We started with two 1985 Domaine Leflaive wines: Puligny Combettes and the Chevalier Montrachet. Of this particular pair of bottles the Combettes just shaded the Grand Cru. Both were in great nick, with pale colours and fresh, exciting aromatics but the Combettes was more taut, mineral and driving. The Chevalier was hint more advanced. Rich and rounded on the palate, with a hint of honey and great breath, this corresponded to my expectations of the relatively warm 1985 vintage. Alone it would have sung but the Combettes poured alongside it had greater definition and line. The Combettes’ nose showed white blossom characters and a slap of saline freshness. There was something of the character of mature BdB Champagne about its scent and then the palate was just beautifully delineated and precise. I’d rate the Chevy 17/20 and the Combettes 18.5.
Next we compared Jaboulet’s Hermitage La Chapelle 1990 and 1959. The famous 1990 was like a 2010 wine - huge, deep colour followed by massive, dark-toned fruit and even a touch of oak still. It is a wine of concentration, muscle and power that I actually found hard to really love as, this bottle at this stage, seemed all about potential rather than being a joy to drink. If it makes sense, the fruit profile of the 1990 was sweet but the flavours were intensely savoury. It was nowhere near mature, far more about mass than complexity, and by far the most youthful '90 I’ve seen from anywhere. The 1959 was gorgeous. The fill was high and the cork in tip top form. In terms of colour, this had the mahogany tones of maturity. The bouquet was sweet, spicy and nuanced. The sweetness carried through to the palate, where it developed mushroom and earth notes before finishing dry. Silky in texture, it was a wine of great volume but without weight, pulling off the trick of being delicate whilst intensely scented and long. For me, I’d have the 1990 at 17.5 and the 1959 18.5.
The 1990 La Chapelle is one of the greatest wines ever made - although not yet fully mature. What is the sense of giving it 17.5 points for youthfulness?
Very simple - I didn’t find it one of the greatest wines ever made. It’s not marked down for youthfulness. I’m happy giving 20/20 to young wines - Latour 2010 (for example) - but that '90 wasn’t in that league.
Nice wines, Matthew.
I’ve drunk several bottles of '85 Leflaive Clavoillon with some bottle variation. The good bottles are incredibly good. A good reminder for me to take a look for my remaining stock to drink up!
Cool to see your notes, especially after coming across your picture of the bottles on twitter yesterday (which I rarely use so it’s a strange coincidence, though it’s a small world I guess). Sounds like you had a good evening. I agree about the 90 La Chapelle - it might (I hope) ease into less of a brutish guise over the next couple of decades but I personally have preferred the '83 and '85 when tasting with the '90 in the past. Definitely more approachable but also more balanced IMO.
It’s not surprising at this stage–27 years post-harvest–that there’s a fair amount of bottle variation in something like the 1990 La Chapelle. FWIW, I haven’t had one that I thought was very close to “maturity.”
Interesting…I’ve had the '90 La Chapelle 10 times, most recently 5 weeks ago. This wine has always been my benchmark Hermitage. The bottle that I had a little less than two years ago was the best I’ve drank. The bottle 5 weeks ago seemed a little ripe and while everyone else loved it, I was a little re-missed. Having tasted quite a few older bottles in England and Europe, I’m convinced that wines that have crossed the pond don’t have the same longevity as the Euro bottles, especially wines that were transported to the Mid-West pre-y2k.
Crazy to here that the '85 Leflaive’s are still singing, but not surprised. The last vintage that I purchased was the '05. The current notes of POX with the recent vintages is depressing…
Just to emphasise that I did enjoy the 1990 La Chapelle - 17.5/20 is a good score - and I’ll run for opportunities to drink it again, it’s just that the earth didn’t move. There are great 1990s out there but I do wonder if it’s just not the outstanding all-time great it has occasionally been painted to be? For instance, I prefer Chave’s '91 over the '90 and in Bordeaux will almost always choose '89 before a '90.
I´ve had the 90 LCh a good 10-11 times (I have it also in halves) and it was highly impressive each and every time, simply a great wine.
17.5 is (as I see it) adequat to 92/100 … and that´s ridiculously low for a bottle LC90 in good shape …
(but maybe it wasn´t…)
Regarding Chave: the ´91 is simply on its plateau of perfect maturity (for a good 5-7 years) while the ´90 isn´t mature (like LCh) … I would also chose the ´91 for current drinking, but I wouldn´t rate it higher …
Agree with Al; the 1990 Jaboulet Crozes is a fine drink. It’s pretty much fully mature for my tastes, although well-stored bottles are in no danger of major decline yet.
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
![[shock.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0b1dcf699ec319f43254f92e3f145786dcd93904.gif "shock"){kind=small}