Wine Musings Vol#67: Cru dinner (III)

Wine of Merit: ****Chateau Margaux, Estate, Margaux, Bordeaux, 1983: A lovely wine that can easily get lost in a crowd if one isn’t attentive. The 1983 is a special Margaux vintage and this wine held its own. Suave, velvety, nuanced, this was a meal-in-a-glass that however must be consumed with the best table manners and white glove service. Red fruit driven, with hints of grilled meat, smoke, cassis, tagine spices and flowers, I was happy to slow down and focus a bit on this lovely, sophisticated prima donna. In reality this wine is more a grand damme, showing its age more than slightly, more full bodied than svelte, perhaps a bit stubborn but still in complete control of its faculties, still perfectly proportioned, silky smooth and still very much demanding of respect and admiration. Delicious and worthy of the accolades.

**+Dunn Vineyards, Howell Mountain, cabernet sauvignon, 1990: Somewhat controversial. Many loved this wine. I found something off about it. It seemed almost dirty to me, as if the filter used when taking it from barrel to glass was not cleaned well. Others were not so concerned – even placing it in the top 5 of the night. Beyond this detraction, I found the wine a touch vegetal, with some good cedar, minerals and brambly mountain fruit that seemed perhaps a bit dried up. The palate was firm and I thought a touch disjointed. Don Rice commented that he thought something was “wrong” with this wine…and I agree. I love Randy Dunn’s wines - I think the 82 Howell Mountain maybe one of the best mountain cabs I have ever had (next to the 74 Mayacamus)…but this one seemed lacking to me. Perhaps I needed to spend more time with it…but I just couldn’t bring myself to do it.

***+Chateau Ducru Beaucaillou, Estate, St. Julien, Bordeaux, 1982: While I am appreciative of all that Bordeaux has to offer, I am I think most appreciative of St. Julien. And amongst the St. Julien houses, Ducru Beaucaillou somehow seems to have my number. And among the great wines of Ducru, 1982 is the standard. So…I am always happy to crack a bottle of this wine. Solid red and black currant fruit, cassis, cedar, broad leaf tobacco, a touch of loam and spice, this wine has wonderful depth and flavor. Coating and layered upon entry, the palate introduces melted black licorice and an excellent mineral profile. A smidge of a drop off mid palate may be this wines only flaw. The finish is furry and sweet and seems to last longer than a wine made in my high school graduating year has any right to presume. Lovely and a rarity in this day…something you can bank on and trust to perform. Delicious.

Spring Mountain Vineyards, Estate, Spring Mountain district, cabernet sauvignon, 1978: I include this only so as to be thorough. This wine was corked. As is typical, much convo ensued about “how corked” it was…for me corked is corked. I was surprised at how youthful and seemingly vibrant the palate was. Still, this is a DQ in my book. Moving on…

***+Peter Michael Winery, Estate, Les Pavots, Knights Valley, 1997: Les Pavots is a Bordeaux-like blend, mostly cabernet sauvignon, that tends toward high extraction and even higher alcohol content. In this case we are talking 14.8%. I have always found it fairly open knit upon release and have often wondered if it really had any aging potential at all. This wine is super ripe and a bit volatile. Prune danish, baking spices, iodine, kirsch and autumnal forest floor elements, this almost has Amarone-like qualities, which in and of themselves are not off putting…in fact I dig them, though I find the heat distracting. The palate feels at once a bit thin upfront and then fat and vague from the mid palate on…perhaps a wine that is best consumed sooner rather than later. I think that the Sonoma Mountain fruit could probably present a more integrated, balanced picture if the wine was treated more even handedly. As it is it is yummy, but perhaps a bit too manufactured.

Wine Musings LTD: Palmer vs Montelena

Notes taken December, 2005:

Nothing exceeds like excess – that said, this tasting was more focused than most, really exploring the signatures of Chateaus Palmer and Montelena. I think the net/net is where we figured we would net out – I have become one of the scores of “Palmer Heads”. While I have always appreciated the wine, this tasting really succeeded in detailing why this wine is so good – and in great vintages it is ethereal. And Montelena is nothing if not consistent. A very obvious signature. Honestly, the wines showed marked improvement in the 90s from the 80s, probably thanks to better wine making tools and technique. I am glad I started buying their wines in 1991.

