7 Blind Men do VERY OLD wines...and a mystery theme!

WINE TALK
1

Last night the Seven Blind Men convened at Il Grano restaurant in West Los Angeles for dinner in the private room. As is the group’s custom, it was up to the host to determine a theme for the evening and provide the wines from his cellar, serving all of the wines double-blind. The usual suspects were in attendance (Jeff Leve, Eric Cotsen, Steve Matthesen, Michael Novick, Gregg Tenser, and Brian Devine), as well as my guest Joseph Wu.

This month it was my turn to host. I chose a mystery theme. Can you figure it out more quickly than our Seven Blind Men?

As the guests made their way in, they were greeted with an aperitif and the rules for the evening. In short:

  1. Each guest would be assigned one double-blind flight to identify and rate on a 100-point scale before the rest of the group began deliberating the nature and quality of the wines. Score sheets were provided.

  2. There was a mystery theme for the evening. Of the 21 wines to be served, one would be a ringer; the others all abided by the dinner’s overarching theme. The first person to correctly guess the theme would win…something; and

  3. If anyone guessed “Pavie” for one of my wines, he would have to drink the dump bucket.

On to the wines…

Aperitif. Served with passed stuzzichini.

Wine 0. Tawny, pecan-colored and translucent in the glass, the wine provides initial aromas of walnuts, lime and hot toddy mellowing into toasted nuts and green olives with more time. On the palate, the wine is tangy, salty in the way caviar is salty, and quite dry. The moderately long finish leaves the impression of camp smoke, citrus zest and sweat…surprisingly pleasant. 92

Eric and then Jeff correctly identified the wine as sherry, and there was no dissent. On average, I do not think the group liked the wine as much as I did. For instance, Jeff scored it a 50 (out of 100). On the positive side, that score reminded me to toss the high and low scores before averaging the rest. With that method (used for the rest of the tasting, as well), the group score was 90.

The wine: Berry Bros. Sherry Vintage 1860 “Pata de Gallina” (bottled 1934).

Flight 1 (sparkling wines). Served with crudo of Japanese snapper, wild blue fin tuna, and wild Japanese yellowtail.

Wine 1A. Very light in color, like fresh straw, the wine displayed spicy, lemony, bready aromas along with ripe fruit and a smoky, flint-mineral quality. The mouse was fine and robust, and the acidity was fresh, even bracing. The wine might be a touch broad for me, but, all in, a very nice young champagne. 90

Wine 1B. A darker gold in color than Wine 1A, this was also more decadent on the nose, full of roasted nuts, white chocolate, ripe nectarines and a touch of lacquer. In the mouth, it was rich with stone fruit and marzipan and nicely acidic. The mousse was a little tired, which is the only real flaw I could find with the wine. Lovely, mineral-laden length. 93

This was the first proper flight, and it was up to Gregg to render his verdict. If memory serves, he thought that both wines were from Champagne, Wine 1B being from the 60s or even 50s and Wine 1A from the 80s. This is not a Champagne-focused group, in general, so we did not push for a producer. Gregg scored the wines 95 and 94. The group rate Wine 1A as 92 and Wine 1B as 93.

The wines: (1A) 1996 Dom Ruinart. (1B) 1969 Dom Ruinart Cave des Roys.

Flight 2 (white wines). Accompanied by butter poached spiny lobster over spiced Nantes carrots.

Wine 2A. Focused, lithe, breezy…with it’s crushed limestone and meyer lemon notes it makes me think of an old-school Chablis made by an old man that rarely smiles…and that’s a good thing. 90+

Wine 2B. The richest and sweetest of the three wines, this lovely, light-colored wine smelled of lychee and seawater and a bit like lime squeezed on a fresh oyster. It’s yellow-green fruit, strong minerality and sharp cut were beguiling. 91

Wine 2C. The most mineral intense and least fruity of the wines, it was beautifully saline on the nose. Unfortunately, while the palate was clean and brisk, the fruit seemed to be muted or fading. 88

Steve was at bat for this flight and suggested that it was a vertical of white Burgundy, quickly seconded by all of the other guests, a few suggesting Chablis or a 2003 horizontal of Meursault. When I indicated that the wines were not from Burgundy, the guesses quickly moved to Aubert, Chateau Montelena and even Chave. Admittedly, there was probably some test-taking bias going on here, as some people have a pretty good idea about what is in my cellar. The scoring on the wines was pretty tight among the group, with three or less points separating the various scores for a given wine. Wine 2A: 92.6. Wine 2B: 92.4. Wine 2C: 89.2.

