1986 Bdx
 

I remember not that long ago many folks were questioning whether the
fruit in 1986s would outlast the tannins. Doesn't seem many people
arguing that now. In last year or so I've attended verticals of Meyney,
Gloria, Lynch-Bages, and Gruaud - still tannic (Lynch especially), but
all showing towards top of group. I've also had Talbot, Brane-Cantenac,
& Cos-all good. I can't think of one example of a poor showing.

Does this match with others' experience?

DaleW wrote:
> I remember not that long ago many folks were questioning whether the
> fruit in 1986s would outlast the tannins. Doesn't seem many people
> arguing that now. In last year or so I've attended verticals of
Meyney,
> Gloria, Lynch-Bages, and Gruaud - still tannic (Lynch especially),
but
> all showing towards top of group. I've also had Talbot,
Brane-Cantenac,
> & Cos-all good. I can't think of one example of a poor showing.
>
> Does this match with others' experience?

I just had the 1986 Margaux tonight and while the fruit is still
hanging in, the vintage continues to show fairly hard tannins. I'm not
sure that the tannins will ever soften before the fruit fades but if
yoou like firm tannic wines, 1986 would be a vintage for you.

One of my favorite wines and I still have a case in cellar is the 1986
Rausan Segla. Its incredable.


"Bi!!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> DaleW wrote:
>> I remember not that long ago many folks were questioning whether the
>> fruit in 1986s would outlast the tannins. Doesn't seem many people
>> arguing that now. In last year or so I've attended verticals of
> Meyney,
>> Gloria, Lynch-Bages, and Gruaud - still tannic (Lynch especially),
> but
>> all showing towards top of group. I've also had Talbot,
> Brane-Cantenac,
>> & Cos-all good. I can't think of one example of a poor showing.
>>
>> Does this match with others' experience?
>
> I just had the 1986 Margaux tonight and while the fruit is still
> hanging in, the vintage continues to show fairly hard tannins. I'm not
> sure that the tannins will ever soften before the fruit fades but if
> yoou like firm tannic wines, 1986 would be a vintage for you.
>

Bill,
The Margaux has the rep as the biggest of a big vintage. I know someone
(married in 1986) who has 2 bottles which he plans on using for 40th &
50th anniversary.

The only '86 1st I've had is Haut-Brion, which is not as big as the
Medoc 1sts in 1986.

My comments were mostly about the Medoc 2nd-5th growths and better Cru
B's (only Right Bank I've had is the pretty good L'Arrossee)- that's
what I've experienced most of. Comments were prompted by comments from
a tasting (I was invited but had a conflict) last week of
Pichon-Lalande v. Pichon Baron. Both were hard wines in youth, seemed
to be entering mature stage (slowly). While some wines still need time,
and most are young, for the most part it doesn't look like '86 is '75,
where fruit is going in a lot of wines that are still fiercely tannic.

cheers!

My '86 Leoville Barton and Graud La Rose were still way to tannic this
weekend. The fruit is there but I don't think these wines will ever come
together.


In article . com>,
"DaleW" > wrote:

> I remember not that long ago many folks were questioning whether the
> fruit in 1986s would outlast the tannins. Doesn't seem many people
> arguing that now. In last year or so I've attended verticals of Meyney,
> Gloria, Lynch-Bages, and Gruaud - still tannic (Lynch especially), but
> all showing towards top of group. I've also had Talbot, Brane-Cantenac,
> & Cos-all good. I can't think of one example of a poor showing.
>
> Does this match with others' experience?
>