Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Sugar, Sugar; Honey, Honey

A vertical tasting of Ch. d'Yquem is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I've been the recipient of three now. All due to the generosity of the Appliance Couple. They've applied themselves to collecting this ultimate dessert wine, and they have a need to share the collected bottles with their friends when the appropriate big birthday comes along. I send them a Christmas card regularly, and I keep getting invited, so I'll keep up my end of the deal...

This was a thirty plus bottle affair, with most of the wines served at a serious, sit-down tasting. These went from 1946 to 2006. Afterwards, there were three vintages served at a designed dinner, all from big bottles. The extravagance! But no, they were shared among a lot of people, and the word generosity must be applied. Here's my run down on them, from old to young, in the logical and natural groupings they appeared to be, for me:

The Older Wines: 1946 - 1969
These were past their plateau, with the 'dark side' showing. That's burnt toffee and caramel, full blowsy palates, and lower acid profile. It should be said some of these look young and fresh, with many years to age, but they were a surprise. The 1946 was one of these, quite pale in colour and lively in the mouth. Then two dark coloured wines, brown, mahogany and tawny looking. The 1955 malty and rich, and quite lush, the 1958 a bit of a dense old beast with fortified-like character, including rancio. Our 1960 had TCA, pinching it, giving it some bitterness and grippy texture. The 1967 was a little beauty, all pristine in a medium weight style. Quite pretty indeed. Unfortunately the 1968 was flat and dull, one of the lesser wines of the whole tasting, but this was made up for by the 1969, a wine with excellent drive and length, needing some extra liveliness to be great.

Wines at Full Maturity: 1970 - 1983
The room of 30+ tasters all agreed this was the period they would drink Ch. d'Yquem. Who am I to disagree? They were all on their plateau, some doing better, others worse. It all depends on the vintage and the condition of the bottle. Our 1970 had everything there, but not quite the dimension to go to the top. But the 1971 did have it all, until the slightly drying finish. We are being picky here! 1975 and 1976 are the twins to compare. Most people like the size and power of the 1975, and this was starting to get to full maturity, with darker complexities. I love the 1976, more elegant, more acidity, more detail. And fresher. I think I'm right in this. 1978 has never quite been up there, lacking the noble rot required for greatness, but it looked harmonious here. 1979 has always been reasonably well-rated, but I've never seen it this way, and this bottle had TCA dulling it all down. I've always enjoyed the 1980 for its soft elegance and it was that today. Punching above its station was the 1982, ripe tropical, driven with real length. However 1983 has always been a star, and a star it was here, immensely concentrated, elegant and fresh still, multi-dimensional. A wow wine.

The Younger Wines: 1986 - 1999
Here the brashness and obvious nature of youth was displayed. You could, however, tell where these children were going to end up. As good adults, or not quite as good adults. 1986 seemed to make great wine everywhere classic wine was grown. But our bottle lacked a bit of lustre. It was a difficult year in 1987, and it shown on the sour nose, however redeemed by a nice, soft, attractive palate. 1988 is a cracker year, and this was locked down, waiting to blossom. When it does, it'll be one of the greats, as one can sense its quality. It was a pity about the 1989 being corked. I was in a 5.0 Litre bottle too. Normally a decadent wine, but here, dulled and dryish. I could still drink it - no trouble! Slight oxidation on the nose on the 1990 was more than made up for by the wonderfully layered and harmonious palate. That dreaded cork-taint also got the 1991. Medium weight, smaller, musty and flat. TCA also knocked the 1993, but the wine fought back with its richness. The problem with the 1994 was huge volatility on the nose. but a solid palate redeemed it into the pretty good category. The faintest mustiness on the nose on the 1996 did not prevent this being seen as a wine that will become a classic. Make sure your bottle is clean! Wow, the 1997 is a big, rich, statement wine. Served from a 5.0 Litre, it was coming along. It may age quicker than some around it. The 1998 will also mature relatively quickly, its softness making the integration happen. And likewise the 1999, a medium weighted goodie, with all the right things, but a little wallflower-shy.

The Recent Releases: 2001 - 2006
New wines, all easy to identify componentry, not unlike other sweet wines of the world. You can still detect the d'Yquen essential nature, but 'terroir' has yet to come. 2001 will be one of the greats. The perfect young d'Yquem. 2002 maybe a little ignoble? Some lolly notes, only OK. But 2004 is a sleek and beautiful wonder. Almost as good as the 2001. Ours came from magnums. I hope it gets there for sheer elegance. The 2005 clean, oily and unctuous, for the medium term, but nice with it. And finally a very smart 2006, absolutely clear-cut and oozing potential to be near the top echelon.

Its all easy to condense the notes and scores to a few flip words. But the occasion was a most special one. We all cheered and saluted the Appliance Couple. There have been better words written than this blog, and they'll come out in time. They'll do justice to the wines and the kind folk behind the tasting.

No comments:

Post a Comment