Matt Richman arranged a Leoville-Leoville showdown, comparing some
mature (or maturing) Bartons and Poyferres. Paul Jauoen arranged for
dinner at Morton's , nice meal (though while steaks are always good,
I'm still perplexed as to an appetizer to have with red Bordeaux, I
chickened out with a salad).

Ruinart Rose Champagne
I THINK this was a NV. Crisp dry bubbly, strawberries with just a hint
of a bready note, very good. B+

1993 Leoville Poyferre
This one was a solo flight. Nose was pretty good, lots of red currant
and mint. The palate was quite a letdown from the nose, somewhat flat
and tired with a little hint of green. C+

then mini-horizontal flights:

1983 Leoville Barton (magnum)
Cassis, tannins, leathery. B-

1983 Leoville Poyferre
Sweeter fruit, a ferric mineral note, also a bit of drying tannin. B-/
B

I liked both more than table. Both of these might have benefited from
more air (opened just before serving), meant to try the Barton again,
but leapt up for a train.

1989 Leoville Barton
Denser and more tannic than the Poyferre, needs time. B+

1989 Leoville Poyferre
Really quite nice, rounder, softer, seems fairly ready to me. B+/A-

1990 Leoville Barton A-
1990 Leoville Poyferre A
Steaks must have come right here, I have zero written notes on either.
I do know I like both a lot, my favorite flight,.with the Poyferre
being my WOTN, nice ripe fruit balanced with fresh acidity, great
concentration and length. Barton was less flamboyant, but almost as
good.

1982 Leoville Barton
This is initially striking me as somewhat dumb and closed. Once Paul
says he thinks it's corked I can get a little cardboard. Flawed.

1982 Leoville Poyferre
This is excellent. Nicely resolved tannins, some cassis mixed with
redder fruits, fresh, cigarbox and a little leather. Good length. Not
huge, more elegant. A/A-

1995 Leoville Barton
Not as open/giving as the Poyferre, but not totally austere. Rich dark
fruit, tannic, needs time. B+

1995 Leoville Poyferre
Surprisingly open, soft. Easy to drink, lush fruit, some graphite,
good length. B+/A-

1996 Leoville Barton
If the 1995 needs a little time, this needs a lot. This is stern and
reticent, but I think there's a lot underneath here. B for now, A-
potential.

1996 Leoville Poyferre
This is the one I have several of, and I felt it showed weird this
night. Ripe jammy nose, some kind of funky shroomy thing, better on
palate, but I didn't love tonight. Tannic. I've liked a lot more
before. B

1983 Grahams Vintage Port
Didn't get a decant. That combined with those yucky little port
glasses meant this was a bit tight. Plums and prunes, a little cocoa,
some orange peel. Wish I could have nursed this longer. B tonight,
probably deserves more.

1989 Milz Laurentiushof Trittenheimer Felsenkopf Beerenauslese
Only a half bottle for 9 guys, but a little goes a long way. Ripe
apricots drenched in honey, good acidity, just a hint of diesel and
some white flowers. A-/B+

I don't think anyone didn't think Poyferre outperformed Barton on this
night. Of course, I think if we had included '85/'86/'88 (or some
earlier vintages) that might not have held up. But little doubt this
evening. Nice night, though political talk with knives on hand is
always a little unnerving. Good group, good time.

Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.

In article
>,
DaleW > wrote:

> Matt Richman arranged a Leoville-Leoville showdown, comparing some
> mature (or maturing) Bartons and Poyferres. Paul Jauoen arranged for
> dinner at Morton's , nice meal (though while steaks are always good,
> I'm still perplexed as to an appetizer to have with red Bordeaux, I
> chickened out with a salad).
>
> Ruinart Rose Champagne
> I THINK this was a NV. Crisp dry bubbly, strawberries with just a hint
> of a bready note, very good. B+
>
> 1993 Leoville Poyferre
> This one was a solo flight. Nose was pretty good, lots of red currant
> and mint. The palate was quite a letdown from the nose, somewhat flat
> and tired with a little hint of green. C+
>
> then mini-horizontal flights:
>
> 1983 Leoville Barton (magnum)
> Cassis, tannins, leathery. B-
>
> 1983 Leoville Poyferre
> Sweeter fruit, a ferric mineral note, also a bit of drying tannin. B-/
> B
>
> I liked both more than table. Both of these might have benefited from
> more air (opened just before serving), meant to try the Barton again,
> but leapt up for a train.
>
> 1989 Leoville Barton
> Denser and more tannic than the Poyferre, needs time. B+
>
> 1989 Leoville Poyferre
> Really quite nice, rounder, softer, seems fairly ready to me. B+/A-
>
> 1990 Leoville Barton A-
> 1990 Leoville Poyferre A
> Steaks must have come right here, I have zero written notes on either.
> I do know I like both a lot, my favorite flight,.with the Poyferre
> being my WOTN, nice ripe fruit balanced with fresh acidity, great
> concentration and length. Barton was less flamboyant, but almost as
> good.
>
> 1982 Leoville Barton
> This is initially striking me as somewhat dumb and closed. Once Paul
> says he thinks it's corked I can get a little cardboard. Flawed.
>
> 1982 Leoville Poyferre
> This is excellent. Nicely resolved tannins, some cassis mixed with
> redder fruits, fresh, cigarbox and a little leather. Good length. Not
> huge, more elegant. A/A-
>
> 1995 Leoville Barton
> Not as open/giving as the Poyferre, but not totally austere. Rich dark
> fruit, tannic, needs time. B+
>
> 1995 Leoville Poyferre
> Surprisingly open, soft. Easy to drink, lush fruit, some graphite,
> good length. B+/A-
>
> 1996 Leoville Barton
> If the 1995 needs a little time, this needs a lot. This is stern and
> reticent, but I think there's a lot underneath here. B for now, A-
> potential.
>
> 1996 Leoville Poyferre
> This is the one I have several of, and I felt it showed weird this
> night. Ripe jammy nose, some kind of funky shroomy thing, better on
> palate, but I didn't love tonight. Tannic. I've liked a lot more
> before. B
>
> 1983 Grahams Vintage Port
> Didn't get a decant. That combined with those yucky little port
> glasses meant this was a bit tight. Plums and prunes, a little cocoa,
> some orange peel. Wish I could have nursed this longer. B tonight,
> probably deserves more.
>
> 1989 Milz Laurentiushof Trittenheimer Felsenkopf Beerenauslese
> Only a half bottle for 9 guys, but a little goes a long way. Ripe
> apricots drenched in honey, good acidity, just a hint of diesel and
> some white flowers. A-/B+
>
> I don't think anyone didn't think Poyferre outperformed Barton on this
> night. Of course, I think if we had included '85/'86/'88 (or some
> earlier vintages) that might not have held up. But little doubt this
> evening. Nice night, though political talk with knives on hand is
> always a little unnerving. Good group, good time.
>
> Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
> wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
> drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
> promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.

Great notes. I have had several '93 Bordeaux that have disappointed on
tasting later. Could the corked Leoville Barton have put you off to the
rest of them?