1st flight: Getting our sea legs. All 3 wines were surprisingly concentrated given their age. Wine one was elegant and perhaps the most fragile of the 3. Mature color to the rim, red fruit, cigar box, cassis, minerals. Really, super good, nice grip, with decent length. With time in the glass more pronounced vanilla and hazelnut. I thought Palmer, turned out to be the 82 Margaux. Wine 2 was lovely as well, a bit darker in color, I thought it suffered from some TCA on the nose. Still… perfumed, violets and black fruit. Integrated on the palate, perhaps a bit thinner than wine one, furry tannins on the finish makes the loss in the mid palate more pronounced. Still, very good. It was the 82 Montelena from magnum. Last wine was dynamite. Also showing a mature color, and red fruit, and tar on the nose, it had a more concentrated crème de cassis thing going on, some cream and pronounced tobacco. I thought this wine was more muscular than wine 1 and so guessed Margaux. Turned out to be 83 Palmer. Most liked wine 3, than 2 than 1, I think. At least I did!

2nd flight: 1st wine was pure elegance. Beautiful red and blackberry fruit, autumnal, tobacco and licorice. Thick full palate, perfectly integrated. Fool me twice, shame on me. It was the 85 Palmer. Wine 2 was something of a dud. Way overripe, stewed fruits and soy, rasiny and blown out. Maybe a bad bottle, but these elements persisted across multiple bottles, in a more integrated way, throughout the Montelena vertical. This was the 85 Montelena. The sleeper of the flight was the 86 Laurel Glen, which was fabulous. Black fruit, mint and yes, forest bottom. Palate coating, great mouthfeel. A bit of heat on the finish tells me this is probably ready to go. Great wine. I flip flopped the LG and the Montelena out of respect for Monti, never again. I think the consensus was 3,1,2.

3rd flight: Some really good wines here as well. Wine 1 was on the softer side nose wise, but showed excellent structure underneath. A little bit more brooding, it offered sweet and minty black fruit, some chalk, lead pencil and cedar which told me Paulliac. It was the 89 Pichon Lalande. Very sexy. Love this wine. Wine 2 had the signature “raisinette” (to quote Bill Rogers) chocolate, raisins and a touch of soy. Firm, complex, still seems youthful. 87 Montelena. The 3rd wine offered solid color and structure, was perhaps more floral and perfumed than other vintages, great balance and integration with sweet tannins on the finish. Again, an incredibly elegant glass of vino. 89 Palmer. Not sure of the table order, mine was 1 and 3 neck and neck, then 2.

Into the 90s we go…

1st flight: Wine 1: Wow! Great wine. Dark and brooding. Still showing the chocolate and raisin thing, but much more depth and concentration, adding minerals and a licorice like element to the fruit. Fantastic. I have always liked this wine and drank too much of it early on. Couldn’t stay away. 1991 Montelena. Wine 2 showed a garnet/almost ruby color, very good extraction, church incense, tobacco, rose petal and jammy red fruit. Wonderful integration and yes, elegance. 1990 Palmer. Wine 3 was for me best in flight. Solid, dark red/purple. Mocha, earth, espresso bean, red fruit. A St. Julien like signature and palate – but since there was non I knew it was the 90 Dominus. Here, finally, the Palmer seemed a bit outclassed by the rivals.

2nd flight: Wine 1 was really, really good. Opulent, mocha and red fruit (seems like there is a lot of Merlot in this wine), bramble and some iodine. Deep, complex, stunning palate. The merlot gives the 95 Pahlmeyer away. Nice bottle. Wine 2 was deep purple, consistent through to the rim. More chocolate and black fruit, much less of that stewed fruit/soy thing, floral and cedar. Lovely wine fine tannins, great balance and integration. The 1996 Montelena shows a marked improvement in my book and I am confident it will cellar well. The 1995 Palmer was particularly good. Great concentration of minerals, red fruit and tobacco, maybe more perfumed cigar box. Big, firm tannins, amazingly young, I am glad I have a bunch of this wine and will leave it in the cellar for a while. Hard to judge ranking here, they were all wonderful.

3rd flight: The 99 Palmer was fantastic. A bit of a sleeper I think. Thick, licorice like fruit on the palate. More black fruit than red, mocha, tobacco and some bramble. Wow. Very young and very good. The 1997 Montelena was also very good. It showed great depth, again mocha and raisins but also black fruit and much better complexity and integration. Big structure without losing balance, a very nice wine as well. I thought the 1996 was better. The 99 Margaux again had me thinking Palmer. Perfumed, maybe a bit feminine, nice red fruit and mocha with some autumn leaves and cigar box. Very nice wine that will probably drink a little earlier than others but still offers great grip and length. I would/will buy more of the 99 Palmer - in fact maybe I’ll sell the 97 Montelena and pay for it that way! Easy choice, 1 then 3 then 2.

I forgot the mystery wine. It turned out to be the 2000 Falesco Montiano. Italian Merlot (100%)! Made in the Lazio region, not a region we think of as wine producing. To me it was very new world, lots of purity of forward fruit, not a lot of structure, very “international” in it style. I didn’t get the mocha element, instead thinking it almost more blueberry. I guessed Grenache. A very, very nice glass of wine…but not what I think of when I think Italy.