Greetings, All.
I was invited by Melissa McCall to join this board. Briefly, I’m a 40-something lawyer (married, 3 sons) who lives in the Philippines and is obsessed with wine, food and pairing. I grew up drinking French wine because of my father, hence my strong preference for French wines, mainly Bordeaux, Burgundy. I do very much enjoy wines from Italy and Spain as well.
These are my notes (as well as a few photos) from a 1996 horizontal 1st growth horizontal dinner, 7 friends in all, held on the 29th June 2008 at one of the participant’s wine shop.
With pass-arounds of Sautéed Scallops with Braised Oxtail and Microgreens, and, Beignet de Brandade with Tomato Confit:
1996 Veuve Clicquot “La Grande Dame” - I think this is the first time I tried this vintage of La Grande Dame as, to the best of my (ailing) memory, I recall having had only the '89, '90 and '95. Clean, pure white fruit attack turns floral, very toasty and mildly yeasty the moment it hits mid-palate, where it expands generously and gains substantial creaminess towards the back. Sucking in a bit of air once the bubbles allow emphasizes the toastiness. This bubbly certainly wasn’t shy; it was eager to please, displayed proudly mid-mouth with a funneling exit of added citrus notes.
1996 Dom Pérignon - We’ve had this many times and I’ve written at least 2 tasting notes since early 2005 when I first tried it, the last written notes I’ve found being from early December 2006:
Dom Perignon 1996 - A gift to me by the Doc, I brought it to go with the starters. We’ve gone through many, many bottles of this over the last couple of years, and it remains as bright and linear as ever. My old notes state:
Toasty young citrus with easily detectable yeasty/bread dough notes trailing. Bracing, bright, crisp, linear, firm yet enthusiastic primary flavors of pineapple, apricot and lemon. Acids pronounced in the finish. Still quite young, a long way to go, very precocious but charmingly so.
I add now that the apricot is very faint and the wine is noticeably toastier than before. A very good Dom Pérignon.
What I can further add is that, in comparison to the Grande Dame (though most enjoyable and entertaining in itself), the Dom has obviously better focus, much finer mousse, a tighter-knit body (beside the Grande Dame, the latter seems slightly loose and scattered), purer fruit and a healthier, bracing acidic edge.
In all, I say the Dom was a neater, finer, more complete and streamlined package. At this stage, I’d open the Grande Dame for joyous frivolity and the Dom for more refined occasions and contemplative moments.
After dishes of Essence of Pot-au-Feu Bone Marrow, followed with a salad of Mixed Greens, Reblochon, Toasted Walnuts and Truffle Vinaigrette, Portobello and Goat Cheese Ravioli in Sage Butter with Parmesan Cheese and a Dalandan (a local citrus similar to an orange) Sorbet, with a main course of Roasted Prime Rib-Eye Au Jus, Potato Lyonnaise, Dwarf Bok Choi, the wines were served and ranked semi-blind (i.e., we knew what the wines in the line-up were but were not told which was which):
Wine A - I immediately noted readily apparent roasted herbs in the nose and Gentleman Joe pointed out the slight scent of chocolate (Eric said mocha while I leaned more towards milk chocolate). Sweet cedar, touch of camphor, mild gravel infused the dark fruit/cassis. Ripe cherry/mild raspberry highlights. Long finish, warm and comforting feel.
The herbs and gravel gave this one away, most likely. I and others guessed it to be the Haut-Brion.
It turned out, in fact, to be the 1996 Haut-Brion.
Wine B - Deep, dark, layered fruit, mild licorice, lead pencil. Sweet tea nuances surfaced later on. Not very expressive at this point and there is a detectable gap between individual flavors that, to me, indicates that the wine still needs material time to come together. Very good structure noted though. Solid bones in this.
I couldn’t guess what it was and it was later on revealed to be the sole non-first growth 1996 Léoville las Cases.
I’m not surprised now that this wine hadn’t quite come together yet as las Cases, in my experience, always takes a very long time to reveal its true harmony and resulting beauty.
Wine C - Big, wide, a bit muddled at first but eventually settled down after many more minutes into its ripe, luscious, opulently rounded, full-bodied self. Dark chocolate, camphor, Spanish cedar notes. The most open and forward of the reds. I and another noted a bit later that it was an especially good pairing with the steak.
Due to its comparative forwardness and openness even at this young stage (for a Médoc first growth, that is), together with its pronounced dark chocolate and luscious mouthfeel, I guessed it to be the Mouton Rothschild.
The wine turned out to be the 1996 Mouton Rothschild.
Wine D - Minty nose with ripe cranberry nuances over ripely sweet cassis. Broad and elegant mid-mouth with whispers of anise, tea leaf and violets hanging in the long black fruit finish.
After a while, I noticed unresolved tannins in the finish, but this is hardly surprising for a first growth this age. I jotted it down as the Lafite.
It was later revealed to be the 1996 Lafite Rothschild.
Wine E - My notes become even more telegraphic at this stage since everyone else was starting to vote and I hadn’t finished my rankings yet. At blind tastings, I am most always the last to submit and usually feel embarrassed holding everyone else up. The only reasons I take long, though, is because (1) I wish to see how each wine evolves over the evening’s span; and, (2) I make several passes on each wine in attempt to give justice to each’s merits.
In any event, I recall sweetish herb notes hovering above a perfumed aroma. Like Wine B, I noted a bit of a diffused feel to it and noted that it still was “not come together”.
I was quite surprised when it was revealed to be the 1996 Margaux.
Wine F - Approaching the generosity, weight and fullness of Wine C (i.e., the Mouton), but in a more somber, properly reserved manner. Masculine. Neither opulent nor flamboyant, the wine glares back at you, challenging, seemingly daring you to drink it. Layered dark fruit, minerals, graphite, cassis, earthy. There is red berry/fruit on the surface, to be sure, but seems to be wanting to sink deeper into the middle. More terroir driven than fruit, to me. No material chocolate notes noticed.
Again, being rushed, I couldn’t write down an educated guess but fleetingly thought it to be the Léoville las Cases. I was wrong. It was the 1996 Latour.
The afternoon before the dinner, I recalled, upon the Doc’s prompting, that we had this before at an IWFS Latour vertical held at Bianca’s a few years ago. Unfortunately, due to too much wine, I lost the notes I took of that evening. Good thing the Doc reminded me as I had forgotten that I ever had this wine before.
My Own Ranking:
Wine #1 - Wine C, Mouton Rothschild
Wine #2 - Wine F, Latour
Wine #3 - Wine D, Lafite Rothschild
Wine #4 - Wine E, Margaux
Wine #5 - A tie between Wines A and B: Haut-Brion and Léoville las Cases
The Group’s Collective Ranking (only until 3rd favorite wine):
Wine #1 - Wine F, Latour
Wine #2 - Wine D, Lafite Rothschild
Wine #3 - Wine E, Margaux
The aftermath was just as wonderful. We enjoyed a 1996 Yquem and a 2001 Rieussec with a simple Vanilla Bean Crème Brûlée with Candied Orange Zest. At that point, I was a bit mentally exhausted from analyzing the reds so I shamefully neglected to write down any notes on these Sauternes. You’ll just have to take my word for it that they were both sublime in their own ways.
![[good.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f84c5acc11486ee4baba6dee6cf61dbd133abb18.gif "thumbsup"){kind=small}
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
![[notworthy.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/5/5fbbc0631da3a2a241f5540e5127d428c0fc48dd.gif "notworthy"){kind=small}