These are notes from a Commanderie de Bordeaux dinner in Vancouver on January
20, 2004 that featured and excellent vertical of Ch. Mouton Rothschild.
The reception wine was Louis Roederer Brut Premier, a pleasant champers that didn't get in the way of the conversation.
With Napoleon of Dungeness crab, avocado and black truffle:
1999 Ch. Brown - some decent crisp lemon notes on the nose and pretty decent concentration of flavour on palate. I heard others being dismissive of this modest wine, but personally, I enjoyed it, particularly with the food. Typically 2:1 Sauvignon Blanc to Semillon.
The following notes are all Mouton:
With red Kurri squash ravioli in lemon butter sauce and shaved reggiano:
1993 - very good nose with toasted bread and cedar. Medium bodied wine, good flavour concentration, ample but soft tannins, medium length, pleasant rather than exceptional, as one would expect for this vintage.
1995 - Very closed on the nose, although dedicated swirling did awaken a semblance of ripish fruit and a hint of coffee. The wine showed much more concentration on palate and greater length than had the 1993, but it is at present saddled with high but bearable levels of tannin that seem to suddenly clamp down at the end. Of the two wines, I actually preferred the 1993 for current drinking.
With roasted breast of baby pheasant :
1985 - Although I neglected to buy much 1985 Bordeaux at all, concentrating on the surrounding bigger, longer lasting vintages, this vintage has unfailingly offered great drinking experiences whenever I have had the good fortune to taste it. The 85 Montrose is very good, and I thought the Cos d'Estournel to be one of the best vintages of that wine at a vertical tasting some time ago. In that context, this Mouton was a bit of a let-down. It had a very good nose, the best part of the wine in my opinion, with elements of spiced vanilla and fruit, with a fair bit of complexity. In the mouth it was medium bodied, now at peak and quite elegant, but perhaps a bit tart at the end. It will never get any better.
1989 - Cedar and vanilla nose, medium body, an elegant middle of the road sort of claret, and my second favourite of this flight. Some bottles were slightly corked, the first sign of this flaw which was to be repeated over the ensuing flights. In every case, as a result of carefully planned pouring, each table had representatives from each of the 3 bottles, so we always had the opportunity to taste wine form a good one.
1990 - reported by Parker to be a "hard, lean, austere, tannic style of Mouton" (but his note is now a few years old), we found this to be anything but. Those of us that had done the research were prepared for a wine that would rival the
1975s when young, but found instead a wine that showed great clarity of fruit in the nose, the best of this flight, and surprisingly evolved edges. It had a sweet entry and in the middle had more fruit than either the 85 or 89. Was it a failure in terms of the excellent 1990 vintage? Arguably so, but we were inclined to be more generous.
With herbed lamb rib eye in puff pastry:
1982 - this wine has caused me concern over the last few years. Like the 1977 Grahams Port, I kept seeing lavish praise for it in the reviews of others, and whenever I tasted it (every year or two) I found it to be if not closed, then definitely performing below the anticipated level. Well there is good news and bad news. The bottle we tasted was the best bottle I have tasted in many years; the wine is out of the woods. The bad news - for me (and others) this is neither a 100 point nor 100 year wine. Do not mistake me - it is very, very good, it just isn't as good as it gets and I have doubts about how long it will remain on plateau. It is no longer as dark as it used to be (who among us could say different?), and it showed great depth in the nose, with mineral, cedar, and a slightly plummy fruit. It is still young in the mouth with fantastic concentration, and an exceptionally long finish. It was without doubt the best Mouton in well over a decade, but nonetheless, for me anyway, if one must reduce the experience to points, it would be a high 90s certainly, but not a perfect wine.
1986 - this wine also garnered a perfect score, and in this case I agree. A huge, somewhat monolithic wine with a closed nose you had to work at, very tight in the mouth, but with a sweet entry followed swiftly by considerable tannins that were in balance with the levels of fruit. The magic of this wine is certainly the balance - there is no area that one can pick at and honestly characterize as containing anything approaching a flaw, nor even a shortcoming. It is all there, the elements of a great wine - they just need time to settle out.
1988 - they had to put something with the other two, and one knew that whatever won that spot would suffer in comparison. This wine (again, a slightly corked bottle was eliminated for the purpose of my note-taking) showed a vanilla and currant nose. It is still tannic, but the fruit is bright at this point. It shows indications of getting lean, which make me worry that the fruit is starting to decline - the wine should be fine for another 5 years, but if the fruit starts dropping seriously, that will limit enjoyment of it. There was a lot (far too much in this recent a vintage) of bottle variation here.
Finally, the geriatric set, with a Tome de chevre tart:
1970 - this was very kindly donated by the leader of the group, and I heard some voicing concerns as to whether it might be over the proverbial hill. I have had poor bottles of 1970, and very good bottles, so variability is always a factor. As it turned out, the wine was excellent - one of the best bottles I've tasted in years. Tobacco, cedar and tea nose, the edges getting fairly pale. The wine started sweet on entry and that note followed through to the commendably long finish - the fact that the sweetness was still present right to the end added a very important dimension to the wine, for me, anyway. Lovely claret, and my second favourite of the night after the 1982, and the 1986 which I elevate to it's own level, both because of quality and the fact that it really doesn't show as well right now as it will in the future.
1975 - I have also had very nice bottles of this vintage, and wondered whether it might not be better than the 1970 on this occasion. Pleasant mature nose with some spice and cocoa, the tannins if the vintage present but manageable, and the fruit sufficient unto the task. A very good bottle (better than the Imperial I had before Christmas, which showed less fruit and more terminal acidity), but not up to the 1970, which remained my favourite of this flight.
1983 - ahh - the first nose that I'd really call lead pencil. Some sweetness on entry, but the tannins are a tad hard and the wine 'narrows' as you get to the end, becoming tighter and leaner, ending with a disturbing amount of acidity, stemmy and out of balance. Poor showing in a good vintage.
1999 Ch. Rayne Vigneau - the first thing that struck me was that this was really showing a lot of colour - far more than the 2001, which is quite pale in comparison. I do not know what accounts for this accelerated darkening. Typical coconutty citrus nose, without any great amount of Botrytis. Pleasant but not exceptional wine.
Finally, a few comments on Mouton. I posed a serious question to Albert Givton, a fellow member with extensive experience and always ready to offer his opinion. I asked if he thought that they had made a mistake in 1973 when they elevated Mouton to first growth status. His short answer was that Mouton occasionally hit the heights expected of any wine that has first growth aspirations, but that it had a lot of 'misses' as well. He offered that Mouton is the only first growth that should not be bought en primeur, because you never know what you will be getting - better to pay 40% more having tasted the wine, and avoid the all too frequent underachiever vintages.
The question was thrown out to the membership at large and only a half dozen people (I was not among them) felt that Mouton was rightfully a first growth based on this survey of the best vintages of the last 3 decades.
Mouton has excellent terroir, located beside Lafite, but they have higher crop levels, and include far more of the fruit (that is, there is less selection of inferior fruit which would go into a second label) than the other first growths
- 80% of what is harvested, as opposed to perhaps half that for Lafite and Latour, goes into the grand vin. They have a marvellous gimmick, with their annual artist's label, and all the makings are there to perform at the top level, yet they more often perform as a 1 ½ growth, if you will, half a rung below the firsts and half a rung above the seconds. And so I expect it will remain, for there is surely no financial incentive for them to alter anything they are currently doing. In any case, a fascinating tasting indeed!