a 93 given the quality I knew it would show. Very good, slightly ripe fruit in the nose and a quite decent colour density, lots of acidity, clean medium length finish. Good showing.

1982 La Louviere- sweet oak and cedar nose, with a hint of mint, balanced and elegant with good fruit levels, and still some tannin at the end.

1986 Poujeaux – ripe leathery nose with dark berries, the tannins moderate and the wine enjoyable. No rush.

2004 Montrose – cocoa and currant nose, still a fair bit of firm tannin, but drinking quite well at this point. Not what I would call an attractive wine.

1990 Lagrange – I’ve never been a big fan of this St. Julien, but this one showed extremely well. Dark fruit and maturing wood, soft tannin and sweet fruit on palate, and good length. Although not a wine I see much around here, I will make a mental note to keep an eye out for it. Enjoyed it despite the lame ZZ Top jokes.

1978 Brane Cantenac – corked

1995 d’Armaillhac –tobacco, cedar and earth nose and slightly assertive tannin. The sweet fruit drps out early and the wine seems to have too much oak. I have some of this and must pull one to make sure this one was typical.

2000 Clerc Milon – blah nose with some dark fruit and cocoa. Mellow in the mouth with medium fruit. A could have been in search af a fruit injection.

1995 l’Arossee – light colour, light nose with some VA, some bright fruit but light on flavour, and with a moderately tannic finish. Should have been better?

1996 Grand Pontet – this wine was sadly corked – sadly because it still had good levels of sweet fruit and might have been enjoyable otherwise.

2002 Raymond Lafon Sauternes – medium gold, with a very nice nose of spicy apricot and melon and a long sweet finish. Great way to end.
no avatar
User

David M. Bueker

Rank

Childless Cat Dad

Posts

35804

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:52 am

Location

Connecticut

Re: WTN: Bordeaux Blind Tasting 1964-2004

by David M. Bueker » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:34 pm

Interesting notes. I have been through several bottles of '95 d'Armaillhac, and it has never seemed to be worth the time. Clerc Milon has also been dull, and that's vintage after vintage.
Decisions are made by those who show up
no avatar
User

Bill Spohn

Rank

He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'

Posts

10525

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:31 pm

Location

Vancouver BC

Re: WTN: Bordeaux Blind Tasting 1964-2004

by Bill Spohn » Sat Jul 01, 2017 9:49 pm

David M. Bueker wrote:Interesting notes. I have been through several bottles of '95 d'Armaillhac, and it has never seemed to be worth the time. Clerc Milon has also been dull, and that's vintage after vintage.


The 89 and 90 Clerc Milon are very good.

Armhaillac OTOH, often disappoints.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazonbot, ClaudeBot, LACNIC Exp and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign