Plans for a quick get-together with The Man None-Other and
Souther-Girl escalated, so that The Jelly Bean Girl, The Orbiter and Even
Stander all joined in for a session.
We
all had plenty to discuss, and we all brought along some special wines.
It was a stroke of good fortune to taste and
drink what we did.
To get things started a 2010 Vidal ‘Legacy’ Hawke’s Bay
Chardonnay. This has been a success in
wine shows, and may vary on from the all-conquering 2010 Villa Maria ‘Keltern’
version from the sibling team. Packed
with those complex sulphides that exude flint and smoke, this was a solid, rich
and weighty wine, with a ‘thickness’ of texture. A delicious, if somewhat grunty start to the
evening. Next on the agenda was a 2002
Fevre Chablis Grand Cru ‘Valmur’.
Unfortunately, “corked” was the pronouncement by The Man Non-Other and
The Orbiter. A crying shame.
The serious part of the evening then began. A series of Bordeaux reds, not that we knew
it was going to happen that way. Setting
the scene was the 2002 Ch. Ducru Beaucaillou St Julien. Not regarded as a great year, but clearly
plenty of wine to drink here.
Identifiably claret with its dry texture and classical blackcurrant style. Quite a chunky and soft-textured wine quite
truly approachable now. The acidity a
little low, and the negative herbal and funky meaty brett nuances well
integrated, making it no problem to drink.
If I had it in my cellar, I’d drink it over the next 5-6 years.
We were then served a wine blind. Dark colour with mahogany hues, clearly aged,
but with real depth. Robust and powerful
with complex savoury black fruits and loads of secondary aromas and
flavours. A real mouthful with great
body, extract, grip and length. Loads in
the tank to go, in the muscular style. I
guessed Old World, closest to the Seine River, rather than a river in Africa or
the Americas. SWMBO was correct in
guessing 1995 and older, whereas I saw the sweetness in the savouries and firm
tannins to make it a 1996-2000. I
thought Merlot also, but it was Cabernet Sauvignon based. But correct again on Pauillac rather than St
Estephe. The final question showed the
class of the wine: Lafite, Latour or Mouton?
This was no retiring wine of refinement.
It had power and firmness. Though
possessing layers of flavour, it wasn’t opulent in the Mouton mould for
me. So my opinion was Latour. Wrong, it was Lafite- Rothschild. Clearly the wine has an understated power in
youth that can emerge with bottle age?
It was certainly a treat to have 1995 Ch. Lafite-Rothschild.
Then onto another named wine: 1983 Ch. Petrus Pomerol. Not quite the 1982 tasted a few years
ago. Far more elegant than expected,
with the classic tobacco Merlot aromas and flavours, a touch of dried herbs,
and secondary earth and cedar. No trace
of the dreaded brettanomyces. Still with
fine and firm tannins, the acid quite integral, and a little drying going on now. Not the sensation that the 1982 was for sure,
and even a little disappointing for Petrus.
Considering the vintage, this was in good condition, and a pleasant
drink.
An equivalent Aussie rarity, but with better provenance and
vintage followed. A 1990 Penfolds Bin
90A Cabernet/Shiraz, the Cabernet from Coonawarra, the Shiraz from
Barossa. Essentially a step-up from
Grange as Grange is a step-up from Bin 389.
Dark, youthful compact and concentrated, tight and elegant, slowly
revealing all it had. Layers of ripe
blackness, with waves of succulent sweetness and just detail after detail. Beautifully fresh with energetic tension and
acidity. There’s no mistaking this
Australian classic for anything else but an Australian classic. At nearly a quarter of a century of age, this
was still a youth. Another
quarter-century, even a half-century lies ahead for this one.
How do you wind down from a wine of such pedigree and
potential as the Penfolds? You can’t
out-do it, so go for something that won’t challenge it, but will please in
every way. A 2005 Robert Mondavi Napa
Valley Cabernet Sauvignon. Not nearly
the concentration, extract or richness, but the flavours still strikingly
different, sitting between Australia and Europe. Some currant and eucalypt, still fine in
tannin to provide plenty of texture and line.
Again, plenty of life ahead, but with a softness and
approachability. You couldn’t help but
enjoy the drink.
Then onto the finale, the 1983 Ch. d’Yquem Sauternes. Deep golden colour and burnished. Volume on the nose and palate with rich, ripe
barley sugar, caramel and toffee with waxy honey and marmalade. Restrained opulence, with power, and detailed
decadence unfolding all the wine. The
acidity and sweetness in perfect poise.
Only the flavours showing that this is now approaching its plateau of
maturity. This was sitting perfectly at
ease. There’s greatness here for sure,
but it didn’t shout it. It just invited
us to drink it as a wine. After all, that’s
what it was made for.
I’m sure we all enjoyed the wines for what they were. A stroke of luck indeed.