On Jun 11, 10:18*am, "Bill S." > wrote:
> Notes from a vertical tasting dinner of Leoville Poyferre held by the
> Commanderie de Bordeaux at the Terminal City Club, Vancouver BC.
>
> With some reception nibblies of Emmenthal gougeres with crème fraiches
> and caviar, and iced Kumamoto oysters with sauternes jelly:
>
> 1999 Nicolas Feuillate Brut – decent toasty nose, the wine showing a
> bit on the acidic side on the roof of the mouth, good persistence and
> some mature notes in the finish.
>
> With a crispy shallot and prawn risotto with pea shoot salad:
>
> 2001 Ch. Carbonnieux blanc – toasty oak nose, soft supple wine a tad
> low in acidity. *No rush. *Decent with the excellent food.
>
> Main event – Leoville Poyferre vintages served youngest to oldest with
> three courses.
>
> With roast duck and foie gras terrine:
>
> 2000 – *a dark rather monolithic wine with great stuffing and
> extraction of flavours and a slight nuance of mint in the otherwise
> fruit driven nose. Ends with dry tannins. *This should be very nice –
> one day, about a decade hence.
>
> 1998 – *lighter than the 2000, with a marked black currant nose,
> already a supple harmonious wine that is now ready for drinking and
> should have a decent life ahead of it.
>
> 1996 – medium dark wine with a nice slightly smoky plumy nose, good
> structure excellent length and a nice shot of juicy acidity near the
> end. *Will have a long life but can be enjoyed from now.
>
> With roast loin of milk fed veal and a porcini mushroom and truffle
> brioche:
>
> 1995 – lovely sweet currant and cedar nose, really juicy and tasty in
> the mouth, sweet with good concentration, a very pleasurable wine.
>
> 1990 – *the nose on this wine was absolutely flat when opened and took
> an inordinate time to start showing much at all. It seemed a bit
> muddled on palate as well but eventually pulled together and showed
> decent fruit and finish. A disappointment that I am hoping is unusual
> as I have yet to broach my stash of this wine.
>
> 1989 – some spice in the nose, and cherries, tannins still apparent,
> but decent fruit, though it ended a bit abruptly. *Although more time
> might improve the wine, it also might not. *On balance I’d opt for
> drinking sooner rather than later, as in more modest company than
> these other wines it would offer pleasure.
>
> With grilled bison tenderloin with a pulled pork and potato croquette:
>
> 1986 – very good colour, a nice nose with more cherry and spice, the
> wine now (finally!) mellow on palate with good balance and length. My
> only criticism was a slight dilute impression in midpalate, but
> otherwise it drank fairly well.
>
> 1983 – a very nice mature nose of more plum than currant, and some
> cedar again, as well as vanilla, perhaps a tad ripe. *Good weight, a
> pleasant wine with smooth sweet presence in the mouth. A good 1983.
> Drink up.
>
> 1982 – a nose that was almost Rhonish, in that t was slightly warm
> and a slight bit medicinal. *Great concentration and weight, a wine to
> be drunk with pleasure and it should hold well, so no rush.
>
> To finish:
>
> 1996 Ch. Guiraud – medium golden colour (is it me, or are the young
> vintages taking on more colour at an earlier age that I recall the
> wines of the 70s and 80s doing?). A nose of orange marmalade, not too
> sweet in the mouth, and a nice long finish. *A good one.

I just opened a 1990 and it was terrific. Maybe you had an off
bottle? I know this topic has come up before but I would think that
the older wines would be better served before the younger ones. I
would think that your palate would be fresher and the newer wines
would be "bigger" and more tannic and could muddle up the palate for
the older more nuanced wines. Just a thought. Thanks for the
terrific notes as usual.