That's really rich! I guess that's a massive faux pas on my part! LOL.

On Dec 19, 9:10*am, "DaleW" > wrote:
> Actually I got the word "massive" from your note last year:
> 1966 Latour-Still quite dark with a clear rim and a slight brickish
> color. *Very tight nose of graphite. *Very firm black fruit with lots
> of cedar and leather and still massive black fruit and plum notes.
>
>
>
>
> Bi!! wrote:
> > We've decided on lobster with the whites and a duet of roasted guinea
> > hen and veal loin with the reds. *I had the '66 Latour recently and
> > it's still dark purple with rich deep cassis fruit. *The tannins were
> > well resolved though but the purity of the fruit really shines in this
> > wine. *I would call it "rich" as opposed to "massive" fruit. *The
> > Sabon, however, has MASSIVE fruit but I've had it with this particular
> > food pairing (there's a currant and plum sauce) and it really rocked.
> > In a sense the wine acted as a sauce....I'm not sure if that's a good
> > thing or not?
>
> > On Dec 18, 5:11?pm, "DaleW" > wrote:
> > > Veal (or roast chicken as I noted) ?is a good suggestion for most 40 yr
> > > old Bordeaux. But every note I've read on the '66 Latour says still
> > > tannic, massive fruit. I had the Forts last year and it was lively. I
> > > would guess the '66 Latour would crush veal.
>
> > > Anders T?rneskog wrote:
> > > > "DaleW" > skrev i melding
> > > roups.com...
> > > > > oh yeah, pairings.
> > > > >> > 1966 Chateau Latour
>
> > > > > Normally I'd say with 40 yr old Bordeaux roast chicken, but Latour is
> > > > > probably big enough to stand up to beef or lamb. Not ?rare steaks or
> > > > > chops,but like beef tenderloin in a red wine sauce or leg of lamb.
>
> > > > Why not veal? It's an old, well rounded wine. ?You may not need beef for
> > > > that, I guess.
> > > > Anders- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -