Re: TN: 1995 Ch. Haut-Brion

Salut/Hi Kirk-O-Scottland,

le/on Wed, 3 Sep 2003 09:34:01 -0600, tu disais/you said:-

Any top Bordeaux wine drunk at that age in a decent vintage is going to disappoint. You've committed infanticide, that's all. For all that it's a Graves it's still a 1er Cru, and as such it's designed for the long haul. What a pity you didn't ask here first.

Howdy. It's too light for my preferences for red Bordeaux, to clarify, realizing that Thomas Jefferson considered it his favorite wine. RMP says it's good for 30 years but I'd think you may be right on this one - I bet it would have been better when I got it early last year.

It is a direct quote from RMP's Wine Buyer's Guide 6th edition, page 130. I can't argue with what you've said as I simply don't know enough about it. My other experiences with red Bordeaux are: 1962 Mouton, 1964 Mouton, 1982 Mouton, 1996 Les Fiefs de Lagrange, and a few cheaper regional Bordeaux such as Miouex, B&N, Mouton Cadet, etc.! Rather limited, I know, but that's where my points of reference are.

Thanks for the suggestions. If only I could afford to simply stick with Mouton, it'd be a lot easier!

I wish I would have asked first as well. It was nevertheless supposed to be "approachable in its youth" but also lasting "30 years" (quotes from Parker). I figured eight years was worth a shot but I was wrong!

The 1982 Mouton is a definitely bigger than most wines, period!

The thing about long-aging Bdx that can get you is the dumb period. When I see these quotes in magazines etc. re "drinkable now, but can last 30 years", I usually want to shout "but likely to totally close down from 5th birthday to

How was the '96 Fiefs? I think I have an orphan bottle. Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

IMHO, "approachable in it's youth" means within 2-3 years of release. After that many wines shut down for any number of years before emerging into the wonderful stuff that they were intended to be. Bi!!

Thanks for the additional info Dimitri. FWIW, I finished the second half of the bottle last night and found it better than it was the first night (Tuesday night).

That's the general listing for Graves/Pessac, right? Hard to extrapolate from charts to one wine. 99 St-Estephe is also E, but I'm not planning on opening '99 Montrose anytime soon. And 1994 St-Juliens are listed as "C" (Caution, may be too old)- I've got several with some life still ahead.

Vintage charts are hard things to make estimates about particular wines from. I see Parker gives C (Caution) to 97 Cal. Cabernets, '95 Barolos, and both '98 and '93 Burgs - all vintages I have wines from that I am not even thinking of opening (though I'm sure there are plenty getting past it in each region). And I'm scarcely a fringe-thinker re aging, I seem to recall a brouhaha here a few months ago about how I drank my wines far too young.

Well, as to '95 Bdx in general, that's pretty much at odds with everyone I know- pretty good vintage. I'm not a '95 booster- I'm not as up on the vintage as James Suckling at WS (who still raves about it), and only have maybe a half-dozen 95s (a fraction of the '96s I cellar). But I haven't had a single classified-growth '95 that I thought was past it.

Well, I just looked. What they say is wait two years, drink between 2005-2020.

Best,

Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

Oh, certainly not. 1986 and 1975 are the two most tannic vintages I've had much experience with (pre-1970 Bdx are beyond my budget). I think I recently related my experience where the last glass on day 3 of an '86 Figeac was my far the most pleasant.

My generalization was intended for an average to good vintage- the lightest vintages tend to never shut down. The '97s never shut down in my opinion (as the '91s and '92s generally didn't), and most '97s are at their prime right now. As to '94s, I find them an in-between vintage. Some seemed to close down for a few years, but never to a totally dumb stage. Most seem awake, and probably good drinking over next 5+ years.

As we're discussing shutting down and 1986s in same discussion, I'd point out that I'm NOT saying that 1986s are shut-down- most I've tasted seem open, just that what they've opened to was a more mature phase of tannic monster. :)

And I should also state that most of my gross generalizations are based on a variety of 2nd thru 5th growths, and well as some St-Émilion Premiere Grand Cru Classés. One would expect longer aging curves for the 1st growths, and shorter ones for most Cru Bourgeois, lighter St. Émilions, petit chateaux, etc.

Best,

Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

Sorry you had a bad experience with 1995 Haut Brion, but this one will come around nicely with time.

I had it soon after release and found it incredibly well balanced with thick silky tannins. Definitely seems a bit light because the fruit, while evident, is in reserve.

Of late I have had a few 1995s, Lynch Bages most recently, and they are starting to mature a bit, but will need more time to really show their best. The fruit is still veiled for the most part.

But it was not a waste in my opinion. You have tried it and formed a judgment all your own.

Also it could be that you do not like Haut Brion. I do not like Cheval Blanc, but I can still admire it as a great wine.

That said, I do not buy it anymore. So I say consider this a learning experience. If after the second night you still have reservations on the style, then you have discovered something many wine drinkers never learn- that it is perfectly okay to personally dislike great wine, and it is very wise (and financially rewarding) to find this out early before you go off buying the stuff and cellaring it based on some critical review.

Take care,

Tom.

PS- I am not a huge Haut Brion fan though I think it may be the strongest performer among the first growths right now :)

Hi Tom: Interesting point. When you taste a lot of wine, eventually you realize there are very well-made wines -great wines even- that you just don't really care for. In my case that tends to be wines such as Pavie or Bryant Family. Intense, massive wines. I can appreciate how well-made and well, monumental they are, but not something I would go out and buy at even half the price. Ch. Rayas might be another one (I can hear the catcalls from the CdP Posse here already, sorry guys). Truly impressive Grenache, but there's dozens of $30 CdPs I like better (if it were priced like the Viña Alarba Old Vines Grenache I'd buy cases). Some Dominique Laurent GCs or Rochioli pinots might fit the bill, too.

There are other wines that have a reputation for greatness that I just don't see in the wine (recent vintages of Biondi-Santi BdM).

Of course, the best (wallet-wise) scenario is when you find a wine without a rep for greatness that tastes great to you. :) Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

Hi Dale,

Well it seems we might have similar palates!

Actually, on Thursday night I attended a tasting where we all brought wines that were tasted blind.

The lineup was as follows,

The La Tache (my bottle I confess) absolutely suffered in comparison to these fruit bombs, but later that night and the next day this is the wine that sticks in my mind for its purity, finesse and incredible nuance. There is no question it was the big loser in this lineup on an in the moment comparison, but I am glad it is the one in my cellar!

The L'Ermita was stunning also but too young.

Wine of the Night for me was the Turley however. It had the color depth and backwardness of a 2000 Bordeaux. In fact my first guess was Mouton 2000 because of the fruitcake tones. This is a stunning wine in need of 15-20 more years.

But again it proves the point that so much depends on the style one likes and it demonstrates that even a great wine like La Tache is not supreme in all respects. In a fruit bomb shootout, it will lose- even in the greatest vintages.

And it also shows that ones true preferences and loves will stick out if given time. This is one reason I do not type my notes until a few days after a tasting. I like to see what really sticks in my head long after the immediate comparisons wear away. It is too simple and too easy to just give in to what you see in front of you at the moment. The wines that linger in the mind long after are the ones to love IMHO.

As for Rayas, I have NEVER understood the hype surrounding this wine. I have been tasting a lot of Rhone in the past few years and have had the 1990, 1992 and 1995 Rayas and Pignans alongside many vintages of Centenaire, Beaucastel, VT, Vielle Julienne Reserve, Gardine etc etc etc.

Never in any of those events did Rayas come near the top of my list of wines for the night. Good stuff yes, but I think it is woefully overhyped. The 1995 I thought the best of the bunch and pretty good in its own right, but worth the price? No way.

Tom.

Whoa, Nellie. Just to be clear, "I" never said that Haut-Brion wasn't to my taste! HB is probably my favorite 1st growth of the last 20 years (not that I've tasted that many Firsts!). A search should turn up my swooning notes on the '85 & '88 particularly.

And as I said, I don't dislike Rayas, just find that there are other (far cheaper) CdPs I prefer.

Man, going around saying someone doesn't like Haut-Brion- you know how to hurt a guy! :)

Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply