Last night at my house was a dinner with my wine group and a friend from Australia. Dom and Bordeaux was the call for the night. Here are my quick notes from a somewhat foggy memory. Dom Perignon - 96, 08 Legacy version, 09, and 99 P2.
The 08 and 99 P2 (formerly Oenotheque) were standouts. The 96, as has been the case with a few of these lately, was tired and had some oxidation. The 09 was fuller and creamier than the 08 with its spine and core. The 99 P2 was as youthful as the 08 and had a beguiling nose.
Then to fill in the gap with the food, a white Burgundy was requested so I pulled this out of the cellar with a pop and pour.
2011 Lafon Meursault Perrieres - Honey, caramel, roasted nuts, balance and all that a great Meursault can offer. And even after tasting all the Bordeaux, this stood out as the consensus wine of the night…
Bordeaux =
2000 Leoville Poyferre - young with good promise 1983 Margaux - took a bit to open but many liked this the as the best of the Bordeaux 1989 la Conseillante - soft, velvety and easily accessible 1989 Pichon Lalande - typical lead pencil Pauillac; nice 1995 Grand Puy LaCoste - young and not showing much 1990 Clinet - strange showing after a previous bottle was good; the cork literally crumbled into sawdust 1986 Latour - iron, strong and needs time but should be great in another ten years
2001 Yquem - great as always; decadent, luscious, viscous, tropical fruits.
Thanks for the notes, Jerry. Sorry to hear about the 96 Dom. It’s been a favorite of mine for a long time and I’ve had some good bottles recently. Hoping it hangs on for a while longer!
Awesome lineup Jerry - I kind of felt like we missed the prime window of the ‘83 Margaux by finishing it within a few hours of opening earlier this year. Still brooding for a couple of hours but nevertheless stunning.
It seems like most of the ‘95’s I’ve opened have had the same issue as the GPL you noted, even with some air. Ducru was a clear exception, with surprisingly ripe fruit notes that could have almost passed for really good CA cab.
Btw, our mutual friend Doug Densmore says hi - I brought some wine over to his house for dinner recently (a bottle of ‘78 Trotanoy that was really singing). He mentioned your wine interest and by crazy coincidence I saw you posting here the next day.
Regarding the '96 DP; I have several which I planned to hold for a bit. 1996 is our anniversary year. It has been a few years since I opened one, but at that point, they were nowhere near peak and showed no oxidative notes. John Gilman re-tasted them less than a year ago and suggested a drinking window lasting forty years!
As always, thank for the notes, and sorry for hoping your bottles were simply damaged and not representative.
Yes, sorry Jerry but unfortunately those bottles were not representative. I drink a bottle of it every couple of months or so and they are still vibrant.
As far as the 96 Dom, I’ve had three bottles this year from three different sources and two of them have been lass than stellar. Soon after release it was one of my all time favorites but with these last two bottles I’m not sure it is holding well. I have another bottle ready to go to check it out again.
Alan - nope. Burgundy is still my go to wine, both red and of course white.
I have not yet hit a bad bottle of 1996 Dom (been about 3 years since I last partook), but I have heard similar accounts to yours from others Jerry.
While we are on the topic, I have heard the same about 1996 Krug, and not long ago I experienced such a bottle. Definitely not heat damaged- rather it was advanced and very flat (in terms of flavor, still had its effervescence.)
Tom - I had a sip that was left in the bottle the next day and it was musty and certainly not what a 96 Dom should be. All that, I do prefer my Champagne younger than older, fresher than oxidized. I’ll check out my next bottle of 96 Dom soon and report back.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}