Home
Intro Bulletin
Board Tasting Notes
Articles Best
Buys Coups de Coeur
Search Contact
Philadelphia Wine
Wine Books Wine
Quotes Events
Basics Links
Photos Kudos
Wine audio
Mark Squires' E-Zine on Wine
At the Boston Wine Expo on Feb 4 and 5, Jean Maureze, the general Manager of Dominus
and 9th generation winemaker from St. Emilion, presented a vertical tasting of Dominus. A
truly great wine. I don't understand why it is so controversial.
The only vintages that I would argue were less than great were the 1983 and the
1988. Both of those were pretty good, and I preferred the 83. The 83 was 21 percent
merlot, the rest cab, had a lot of press wine, and was drinking well with no sign of
peaking. Subtle dry tannins in the back of the mouth, light finish, but otherwise very
nice. 88-89, one of the weaker wines, but still good. The 1988 was the weakest of the
night IMHO. As 88s go, pretty good, but tasted thin by comparison to the other wines. For
the right price, I'd buy this, but the price would have to be a substantial discount.
Rated at 86-87.
After that, an embarrassment of riches. 1984: A fine wine, 4000 cases made, 26% merlot.
More vibrant and dense by a long shot than the 83 and perhaps had as much weight and
concentration as any wine here. I liked this a lot, and loved its flavors. 93. The 1985
showed lots of tannins, a nice bouquet, great depth and concentration, surprising balance
and elegance, all things considered. Very nice wine. I'm glad this is one of the ones I
bought some years ago. 94. I score this more or less equal to the '84, while noting that
the styles are very different and you may have dramatic preferences.
The 1986 began an era with some cab franc and less merlot. This wine was 80 percent cab
sauv and 8 percent cab franc, the rest merlot. There seemed to be a distinct difference
that was interesting to note. A heady alcoholic nose, seemed neither as dense as the 84
nor as elegant and vibrant as the 85. I'd give this a 90, the weakest of the good vintage
Dominus. A bit chunky, certainly enough weight and power, but seemingly a bit simplistic,
too.
The 1987, 6500 cases made, had only 5 percent merlot, 9 percent cab franc, the
rest cab sauv. This was a way more successful version of the '86. I'm not sure--it's so
hard to choose--but I may have liked this best on the night.
Certainly, the choices were 84 or 87 followed by the 85. It seemed to mix the best of
84 and 85, added a certain distinctive earthiness to it, and was a great success. Rated:
96, but really, you could pick 'em as between my favorites.
The 1989 was a beautiful 89, the best I've had. Far lighter than the bigger wines, but
still rich, sweet, elegant and mouth filling. Finish is shorter than the big winners, but
this is a far better achievement than the 1988. Rated: 91
The 1990 had some echoes of the 1985, but was not quite as distinctive or concentrated.
I think it was somewhat closed, too, and harder to evaluate. Fine and elegant while
maintaining plenty of density and concentration. Rating, if I have to, 91-92. The 90 is a
certainly a softer style than some earlier wines, which some detractors have used as
"proof" the early ones were poorly made. Not at all. They're just different.
They were making, say, a St. Estephe when they wanted to make a Pomerol.
On the whole, an amazingly successful tasting with remarkable wines. I was impressed, as you could tell.
Boston Wine Expo, February 4 and 5: The Main Floor Bigger than last year maybe, and I especially liked the addition of some food! But as for wines, notable winners of the dozens I sampled:
Continuing with tradition, 1990 is surely Heitz's strongest vintage in a long while. The Martha's was nice (but again, I was underwhelmed by a top 1990 that seemed a little too soft and elegant at this stage), but oddly I preferred their regular Napa bottling which seemed to have more weight and depth. Maybe one had just been opened, the other sitting for awhile? Two Greek wines were interesting, both from a tiny producer, Hatzi Michaelis. I liked both his cab and his chard, although the latter would benefit from some on the lees aging.
The disappointments from the Expo: 1991 Stemmler Pinot. Sigh. Too soft, no structure. I remember how this used to be....1990 BV Reserve: Not really a bad wine, but there should be more stuffing here. I'm sorry, but that's my feeling. Ditto for the Heitz Martha's. 1990 Faiveley Clos de la Marechale: flat, dull, boring. Could this have been open too long? But the bottle was nearly full. 1992 Renwoods: I had high expectations because someone said these were great. Not bad. It wasn't a religious experience, though. (Syrah, 45 year old zins) 1990 Villa Mt. Eden Cab: tasted sour on the finish, tannic, a significant disappointment. 1990 Remelluria Riserva Rioja: a wine that could give Rioja a bad name, what with its off finish and nominal body. 1992 Chalone Gavilan Pinot: Ok, but on the mediocre side. No vibrant fruit. Boring.
Hot new offerings of pinot noir from Mondavi. Top notch riojas, fine Brunellos, Caymus,
Groth, BV Reserve being poured, Mt. Eden, Villa Mt. Eden, Dominus, Perrier- Jouet pouring
Fleur, Domaine Louis Latour pouring Meursault, Ggrich, Arrowood, Phelps Insignia et al,
Wild Horse, Beringer Reserve, interesting discoveries from Fitou, Leon Beyer, Quivira,
Sanford, Carneros Creek, Rex Hill (poured by Mrs. Rex), Hess and more. And just when you
thought you'd had enough, there were seminars where, for example, the owner of
Beaucastel poured eight vintages of Beaucastel from 74 to 91.
There were so many great cabs being poured, it's hard to know where to start. Well,
I'll start at the top. The best cab there was the 89 Dominus, which was also the
best 89 I've had to date. A rich, thick, yet accessible wine that has as much stuffing as
you can want without harsh tannins. Other cabs of varying interest were: 89 Phelps
Insignia, 89 Silver Oak Alexander (very nice), 90 Arrowwood (maybe my second favorite!),
90 Caymus Napa (not as fine as I would have expected), the 89 Heitz Martha's poured by Joe
Heitz himself (he seemed frustrated at the mob he drew and the lack of attention he could
give everyone; the Martha's was OK, but not exciting), 90 Hess Collection (again, OK, but
not exciting), 90 Mt. Eden ( a fine example of a tasty cab that didn't have to be a
monster), and the 90 Groth Napa, which I liked very much, but couldn't dethrone the
Dominus, Arrowwood, Silver Oak.
I should note that there were often many other wines being poured at the same tables.
For example, Heitz also brought the Bella Oaks and the regular bottling. It was a real
trick staying sober through all of this, esp. when I wound the afternoon up with a
vertical (55 through 88) of Sandeman port. Thought I' d throw in a teaser so you'd keep
reading....
There were more reds than cabs, of course! In fact, some pretty exciting experiences.
Some highlights: Edmunds St. John, represented by Steve Edmunds, brought down several fine
bottlings, including the 91 Syrah, 91 Cotes Sauvages and his 91 Zin (didn't much care for
the zin). He also told me that the bottle I loved so much recently--88 Mourvedre- -has not
been made since 88. So much for my question on what the current release of it was. I
tasted through some vin de pays poured by a Philadelphia importer, such as Caves de Mont
Tauch Fitou. Frankly, wasn't impressed by most, but I learned a little.
There were some terrific Riojas, ranging from good values like 89 Muga Rioja
Riserva(much more stuffing than most) and 81 Sierra Cantabria (more traditional, medium
weight, heavy vanilla flavors) to the superstars like the 88 Marques de Murrietta Ygay. I
was surprised that the minty taste of this was very similar to what I got recently in the
68. The house style? Great wine.
There were some good Pinots, too. I liked but wasn't enthusiastic about the 91
Byron reserve. The 90 Carneros Creek Pinot was more interesting as was the 90 Sanford. The
91 Rex Hill Pinot Maresh vineyard was good but not great. The people at BV were impressed
with their 91 pinot. It was nicely made, but not my idea of great pinot. Too fruity and
grapey. My vote for the best pinot there was the new 1991 Mondavi organic bottling
strictly from Carneros with a fancy bottle, to sell for about $24.
Continuing Mondavi's tradition, it was darn fine. Fred Eck offered a range of his best client's wines: 83 Guigal Hermitage, 89 Cote Rotie Brune et Blonde, a 92 Condrieu a Gigondas and a Cotes du Rhone.
There were some interesting whites, too, although they weren't my favorites for
the most part. Jordan poured its 1989 "J". I didn't like it as much as the 88.
The 89 seemed too acidic. I was surprised at how mediocre the 91 Louis Latour Meursault
was. Nor was I impressed with the Perrier-Jouet Fleur, other than the fact it was being
poured. A regular bottling of the 90 Hugel Gewurtz was adequate but a little boring. I
preferred the Leon Beyer 92 Pinot Blanc, actually. The 92 Caymus Conundrum was
interesting, but limited in its uses. The 92 Guigal Viogier confirmed for me why I find
this grape so boring, but it was profound stuff next to the 92 RH Philips EXP Viognier.On
the whole, the whites weren't as interesting, but perhaps that's just my prejudices. I
also didn't taste as thoroughly; there were many I missed. Between the scheduled times of
the two seminars, I had maybe 3 hours to run through the main room, and there were too
many wines to taste all of them. As it was, I think I hit close to a 100. Spitting all the
way, too. And a good thing.
Now, the seminars. What dark secrets are revealed about Beaucastel? Is there brett? Is
there not? How is the new Sandeman single quinta? Don't miss the next episode.
Perrin of Beaucastel, his importer Robert Haas and a couple dozen people tasting 8
vintages ($50) of Beaucastel. I've never liked Beaucastel as much as some do, but there
were intellectual issues here so I went anyway. I directly addressed the brett issue.
Here's how it went.
As we tasted the vintages, some seemed to have overwhelming animal fat, greasy flavors that I frankly find unappealing. The worst was the 1980. The 1974 had far less, but still had some. The 1983 was the first I liked, a big rich, full wine that still had some of that animal flavor, but in pleasant moderation. [NB: In Issue 103 of The Wine Advocate, Robert Parker notes several Beaucastel vintages as especially bretty, including this one. He finds it far brettier than I do. I should note that some have theorized that since brett infections can be particularized to barrels, bottle variations are to be expected.--note added 2/27/96] The 86 was cleaner still and very drinkable. The 1988 was the cleanest and very closed and undeveloped--not coincidental? That is, if the vintage was (a) big and old or (b) very young it had a better chance, it seemed of escaping; at least the brett infection would have to more severe to cause a dominant impression. I theorized that brett continued to develop with age, thus leaving older vintages more at risk, but also that it would tend to dominate a wine in which the fruit was weak, regardless of age. The 89 was a fine, solid Cdp, nice and tight, accessible tannins, but the 90 blew it away with higher extract, more tannin. That bacon fat was there in moderation. The only new wine that had that flavor was the 91, which was very light and bretty. I asked FP about the animal flavors. Was it the natural progress of Mourvedre?
He denied brett. (NB: 13 separate fermentations there; plenty of chance for error.)
I compared notes with some others who should know, namely Steve Edmunds and Fred Eck
(Guigal's importer). They said unequivocally there was brett in Beaucastel, and Eck said
it was analyzed and documented. Eck said Perrin liked it that way. Take it or leave it.
Whatever it is, I don't care. I generally leave it. Too much brett too often for my
tastes. Some have said that many wines if not most have some brett, and there's no use
getting excited about it. True enough, perhaps. But so much, so often......
The last event was the Sandeman vertical led by their Chateau & Estate's rep, Nancy
Rugus. They poured the Quinta do Vau 1988 (the 1st single quinta ever made by Sandeman and
an "a" vineyard), and vintage ports from 1985, 1982, 1977, 1970, 1963 and 1955.
Sandeman has a bit of a lightweight rep, and in response to a somewhat more polite
question, Nancy said that Sandeman effected a leaner, more restrained style by
deliberation. For the most part, I wasn't impressed with the wines as a group.
The single quinta was very impressive, a rich, thick wine that counts against the style
of the rest. Way too tannic to drink, very syrupy and heavy. The 85 had a surprising burst
of tannin after initial accessibility and is a traditional medium weight port with an odd
but pleasant aftertaste. The 82 was heavily tannic, but not much fruit. The 77 was far
lighter and more drinkable than most 77s I've had. The 70 was arguably the finest of the
group, very full, showing delightful notes of maturity, with plenty of aging potential
left. Compared well to bigger houses. The 63 was very sweet and surprisingly still tannic.
Not much velvet texture or richness. The 55 was clearly browning, fading in fruit and in
my view past its prime.
One other interesting note: She said that the Founder's Reserve can be kept after
opening in the bottle for weeks, while real vintage port can only be kept for a day or
two! Never got an explanation for that.
(c) Mark Squires, 1995