Solihull Fine Wine Society July Tasting.

from leafy Edgbaston, a vertical of Beaucastel.
Not blind except for vintages. We knew we were going from recent to older.
All double decanted.

2004, purple edge, spice berries and iron nose, young palate with fruit and
tannins balanced by good acidity. Infanticide but drinking well now.

1999, hint of age, farmyard, muted vanilla, liquorice. Big and fat palate
with layers of fruit and herbs. Opulent and complex, try again 5 years.

1998, deep red, nose of tapenade and crushed garden herbs. Massive fruit and
tannins, hits the roof of your mouth and is long. ? a bit over extracted.
Atypical?

1996, bright, a wonderful nose of balckpepper, herbs and farmyard, even
floral hints.....and then the let down, light on palate, even a little thin,
finished short. Drink now.

1995, amazing depth,, sweetshop, leather and pepper, mouthful of fruit,
alcohol,tannins, not come together, rather austere. Undecided as to the
future.

1994, much lighter than the 95, but what a nose of feminine charms, ( a CDP
feminine!!?), complex aniseed and garden pink perfume, sherbet, woodland
floor. An enchanting mouthful of soft berry fruit and spice. Long. Drinking
well now.

1990, depth and browning edge, a nose that I will always remember, wonderful
complex spice and berries, leather, layers of Autumn smells, walking through
a beech wood in November, so complex. And even better on the palate,
opulent, racy, silky tannins, layers of fruit and spice, long. One of the
finest CDP's I have ever tasted. Easy WOTN by all of us. This will live for
years yet.

1989, huge depth and mature edge, restrained nose. liquorice and pepper
again, complex. Fat fruit and tannins, layer upon layer, a hidden beauty,
try again ten years. 2nd WOTN.

Well it was hard work, four flights of two.

The older wines outshone the youth, but there were mutterings that the
lighter recent wines were a sign of the Perrins producing more dilute CDP?
Jury out on that.


I was the driver, so I took a good ISO glass of 7 and 8 home sealed with
clingfilm. My wife who is not a great Rhoner, thought the 1990 to be
wonderful, but the 89 was rather coarse !!!

Chacun son gout.................................

John T

John T wrote:
> Solihull Fine Wine Society July Tasting.
>
Thanks John for the great notes. Sounds like a pleasure.

In general I think with the possible exception of 2005 there has not
been a vintage in CdP to rival the greats, 89 and 90, since. So it
may be unfair to judge modern Beaucastels based on these references...

> from leafy Edgbaston, a vertical of Beaucastel.
> Not blind except for vintages. We knew we were going from recent to older.
> All double decanted.
>
> 2004, purple edge, spice berries and iron nose, young palate with fruit and
> tannins balanced by good acidity. Infanticide but drinking well now.
>

Haven't had this but in general the 04s are drinking well young, with plenty
of stuffing though, and will I think go the distance too. Good value also
compared to the more expensive 05s. When will they begin their long
nap I wonder?

[]
> 1995, amazing depth,, sweetshop, leather and pepper, mouthful of fruit,
> alcohol,tannins, not come together, rather austere. Undecided as to the
> future.
>
Yet another 95 CdP with an uncertain future. I have rattled on about it
before
but I really think this vintage was over sold by producers. Some of them it
just seems to have fooled...

[]
>
> 1990, depth and browning edge, a nose that I will always remember, wonderful
> complex spice and berries, leather, layers of Autumn smells, walking through
> a beech wood in November, so complex. And even better on the palate,
> opulent, racy, silky tannins, layers of fruit and spice, long. One of the
> finest CDP's I have ever tasted. Easy WOTN by all of us. This will live for
> years yet.
>
> 1989, huge depth and mature edge, restrained nose. liquorice and pepper
> again, complex. Fat fruit and tannins, layer upon layer, a hidden beauty,
> try again ten years. 2nd WOTN.
>

pleased to have a couple of bottles of these great wines, wish I had more!

[]
> I was the driver, so I took a good ISO glass of 7 and 8 home sealed with
> clingfilm. My wife who is not a great Rhoner, thought the 1990 to be
> wonderful, but the 89 was rather coarse !!!
>

The 89 was always much more austere, but in 10 years it will be better
than the
90.

Thanks again,

-E

I'm sitting on a total of about case an a half of the 89 and 90 and
they should hold up well, but I am also holding 18 of the 1995 and am
wondering where it is going.

I am going to host a vertical some time this Fall and will make sure I
open one to see what it is up to. I am hoping it just needs more time.

Some CNduP from that vintage are drinking beautifully now - the Les
Cailloux for one.

And I just found a half case of 1990 Vieux Donjon in the cellar -
anyone tried that recently?

John, why recent to older?

Typically I would have gone the other direction so that the less tannic,
more developed were first followed by younger.

Serious question.


"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Solihull Fine Wine Society July Tasting.
>
> from leafy Edgbaston, a vertical of Beaucastel.
> Not blind except for vintages. We knew we were going from recent to older.
> All double decanted.
>
> 2004, purple edge, spice berries and iron nose, young palate with fruit
> and tannins balanced by good acidity. Infanticide but drinking well now.
>
> 1999, hint of age, farmyard, muted vanilla, liquorice. Big and fat palate
> with layers of fruit and herbs. Opulent and complex, try again 5 years.
>
> 1998, deep red, nose of tapenade and crushed garden herbs. Massive fruit
> and tannins, hits the roof of your mouth and is long. ? a bit over
> extracted. Atypical?
>
> 1996, bright, a wonderful nose of balckpepper, herbs and farmyard, even
> floral hints.....and then the let down, light on palate, even a little
> thin, finished short. Drink now.
>
> 1995, amazing depth,, sweetshop, leather and pepper, mouthful of fruit,
> alcohol,tannins, not come together, rather austere. Undecided as to the
> future.
>
> 1994, much lighter than the 95, but what a nose of feminine charms, ( a
> CDP feminine!!?), complex aniseed and garden pink perfume, sherbet,
> woodland floor. An enchanting mouthful of soft berry fruit and spice.
> Long. Drinking well now.
>
> 1990, depth and browning edge, a nose that I will always remember,
> wonderful complex spice and berries, leather, layers of Autumn smells,
> walking through a beech wood in November, so complex. And even better on
> the palate, opulent, racy, silky tannins, layers of fruit and spice, long.
> One of the finest CDP's I have ever tasted. Easy WOTN by all of us. This
> will live for years yet.
>
> 1989, huge depth and mature edge, restrained nose. liquorice and pepper
> again, complex. Fat fruit and tannins, layer upon layer, a hidden beauty,
> try again ten years. 2nd WOTN.
>
> Well it was hard work, four flights of two.
>
> The older wines outshone the youth, but there were mutterings that the
> lighter recent wines were a sign of the Perrins producing more dilute CDP?
> Jury out on that.
>
>
> I was the driver, so I took a good ISO glass of 7 and 8 home sealed with
> clingfilm. My wife who is not a great Rhoner, thought the 1990 to be
> wonderful, but the 89 was rather coarse !!!
>
> Chacun son gout.................................
>
> John T
>
>
>
>

Bill S. wrote:

> And I just found a half case of 1990 Vieux Donjon in the cellar -
> anyone tried that recently?

Not that long ago, Bill: drinking well to my tastes.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:02:38 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>John, why recent to older?
>
>Typically I would have gone the other direction so that the less tannic,
>more developed were first followed by younger.

In my experience, recent to older is the usual order for verticals. I
think the logic is that you keep the more interesting and complex
wines till last, so you finish on a high.

I do absolutely see your logic, but I have never noticed it being a
problem. Maybe because the step in tannin leveles between each
vintage is never too great.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Steve, is that for Beaucastel only...what about cabs, bordeaux etc...

The order?

"Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:02:38 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> > wrote:
>
>>John, why recent to older?
>>
>>Typically I would have gone the other direction so that the less tannic,
>>more developed were first followed by younger.
>
> In my experience, recent to older is the usual order for verticals. I
> think the logic is that you keep the more interesting and complex
> wines till last, so you finish on a high.
>
> I do absolutely see your logic, but I have never noticed it being a
> problem. Maybe because the step in tannin leveles between each
> vintage is never too great.
>
> --
> Steve Slatcher
> http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

"Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:02:38 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> > wrote:
>
>>John, why recent to older?

Tradition also based on experience., IMHO withrespect to wines that age.

younger wines have more raw tannins and unbalaced acidity, to taste a raw
claret at the end having started with a mature claret would be a bit of a
let down.

any other comments from other posters.?

It's the usual order for ALL verticals. But again, I would add "in my
experience" - there may be other norms in other countries - I'm in the
UK.

In Michael Broadbent's 'Winetasting' he writes 'Appropriate order of
tasting: Dry before sweet; young before old; modest before fine.
Whether red wines are tasted before white depends on their relative
"weights"'. I thought he also discussed your point, but apparently
not - maybe that was in some other book I read.

Incidentally I am not sure I have every been offered reds (however
light) before whites (however full bodied).

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:00:22 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> wrote:

>Steve, is that for Beaucastel only...what about cabs, bordeaux etc...
>
>The order?
>
>"Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:02:38 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>John, why recent to older?
>>>
>>>Typically I would have gone the other direction so that the less tannic,
>>>more developed were first followed by younger.
>>
>> In my experience, recent to older is the usual order for verticals. I
>> think the logic is that you keep the more interesting and complex
>> wines till last, so you finish on a high.
>>
>> I do absolutely see your logic, but I have never noticed it being a
>> problem. Maybe because the step in tannin leveles between each
>> vintage is never too great.
>>
>> --
>> Steve Slatcher
>> http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
>

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Jul 12, 7:11�am, Steve Slatcher > wrote:
> It's the usual order for ALL verticals. �But again, I would add "in my
> experience" - there may be other norms in other countries - I'm in the
> UK. �
>
> In Michael Broadbent's 'Winetasting' he writes 'Appropriate order of
> tasting: Dry before sweet; young before old; modest before fine.
> Whether red wines are tasted before white depends on their relative
> "weights"'. �I thought he also discussed your point, but apparently
> not - maybe that was in some other book I read.
>
> Incidentally I am not sure I have every been offered reds (however
> light) before whites (however full bodied).
>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:00:22 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Steve, is that for Beaucastel only...what about cabs, bordeaux etc...
>
> >The order?
>
> >"Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:02:38 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>>John, why recent to older?
>
> >>>Typically I would have gone the other direction so that the less tannic,
> >>>more developed were first followed by younger.
>
> >> In my experience, recent to older is the usual order for verticals. �I
> >> think the logic is that you keep the more interesting and complex
> >> wines till last, so you finish on a high.
>
> >> I do absolutely see your logic, but I have never noticed it being a
> >> problem. �Maybe because the step in tannin leveles between each
> >> vintage is never too great.
>
> >> --
> >> Steve Slatcher
> >>http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher
>
> --
> Steve Slatcherhttp://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's complicated.
I'd say in the US there is no "usual" order(and that's even though
there's a few Englishmen in my drinking pack). I recently read of a
Beaucastel vertical in Toronto (by an auction house that partners with
Sothebys) where they went '88 to '00. I'd say my vertical experience
is split about evenly between:
1) youngest to oldest (the way we did Haut Brion)
2) oldest to youngest (we did Gruaud that way, and the Clos de Vougeot
Th night- the organizer was English!)
3) mixed
The latter is my personal favorite. There's a lot to be said to
grouping "lesser" vintages together - a Medoc '93 might have more in
common with a '97 or '99 than a '96 or '95, and a delicate '81 might
not be best in a flight with a young and vigorous '82.
If we are doing a group-organized vertical (as opposed to one host)
we usually discuss this ad nauseum. Part of the decision might be the
type of restaurant. if not at a home. If we're at a steakhouse, I
might be voting based on trying to ensure that the wines that come
around main course are bigger/more tannic, as I like my steak blue to
rare. Maybe not best for a '79 or '70 Bdx. Part will be decided by
what the lineup is- if the older wines are '66, '67, or '81, it might
be quite different than '75s and '86s.
Another factor is sheer number of wines. A 5 wine vertical is easy to
go younger to older, but if 17 wines I might not want palate fatigue
when we get to the '61.

As to serving reds before whites, I believe it's the usual tasting
order in lots of Burgundy rooms. I know Serge Hochar prefers to do
tastings of Musar red before white. Rare for us, but we have done a
couple of Burgundy dinners where a flight of whites was saved as
better matches for the cheese course.

At dinners at my home, I the most common order is:
light white or bubbly apertif
white flight
red Burgundy flight
Bdx red flight
sweet wine

But I'm up for anything that's well thought out.

cheers

Steve Slatcher > wrote in
:

>
> It's the usual order for ALL verticals. But again, I would add "in my
> experience" - there may be other norms in other countries - I'm in the
> UK.
>
> In Michael Broadbent's 'Winetasting' he writes 'Appropriate order of
> tasting: Dry before sweet; young before old; modest before fine.
> Whether red wines are tasted before white depends on their relative
> "weights"'. I thought he also discussed your point, but apparently
> not - maybe that was in some other book I read.
>
> Incidentally I am not sure I have every been offered reds (however
> light) before whites (however full bodied).
>

While I have not been offered as such I have been offered a Beaulolais
like wine after Reisling and wished it didn't go that way.


--
Joseph Coulter, cruises and vacations
www.josephcoulter.com

877 832 2021
904 631 8863 cell

On Jul 12, 4:11 am, "John T" > wrote:
> "Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:02:38 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>John, why recent to older?
>
> Tradition also based on experience., IMHO withrespect to wines that age.
>
> younger wines have more raw tannins and unbalaced acidity, to taste a raw
> claret at the end having started with a mature claret would be a bit of a
> let down.
>
> any other comments from other posters.?

I have to agree with you. Younger to older is always the order I
follow.

Mark Slater

I have to disagree with you. As you stated younger wines have more raw
tannins and unbalance acidity est.. That is just the reason to taste the
older wines first. with all of the tannins and acidity in your mouth you
cannot really appreciate the complexity of a fine older wine. You cannot
appreciate the nuances that age gives to wines and since a great part of
tasting comes from the bouquet of fine aged wines which, in most cases, is
lost when you have tasted younger wines.



"Tire-Bouchon" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 12, 4:11 am, "John T" > wrote:
>> "Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:02:38 -0400, "Richard Neidich"
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>John, why recent to older?
>>
>> Tradition also based on experience., IMHO withrespect to wines that age.
>>
>> younger wines have more raw tannins and unbalaced acidity, to taste a raw
>> claret at the end having started with a mature claret would be a bit of a
>> let down.
>>
>> any other comments from other posters.?
>
> I have to agree with you. Younger to older is always the order I
> follow.
>
> Mark Slater

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:32:51 -0400, "sibeer" >
wrote:


>I have to disagree with you. As you stated younger wines have more raw
>tannins and unbalance acidity est.. That is just the reason to taste the
>older wines first. with all of the tannins and acidity in your mouth you
>cannot really appreciate the complexity of a fine older wine. You cannot
>appreciate the nuances that age gives to wines and since a great part of
>tasting comes from the bouquet of fine aged wines which, in most cases, is
>lost when you have tasted younger wines.

Well.... when Jacquie & I were invited - thanks to Michael Pronay to
dinner at Ch Cap-de-Mourlin in St Emilion, a few years ago, we drank
wines from that estate and also from their top estate , Ch Balestard
La Tonnelle. The order of wines was 1998, 1988, 1945 and 1927 (or was
it '28?). So Jacques Cap-de-Mourlin, certainly, doesn't agree with
you.

Mind you, we weren't "tasting", but drinking wines with a meal.
Delicious it was too.
--
All the best
Fatty from Forges

When I had dinner with Tim Mondavi here in Charlotte, we drank older to
youngest on a verticle of Mondavi Reserve Cabs...

The dinner was at the Duke Mansion in Charlotte, and the food was also quite
good. Pretty sure the wine and food would have been good if they wine was
serviced in the opposite direction.

I guess there is NO right and or wrong on this...I do not care to do
Verticals typically as I prefer change of variety. But I have done Mondavi,
Montelena, Silver Oak and Chateau Margaux back to the early 80's. I really
cannot recall the order on the Silver Oak but I know without doubt the
others were older to newer.
"IanH" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:32:51 -0400, "sibeer" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I have to disagree with you. As you stated younger wines have more raw
>>tannins and unbalance acidity est.. That is just the reason to taste the
>>older wines first. with all of the tannins and acidity in your mouth you
>>cannot really appreciate the complexity of a fine older wine. You cannot
>>appreciate the nuances that age gives to wines and since a great part of
>>tasting comes from the bouquet of fine aged wines which, in most cases, is
>>lost when you have tasted younger wines.
>
> Well.... when Jacquie & I were invited - thanks to Michael Pronay to
> dinner at Ch Cap-de-Mourlin in St Emilion, a few years ago, we drank
> wines from that estate and also from their top estate , Ch Balestard
> La Tonnelle. The order of wines was 1998, 1988, 1945 and 1927 (or was
> it '28?). So Jacques Cap-de-Mourlin, certainly, doesn't agree with
> you.
>
> Mind you, we weren't "tasting", but drinking wines with a meal.
> Delicious it was too.
> --
> All the best
> Fatty from Forges

I respect your opinion, but this past February I attended two seminars with
the owners of classified Bordeaux growths. We tasted from old to young. This
may be the case that there is no defined correct way.



