Blog

My first major event of 2005 was in Las Vegas two weekends ago at Picasso, where wine consultant extraordinaire Gil Lempert-Schwartz assembled an esteemed panel of fifteen wine judges to participate in the European Grand Jury’s three city event, the other cities being Venice and Paris, I believe. Besides Gil and myself, some of the other judges included Larry Stone, Ursula Hermanski, Andrew padbury, Kevin Vogt, Archie McLaren and other distinguished wine professionals whose names elude me as I write this. There were ten producers and thirty wines to be tasted blind from three different vintages: 1985, 1990 and 2001. Each vintage was knowingly tasted separately, and most of the wines were Bordeaux, Chateau Montelena and Sassicaia being the international diplomats. The tasting was conducted under the auspices of a legal entity, in this case a top jurist, who ensured that the order of the wines, as well as identity was not divulged until after the tasting was completed. Results were tabulated and sent to Europe immediately for analysis and final tabulation by the Grand Jury Europeen,. Gil explained, a tabulation which will be released soon to the public. For now, the results from Vegas will have to do. Gil had warmed a few of us up with a wine dinner at Picasso the night before, a dinner that ran a little late, so when we had to be back at Picasso the next day at 11AM, there were a few groggy looks around the table. Once the tasting started, however, everyone got down to business, and the room became deafly silent. At the end of the tasting, everyone turned in their scores (a 100-point rating system was used), and the average scores were compiled. Three hours were allotted for the event, and the earliest that anyone finished was about an hour and forty-five minutes, with it taking me two hours exactly to evaluate, approximately four minutes per wine. I can safely say after the fact that it was a tough crowd when it came to the ratings, and a fascinating exercise as well to see the group’s s average scores versus my own. I look forward to getting the results from the two other cities and updating all of you when I do.

First up was the flight of 1985s. All wines were served in the same order, although people were supposed to begin their flights with different wines. I was supposed to start on wine #8, but that fact eluded me in the introduction, so I tasted in traditional 1-10 order each flight. The first wine had a lighter nose, still with some character of cedar, olives and light alcohol. It definitely gave a Left Bank impression with its pinch to the nose. There was a grape grappa edge trying to push out that was still somehow suppressed. The palate was fairly straightforward and had a touch of heat from the alcohol and mild cedar flavors. There was not a lot of definition beyond that. Although the nose got better, the palate got worse and lost definition. I found the wine to be average it was the Sociando Mallet (84/88.4). My score is followed by the group score, fyi, and remember that none of the wines were revealed to the tasters until after the three flights were tasted by all. I was very surprised that the group scored this wine that highly, to be honest, especially given the average scores of other wines to come! The second wine was much more open and fleshy in the nose, but in a very pungent and animalistic way. It had a meaty edge, a meat with a funky marinade that needed to be cooked quickly (pungent). The animal edge flirted with the root vegetable side but did not eat it, so to speak. The aromas were leathery and dark, and a splash of cement emerged. The palate was rich and fleshy with good plum, olive and earth flavors, with nice texture. There was just a hint of pown to the overall palate, but I liked its unique character and funky personality. In fact, it was my wine of the flight, and it was La Conseillante (93+/84.7). Again, I was stunned to find such a large discrepancy here. To me, this was clearly the most open, ripe and expressive wine of the flight. It had character and was loud where others were shy and quiet. I guess that’s what happens when you ping a New Yorker to a civilized wine tasting. PS I used the half-point here to account for my usual plus + ,. as I felt since average scores were being taken the plus + factor could not be accounted for without the half-point. The third wine from the 1985 vintage had some old wood in the nose and pinches of nut, cedar, mahogany, black fruits and cassis. There was a touch of forest to its nose with its woody and leafy edges. The old wood merged into a little caramel and got better and more complex in the nose. The palate was again simple and straightforward, mild yet classically Left Bank. Flavors of cedar, dust and earth were decent, but the wine left an unexciting impression overall, and its nose hinted at much more than the palate delivered it was Mouton Rothschild (89/90.2). Next up was a wine that was very wound in the nose with more alcohol and anise, although it was subtle and refined as well. The nose left a delicate and fine impression overall. There was a tingle. quality to its spiny nature as some fruit tried to escape, but the palate put the wine right back into the jails of its tannic and alcoholic systems. Although neither its t. nor a. was overtly dominating, those were its standout characteristics on its palate. The balanced and refined qualities were very good despite that fact for this bottle of Latour (90/90.3). The fifth wine had a similar edge to the fourth initially with its alcohol and anise, but there was much more vigor and character here, led by cedar, smoke and slate. The palate was spicier with better definition and length, nice balance and a sneakily long finish. There was good t n a on the palate with cedar, mineral and slate flavors, and nice length. It was an excellent wine and classically Left Bank, Haut pion to be specific (93/89.4). The sixth wine struck me as a cross between #2 and #5 (La Conseillante and Haut pion), with its plummy and stony fruit. There was a ripe sweetness to its plums, with vanilla, anise, and stone supplements, andnice pungency. The wine was actually ripe on the palate but maintained its stony side. There were flavors of earth, unsweetened cocoa powder, cedar and plums, skins and all. There was a shred missing in the middle, but I though that might change in the future for the Ausone (90+/86.5). The lucky seventh wine was a big left turn and seemed Caliesque right off the bat. There was sweet, chunky fruit of sun-dried cassis, caramel, leather and sprinkles of earth, chocolate and stone. The nose was meaty and full of cherry sherry. It seemed a little oxidized, but I still liked it and found while it was perhaps a bottle whose maturity had been accelerated, I could still appreciate and enjoy the wine. Others wrote it off immediately. I enjoyed its reductive. edge and the big t n a on the palate, its cream soda flavors and very dry finish, and so did others in that minority. It was Chateau Montelena (92?/82.5). We were back to Bordeaux with the eighth wine, which had a milder nose and a touch of out-of-place oak. The wine was a little mildewy, to be frank. There were cedar, nut and olives behind that, and the flavors were very nutty, the most so far that day, with a light glaze but not much. The nose and palate was best summed up as eh. for this potentially off bottle of Lafite (83?/88.7). The next wine had a dirty nose with an earthy, soil-like quality. There was plump fruit behind that on the plum and cassis side, but only if you could get behind it, which I could see a lot of people not doing. There was good lingering alcohol, but the palate was a bit offensive in its dirtiness, but the wine still had great structure. It was one of the better overall wines in the flight, I thought, and its finish was most superior, but the flavors in this particular bottle were disturbing, especially since it was another disappointing bottle of 1985 Sassicaia (91+?/83.7). I swear that there are more disappointing bottles of this wine out there than there are good ones. Three questionmarks in a row? Since this was Vegas, I was hoping I might win something for that, but no luck there. The last wine from 1985 had cedar, oak, vanilla, olive, mineral and some steak in its nose, which was impure in its wood qualities. The flavors of old oak were simple and lacking character, uninspiring but decent in an average way. It was Chateau Margaux (84/89.6). Yikes! I was glad to be done with the 1985s, which overall were very disappointing and not in a friendly stage that many of the seconds, thirds and fourths have been. Only Haut Bion, La Conseillante, and the Montelena, despite being slightly oxidized, had that extra level of excellence, although Sassicaia sometimes does but not this time. On to the 90’s

One pass-through on the noses led me to write about 1990, Clearly the superior vintage to 1985.. The first wine had a jump up. in intensity and character right off the bat, with a much more intense peed to its tannins and alcohol. The nose was deep and intense with a hint of sear,. I put. There were great cedar, cassis and plum aromas, which I found to be A+. with pure and clean fruit. It got riper in the glass and pointed in that Caliesque direction, and I was sure it was the same wine as the seventh wine in the last flight, which it was. The palate was meaty and minerally with a long, dry finish for this Chateau Montelena (93/90.9). The second wine had a pinch of wintergreen and more noticeable red fruits mixed in with the black, and a splash of ice cream soda, earth and tobacco. A big worchestshire sauce edge came in that carried over to the palate, with its A1 edge to its steak flavors and lots of cedar and minerals behind it. There was nice, fat, black fruit on the palate for the Sociando Mallet (93/91.2), which showed much better than its 1985 counterpart. The third wine was another excellent one, with a more pungent and gamy nose that reminded me of the second wine in the first flight, which it was. The wine was very fleshy and animalistic, although there was an extra edge of cinnamon complete with roll to go with its funky, forward and fleshy fruit. There was a pinch of olive, too. There was great peed here and rich and meaty fruit on the palate, which took a little more coaxing to hit its stride, but it did and was an incredibly tasty La Conseillante (94/87.2). I thought when the score was revealed later. It was not a Pomerol crowd, for sure. Fortunately, I do not have that problem. The fourth wine was my wine of the flight, and my note started off with the universally accepted Mmmmmm.. The nose was deep and inviting, with great cassis, cedar, mineral and smoke aromas, and great nuts too. There’s a bad joke to be made there, but I digress. The palate was consistent with the nose and had a long, fine finish. This wine was clearly a thoroughped, and the finish exploded in one’s mouth after it went down the hatch, lingering. It was Haut pion (95/90.7), which was quickly asserting itself as wine of the day. 90.7? Come on guys! Tough crowd, tough crowd. The following wine had a sweet, meaty nose that was rich and seductive, full of fatty fruits with plum, mocha, game and nuts. There were olives on the palate and a flash of heat to the finish, which was fine and medium-long. It was a fastball of an Ausone (93+/88.3). Our sixth wine in the 1990 flight was pungent in a different direction, in the green, dirty earth and housecleaner way (sounds delicious, no?) It was intense, but eight out of ten people would find it unpleasant. I saw the peed, but I wasn.t sure I still respected it. The aromas carried over to the palate. The body was pretty, but man was that face rough on this Mouton (88/89.1). Next up was a wine with a classy nose, less opulent but long with a good center of anise, alcohol, plum and minerals. The nose flirted with a cinnamonesque spice, which manifested itself into pure nutmeg on the palate, with a medium body, nice texture and a pleasant minerality to its finish. It wasn.t incredibly complex, but it was still a very good 1990 Sassicaia (90/91.6). Three wines to go, and the first of this last trio was a wine with an exotic edge of citrus fruits merging onto the plum and cassis highway here, with nice, subtle minerals and alcohol. The nuts and cedar started to flex on the palate, which was all cedar and nuts, two-dimensional but very good, but not a heavyweight. It was Chateau Margaux (91/90.8). Time to sell or palate fatigue? The next wine was another shy nose, fine and pure but coy. There were light edges of cedar, leather, mineral, chocolate, tannins, alcohol and smoke. The finsh was very long and dry and continued to sneak up on my palate. There were pure and refined flavors thatwere consistent with the nose in this excellent bottle of 1990 Latour (93/91.6). The final wine of the flight was corked, although one could find traces of cinnamon, cedar, minerals and smoke behind it, but the wine was unpure. The corked quality masked the palate, and normally I would DQ this wine, but since we were obligated to score the wine, I gave this bottle of Lafite (86/89.6). That average made me scratch my head again.

The weekend continued Friday night at Mix, Alain Ducasse’s restaurant/nightclub atop of The Hotel at Mandalay Bay. Yes, it is half nightclub, which Ducasse-ophiles probably have a tough time envisioning. Welcome to Vegas. It was a BYOB magnum affair put together by Gil, and it was a nice lineup of wines to cap off the day. First up was a 2000 Weinbach Gewurztraminer Cuvee Laurence. The nose was exotic, – classic Gewurz and very pure and lacking the aggressive, woodsy edge that can plague many a Gewurz. There was lychee and pineapple with pinches of petrol and citrus. The palate was lush and incredibly sweet, too much so for a non VT wine, and there was also a chalky awkwardness to go with light minerals and slate on the finish. The nose was much better than the palate. I respected it but just did not like it that much (88). The 1996 D.Angerville Volnay Clos des Ducs had a great nose full of those 1996 screechy acids, with lots of minerals and rose petals as well. There were also stones, wound cherry fruit, alcohol and a touch of pick, smoke and firewood. The alcohol and acids were the dominant characteristics in the nose, though make no mistake about it. The palate was pretty, still wound with nice flavors of stones and minerals. The acid kicked in on the length, and its vitaminy and rosy fruit flavors emerged, and what acids, indeed (91). Next up was my 1995 E. Rouget Vosne Romanee Cros Parantoux, which was a big wine with lots of meat and alcohol in the nose. There was a touch of sulfur and gas at first, but with some extra swirling, the wine rounded out well. The wine was very intense, with a balance between modern and classic winemaking styles. There were aromas of crushed black and purple fruits, vitamins, minerals, iodine, iron, rose, game and Asian spice. The nose was big, intense and spicy. The palate was very rusty and earthy by comparison, very shy on the fruit but not on the structure and balance. There were long acids and plum and smoke flavors (94). We had a domestic Pinot next, a custom wine bottled for Archie McLaren’s birthday personally by Jim Clendenen. It was a 1990 vintage, and I believe it was from La Bauge au Dessus fruit, but for now we will call it the 1990 Au Bon Climat Pinot Noir Archie’s Cuvee.. The nose was great with more vanilla, cream and oak spice along with sexy black cherry fruit. There was lots of spice and soda, and the wine almost crosses the oak line but not quite. The palate was rich and spicy with lots of expressive tannins and good grip, but the fruit started to show pown flavors. The wine got more gamy and was definitely flirting with necrophiliac territory and was just holding on (90). The 1998 Ornellaia was a modern left turn with rich vanilla, cream and black fruits, and a touch of yeast and natural gas. There was a distinctive cardboard edge, which is usually a negative, but strangely enough in this case it was a positive, so I adjusted my descriptor to be Christmas day cardboard. There were nice dusty flavors (desert action) to its meaty palate with black fruits, leather and earth. However, this was definitely a wine that was more winemaking than terroir. Blair picked up on sesame.. (93+) We took a trip up to Bordeaux next, starting with the 1985 Haut Bailly. It had a nice nose of cedar, light cassis, nut, meat and carob with an earthy and semi-spicy palate (or was that that damn peppercorn bison actually, it was). The palate was a touch musty, and the Graves factor really came out on the palate. There was tobacco on the finish, but the wine was still short of being very good (88). The 1982 Clos Fourtet also had a nice nose with some meaty, St. Emilion Cab Franc, violety fruit with nice spice and dust, alcohol, earth and plain yogurt. The palate was rich and full of olive flavors, medium rich, with a mid-palate that is lacking a little but still OK. The wine was nice and has definitely entered the fully mature zone (90). The last wine of the weekend for us was a gorgeous magnum of 1974 Mondavi Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon. It was a bottle from a case acquired by Sid Cross directly from Robert Mondavi, so we knew the provenance was great! The wine was very fresh with great spice and alcohol up front, along with cedar, pungent fruit, anise, mineral and lots of heat. The palate was meaty but a lot softer than the nose would lead one to believe but still plush, round and smooth with a dusty finish. The Mondavi was a wine that was right Thurr.. (93)