Notes from a very enjoyable dinner-tasting of Bordeaux of the 1990
vintage. These wines have always seemed to me to be more fruit forward
and ‘Californian' in approach, if you will, than the more classic and
arguably more austere 1988 and 1989 vintages that together make up
this wonderful triptych of Bordeaux.


1990 Pol Roger Brut (magnum) – well after all, one wouldn't want to
plunge straight into Bordeaux! Much better, I have found, to edge
sideways into the more serious wine, after getting your palate
reacquainted with the whole idea by taking a bit of transitional wine
– and what better to transition between nothing and Bordeaux (or
anything else, for that matter) than a bit of bubbly? This Champagne
has been showing well for several years and continues to shine,
especially in large format. Nice yeasty lemony nose, very fine mousse,
clean with good length.

Flight 1

Then for the first flight of Bordeaux, served with an assortment of
dried meats – prosciutto, Parma ham, and about 5 different kinds in
all, with a tad of grated horseradish on top. Great course, but it
would have gone much better with a white, or with the Champers.

L'Arrossee (St. Emilion) – a little known wine that has considerable
local following as a chance result of a local agent hooking up with
them many years ago. Great way to start – ripe oak, berry and mushroom
nose complex wine with good length. This lasted better in the glass
than the vaunted l'Evangile!

Canon (St. Emilion) – less happening in the nose on this wine, but a
bit darker and firmer. Over all pretty good, but on this night it
wasn't singing to us.

L'Evangile (Pomerol) – wow – funky, almost Rhonish nose, fairly sweet,
and a big wine with good structure, lots of interest in the middle and
a nice sweet, long finish. I was surprised to find that after an hour
in the glass it was starting to fade a little while the l'Arrossee was
still taking no prisoners.

Flight 2

Served with roast guinea fowl and apple cider braised red cabbage.

Sociando-Mallet (Haut Medoc) – always a wine that takes many years to
hit the plateau, this still has time to go. Dark, with purple edges
and a big cassis nose, there is still lots of tannin, good acidity and
ample fruit. I won't be touching my regrettably small stash of this
for a few years yet!

Phelan Segur (St. Estephe) – the first wine that could be considered
at all disappointing, but only when evaluated in this sort of
high-flying company. Nice mellow wine with vanilla in the nose, well
balanced, drinking perfectly and won't get any better. If you are
looking for a decent luncheon claret, this could be your bottle.

Cos d'Estournel (St. Estephe) – Concentrated herbal jammy nose, the
wine still firm but no longer unyielding. Lots of power here, just
starting to show well and not quite at the point where I'd move it
into my drinking pile, as it clearly has much more improvement ahead
of it.

I also tasted:

Mouton Rothschild (Pauillac) – the nose was quite intense, the
mouth-feel silky, the length quite decent and the fruit adequate. It
didn't have the weight of a major vintage of Mouton, but it was very
pleasant. It was quite similar to the bottle we had in the Mouton
vertical last Fall. For those relying on Parker, be warned that his
note reflects a 10 year old tasting – the wine is no longer as hard as
it once was – quite the contrary in fact.


Flight 3

With Saltspring lamb in 4 styles – (this was seriously good grub!!)

Lascombes (Margaux) –simple fruit in the nose, the wine a bit murky.
Simple on palate and with some tannin but fairly well resolved. No
rush, but also not much complexity – this made the Phelan from the
last flight look good.

Pichon Lalande (Pauillac) – this wine has always underwhelmed, a true
disappointment in such a wonderful vintage. Simple candied fruit
chewing gum with vanilla in the nose, and a simple presentation,
dilute and tapering off into leanness. C'est domage!

Pichon Baron (Pauillac) – fascinating to be able to make this
comparison, for I cannot recall another vintage where Baron
out-performed Comtesse like this. A very good uplifted cherry nose,
exquisite balance, long and tasty. It teeters on being over-ripe, but
doesn't quite cross the line. This wine was better than the Mouton.

Flight 4

With local cheeses.

Pape Clement (Pessac Leognan) – a forward wine with a mellow fruit
nose, very tasty and with bright acidity. This one is ready to roll
and I can't see it getting much better than it is right now.

Leoville Barton (St. Julien) – rather closed in the nose, showing only
a bit of spearmint. Lots of punch on palate, and one senses that it
isn't showing all it has to offer yet.

Lagrange (St. Julien) – sweet nose with lots of vanilla/oak. A big
bruiser with tons of softening tannins and excellent length.
Remarkably good showing for this modestly priced wine. No rush to
drink this one. Why, oh why didn't I buy this? By the case?

With some dessert or other (not a fan, especially with wines):

1970 Warres – this wine keeps getting paler by the year, but retains
it's defining characteristic (for me, anyway) the unusual heat in the
nose, rather spirity, and without sufficient fruit at this point to
sweeten and soften the alcoholic impression. Bit over-ripe, too. Not
the best bottle I've had. Improved with a bit of cheese to absorb the
‘edges'.

1990 La Tour Blanche – outstanding performance by this house in this
vintage! Lemony Botricised nose, not too rich, and then thick and
unctuous in the mouth, finishing long and with a certain nuttiness.
Should have bought this one too!! Damn! Great event, though very
instructive about this excellent vintage.

Moral of this tasting? Start looking at them, especially the weaker
wines, but for many they are just coming into drinkability range, and
for quite a few, more continued patience will be rewarded.

Bill wrote:
> Notes from a very enjoyable dinner-tasting of Bordeaux of the 1990
> vintage. These wines have always seemed to me to be more fruit
forward
> and 'Californian' in approach, if you will, than the more classic
and
> arguably more austere 1988 and 1989 vintages that together make up
> this wonderful triptych of Bordeaux.
>
>

snip

> Pichon Lalande (Pauillac) - this wine has always underwhelmed, a
true
> disappointment in such a wonderful vintage. Simple candied fruit
> chewing gum with vanilla in the nose, and a simple presentation,
> dilute and tapering off into leanness. C'est domage!
>
>

Sorry you didn't like the Pichon Lalande, Bill. I had three bottles of
this, one was bad (corked?), but I was quite pleased by the other two.
The last bottle was the epitome of elegance, definitely at its peak.
Not a heavyweight, by any means, but plenty of complexity, to my
palate.

Alas, I have no more, nor can I afford any recent vintages of Pichon
Lalande. I wonder if there is considerable bottle variation in the 90.

I recently had the 90 Clerc Milon, and I thought it was simple but
drinkable, still with considerable tannin in the background.

Thanks for your notes. I look forward to drinking my Cos (only one
bottle) and my three bottles of Lagrange (St. J.)

Tom Schellberg

In message >
(Bill) wrote:


> L'Arrossee (St. Emilion) – a little known wine ...


A somewhat unfair description of a Grand Cru Classé renowned for
its rich luscious character and benefitting from terroir which
runs from the foot to the top of the côte giving finesse from
the land at the bottom, softness from the middle and body and power
from the top. 1990 was a particularly good year for this wine
- as, surprisingly, was 1994.

Timothy Hartley

Timothy,
I think this may come down to importation patterns. L'Arros=E9e seems to
be more common in UK than in US (or Canada, from Bill's comments). I've
only had 2- the '85 & '86, and seldom see the more current vintages in
stores.