"IanH" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:32:51 -0400, "sibeer" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I have to disagree with you. As you stated younger wines have more raw
>>tannins and unbalance acidity est.. That is just the reason to taste the
>>older wines first. with all of the tannins and acidity in your mouth you
>>cannot really appreciate the complexity of a fine older wine. You cannot
>>appreciate the nuances that age gives to wines and since a great part of
>>tasting comes from the bouquet of fine aged wines which, in most cases, is
>>lost when you have tasted younger wines.
>
> Well.... when Jacquie & I were invited - thanks to Michael Pronay to
> dinner at Ch Cap-de-Mourlin in St Emilion, a few years ago, we drank
> wines from that estate and also from their top estate , Ch Balestard
> La Tonnelle. The order of wines was 1998, 1988, 1945 and 1927 (or was
> it '28?). So Jacques Cap-de-Mourlin, certainly, doesn't agree with
> you.
>
> Mind you, we weren't "tasting", but drinking wines with a meal.
> Delicious it was too.
> --
> All the best
> Fatty from Forges

Found this at a web site, link shown:
http://www.wine-tastings-guide.com/v...e-tasting.html

I do think there is no right or wrong and I think the years I had the
Mondavi Reserve...they would have been a first growth of Napa. :-)

"How are the wines served in a vertical tasting?
Generally wines are served in chronological order. However, there is some
disagreement about whether wines should be served oldest to youngest or
youngest to oldest. Traditionally, wines in a tasting are served youngest to
oldest, the theory being that younger wines are more simple and older wines
are more complex so your palate builds up through the tasting. However, very
young wines can be quite big and powerful and old wines can be subtle and
mellow. So the other way around you may burn out your palate early on young
burly wines and then cannot appreciate the subtleties of the older wines
that come later. How you decide to order your wines in your vertical wine
tasting themes is up to you but you should take the particular wines into
consideration. While the order may not matter much if all the wines are
relatively new, an ancient bottle may be distinctly different from the
others and deserve special consideration and planning."













"sibeer" > wrote in message
. ..
>I respect your opinion, but this past February I attended two seminars with
>the owners of classified Bordeaux growths. We tasted from old to young.
>This may be the case that there is no defined correct way.
>
>
>
> "IanH" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:32:51 -0400, "sibeer" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have to disagree with you. As you stated younger wines have more raw
>>>tannins and unbalance acidity est.. That is just the reason to taste the
>>>older wines first. with all of the tannins and acidity in your mouth you
>>>cannot really appreciate the complexity of a fine older wine. You cannot
>>>appreciate the nuances that age gives to wines and since a great part of
>>>tasting comes from the bouquet of fine aged wines which, in most cases,
>>>is
>>>lost when you have tasted younger wines.
>>
>> Well.... when Jacquie & I were invited - thanks to Michael Pronay to
>> dinner at Ch Cap-de-Mourlin in St Emilion, a few years ago, we drank
>> wines from that estate and also from their top estate , Ch Balestard
>> La Tonnelle. The order of wines was 1998, 1988, 1945 and 1927 (or was
>> it '28?). So Jacques Cap-de-Mourlin, certainly, doesn't agree with
>> you.
>>
>> Mind you, we weren't "tasting", but drinking wines with a meal.
>> Delicious it was too.
>> --
>> All the best
>> Fatty from Forges
>

Richard Neidich wrote:
> "How are the wines served in a vertical tasting?
> Generally wines are served in chronological order. However, there is some
> disagreement about whether wines should be served oldest to youngest or
> youngest to oldest. Traditionally, wines in a tasting are served youngest to
> oldest, the theory being that younger wines are more simple and older wines
> are more complex so your palate builds up through the tasting.

I have been involved in two tastings that were done in oldest to
youngest and it would not have made any sense at all to do it any
other way. One was at the Jordan winery in 1986 and we started with
the 1976 Jordan and after the 1979 there was little sense in going
any farther. Jordan's goal was to show how the style had developed.
Any one who has ever tasted the 76,77 and 78 know how the wine maker's
goals changed.
I experienced the same at a Grange tasting in Adelaide in 1986 and
after the first 6 years the style was in place.