On Oct 10, 5:23�pm, Lawrence Leichtman > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> �DaleW > wrote:
> > Matt Richman arranged a Leoville-Leoville showdown, comparing some
> > mature (or maturing) Bartons and Poyferres. Paul Jauoen arranged for
> > dinner at Morton's , nice meal (though while steaks are always good,
> > I'm still perplexed as to an appetizer to have with red Bordeaux, I
> > chickened out with a salad).
>
> > Ruinart Rose Champagne
> > I THINK this was a NV. Crisp dry bubbly, strawberries with just a hint
> > of a bready note, very good. B+
>
> > 1993 Leoville Poyferre
> > This one was a solo flight. Nose was pretty good, lots of red currant
> > and mint. The palate was quite a �letdown from the nose, somewhat flat
> > and tired with a little hint of green. C+
>
> > then mini-horizontal flights:
>
> > 1983 Leoville Barton (magnum)
> > Cassis, tannins, leathery. B-
>
> > 1983 Leoville Poyferre
> > Sweeter fruit, a ferric mineral note, also a bit of drying tannin. B-/
> > B
>
> > I liked both more than table. Both of these might have benefited from
> > more air (opened just before serving), meant to try the Barton again,
> > but leapt up for a train.
>
> > 1989 Leoville Barton
> > Denser and more tannic than the Poyferre, needs time. B+
>
> > 1989 Leoville Poyferre
> > Really quite nice, rounder, softer, seems fairly ready to me. B+/A-
>
> > 1990 Leoville Barton A-
> > 1990 Leoville Poyferre A
> > Steaks must have come right here, I have zero written notes on either.
> > I do know I like both a lot, my favorite flight,.with the Poyferre
> > being my WOTN, nice ripe fruit balanced with fresh acidity, great
> > concentration and length. Barton was less flamboyant, but almost as
> > good.
>
> > 1982 Leoville Barton
> > This is initially striking me as somewhat dumb and closed. Once Paul
> > says he thinks it's corked I can get a little cardboard. Flawed.
>
> > 1982 Leoville Poyferre
> > This is excellent. Nicely resolved tannins, some cassis mixed with
> > redder fruits, fresh, cigarbox and a little leather. Good length. Not
> > huge, more elegant. A/A-
>
> > 1995 Leoville Barton
> > Not as open/giving as the Poyferre, but not totally austere. Rich dark
> > fruit, tannic, needs time. B+
>
> > 1995 Leoville Poyferre
> > Surprisingly open, soft. Easy to drink, lush fruit, some graphite,
> > good length. B+/A-
>
> > 1996 Leoville Barton
> > If the 1995 needs a little time, this needs a lot. This is stern and
> > reticent, but I think there's a lot underneath here. B for now, A-
> > potential.
>
> > 1996 Leoville Poyferre
> > This is the one I have several of, and I felt it showed weird this
> > night. Ripe jammy nose, some kind of funky shroomy thing, better on
> > palate, but I didn't love tonight. Tannic. I've liked a lot more
> > before. B
>
> > 1983 Grahams Vintage Port
> > Didn't get a decant. That combined with those yucky little port
> > glasses meant this was a bit tight. Plums and prunes, a little cocoa,
> > some orange peel. Wish I could have nursed this longer. B tonight,
> > probably deserves more.
>
> > 1989 Milz Laurentiushof Trittenheimer Felsenkopf Beerenauslese
> > Only a half bottle for 9 guys, but a little goes a long way. Ripe
> > apricots drenched in honey, good acidity, just �a hint of diesel and
> > some white flowers. A-/B+
>
> > I don't think anyone didn't think Poyferre outperformed Barton on this
> > night. Of course, I think if we had included '85/'86/'88 (or some
> > earlier vintages) that might not have held up. But little doubt this
> > evening. Nice night, though political talk with knives on hand is
> > always a little unnerving. Good group, good time.
>
> > Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
> > wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
> > drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
> > promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.
>
> Great notes. I have had several '93 Bordeaux that have disappointed on
> tasting later. Could the corked Leoville Barton have put you off to the
> rest of them?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I've enjoyed some '93s, but think it's definitely time (or past time)
to drink up.
I don't think the lightly corked '82 influenced anything, other than
that flight. We're all pretty used to this. I do think Poyferre
benefitted by the vintages chosen (based only on what vintages we
owned both of), I think other vintages might have led to different
results.

We voted after each flight
Winners:
1983 LP (5 to 3)
1989 tie
1990 LP (8 to 1)
1982 LP (9 to 0)
1995 LP (8 to 1)
1996 LB (7 to 2)
Matt also polled re WOTN, 3 got votes 1990 LP (5), 1982 LP (3), 1990
LB (1)