The wines: Luneau-Papin Muscadet de Sevre-et-Maine Le L D’Or - 1997 (2A), 2004 (2B), and 1995 (2C).

Originally, I had planned to include different whites, but I am glad I changed my mind and brought the muscadet. I got the impression that the other tasters expected them to be $50, maybe $100 more wines (as they guessed Meursault, Aubert, etc.). While I don’t recall the exact figure, I believe these ran around $15/bottle. Very happy to have a cellar full!

Flight 3 (red wines). Served with homemade tagliolini with white truffles (so simple, but this dish was *** and paired wonderfully with the wines).

Wine 3A. Bricking and lightly browning at the edges and purple toward the center, the wine smelled of dark plums, gingerbread, leather and flints, leaving a slightly decadent impression. Full bodied and still a touch grippy, it had mouth-filling dark fruit and a moderately long finish that was, alas, drying out. 92+

Wine 3B. A shade lighter in color than 3A, this wine also had a lighter fruit profile, both in terms of its tone (cherries and ripe strawberries) and intensity. The latter allowed a glimpse of more complex and nuanced aromas: light tobacco leaf, charred meat, cranberry sauce, gravel and loam. In the mouth, the fruit was less pronounced with more tart flavors, the wine was better balanced, almost serene, and I found the finish smoother and longer. 96+

It was Mr. Leve’s turn at the plate, and he set to work on the wines. After a few minutes, he ventured that they were older Burgundies, probably from the 40s and one possibly from the 20s. Most people agreed with the Burgundy call (possibly, in part, due to the fact that I served them in Burgundy glasses), with two tasters thinking the might be from the 60s and one person guessing 1950s Barolo. Throwing out the low scores (in both cases Jeff) and the high scores (in both cases the prescient Dr. Wu), the average scores were 94.6 for Wine 3A and 92.4 for Wine 3B.

Since almost everyone thought it was likely a vertical rather than horizontal flight, I asked how far apart in age people thought the wines were. The answers ranged from 1 year to as many as 30 years. The answer was…87 years.

The wines: (3A) 1945 Chateau Beychevelle and (3B) 1858 Chateau Beychevelle.

Flight 4 (red wines). Acquarello risotto saffron with sweetbreads accompanied this flight.

Wine 4A. Light around the edges leading to a garnet center, this wine was pleasant enough to look at, but, upon first whiff, I was in love. The kaleidoscopic nose offered strawberry compote, ambergris, rust, dried rose petal, fresh mushroom, hoisin. The wine was silky, elegant, long, light on its feet (maybe this is why Jeff scored it 89…gasp!)…it wasn’t big, but it had a certain presence, almost charisma. It may be sacrilege to say, but it was right up there with a beautiful bottle of ’52 La Tache in terms of wines that I’ve enjoyed recently. 98.

Wine 4B. More fruity and obvious than the previous wine, this was still a lovely bottle, darker in color and darker in fruit profile, with black cherries and citrus rind dominating with notes of nuts, leather, cola and old library. A soft and pliable wine with decent grip, it didn’t dance in the way 4A did and suffered by comparison. 93.

This proved a difficult flight to nail double-blind. There was quite a bit of debate, ranging from suggestions of Spain to those of very old Chateauneuf du Pape. A few remarks regarding the deep cherry profile of Wine 4B had me hopeful, but, in the end, no one was willing to declare Burgundy. People did appear to really enjoy the wines though. Wine 4A: 95.4. Wine 4B: 93.2.

The wines: Hopsices de Beaune, Beaune, Cuvee Nicolas Rolin - 1949 (4A) and 1946 (4B)

At this point in the evening, the inimitable Mr. Matthesen guessed my mystery theme for the dinner. I honestly believed there was a good chance that no one would guess it, and I certainly didn’t expect anyone to get it half-way through dinner. :razz:

While I write up my notes for the rest of the wines, can anyone else (correctly) guess the theme?


Cheers!

  • Frank [bye.gif]
2

I’m stumped. I’ve ruled out “wines from vintages that happen to be prime numbers” and “wines made by guys named Stu.” So what was the theme?

3

“Almost All Wines that start with the letter B” is my guess. If you say that the Champagnes are Bubblies (also starting with the letter B), only the Muscadet throws you. But I suppose most Muscadet has a BRINEY aspect, which also starts with the letter B. [whistle.gif]

Now, where are those black helicopters?

4

Hi Frank,

Great notes so far and it looks like it was a great evening. I would guess your theme was wines that deserve more respect. In any event, I can understand very well Jeff’s difficulty with the flight of Beychevelles, as I have often found a real Burgundian signature to older Beychevelles as well- the 1959 recently served double blind had a veritable Clos de la Roche signature for the first ten or fifteen minutes after decanting, before more classic claret tones came to the fore. I have not had either vintage you served, but the '45 sounds rather similar to many Medocs in this vintage- a tad muscle-bound through their whole existences and now with the fruit starting to fade a bit, while the tannins have remained a bit obdurate. Would have loved to have tasted the 1858, which sounded just ethereal and stunning.

Question on the two Hospices Nicolas Rollin bottlings- were they bottled by the same negociant, or different ones? From your notes it sounded like two different shippers, with the '46 perhaps a bit fleshed out with a bit of something else. Kudos for serving a flight of Luneau-Papin Le L d’Or- a great wine and probably a bit further afield that some in your tasting group are accustomed to trying with any frequency. Interesting order (1997, 2004, 1995) that you served them in- was there a reason you shuffled the vintages?

Looking forward to part two of the notes.

Best Regards,

John

5

1949 Burgundies ROCK!
Great notes here.
Beaune’s can last a long time and develop almost Grand Cru complexity.

6

John, good point regarding older Beychevelle, and I agree. Expecting (or at least hoping) they would show as they did, I arranged them at a point in the dinner (and with a food pairing) that would normally be reserved for Burgundy. The Burgundies were bottled by the same negociant. As soon as I download some photos from my phone, I will post a picture of the bottles/labels. And the order of the wines within a flight is largely random. Since our group does blind tastings (more in a parlor game sense than any serious critical undertaking), one of the questions we often debate is the age of the wines and which ones are older or younger.

Don, thanks…I agree! Love the '49s almost across the board.

Serge, I try to get together with Patrick whenever he is out here, but he’s not a member of this particular group. It’s all Southern California folks and we meet eight or nine times per year.

Cheers!

7

The second half of the dinner…

Flight 5 (red wines). Served with wild Scottish partridge and autumn vegetables.

Wine 5A. Much younger in appearance than the other red wines so far, this was purple-saturated red in the glass, noticeably lighter around the edges but with no browning. The nose was immense, full of cassis and chocolate, raw meat, vanilla oak, nuts, gravel…I could tell that this particular group was going to love this bottle of wine. On the palate, the wine was supple but still very grippy, with powerful dark fruit, hints of slate and cedar, and a very persistent finish. If I were to have any criticism of the wine, it would be that I noticed the alcohol a tad more than I would have liked to. Still, beautiful 96+

Wine 5B. Less intensely purple than the first wine, this nonetheless appeared quite youthful. The nose offered blackberry, dark cherry, caramel, cedar and a touch of mint. On the palate, the wine was fully integrated with little grip but no obvious signs of decline, dark cherry fruit with a dash more tartness. The finish was moderate in length. 92+

It was Eric’s turn, and he thought the flight was a horizontal of 1959 Bordeaux, probably right bank. Everybody else agreed that it was Bordeaux, thought most felt it was Left Bank. Michael agreed that is was likely 1959 while others suggested 1961 or a 1961/45 vertical. Well, this is primarily a Bordeaux group. The group scores were 95.4 for Wine 5A and 93.8 for Wine 5B.

The wines: Mouton Rothschild - 1959 (5A) and 1969 (5B).

A few months ago, we had a bottle of ’59 Mouton that, while not obviously flawed, was disappointing. This bottle, on the other hand, was everything I’ve come to expect from the wine at its best. The real surprise was the ’69 Mouton. 1969 is my birth year (and as this was my belated birthday celebration with the wine group, I wanted to include some wines from the year). I’ve almost always been disappointed with bottles of ’69 Bordeaux, but this Mouton was really delicious and showed well even in the company of the legendary ’59. I was very pleased.

Flight 6 (red wines). Accompanied by a duet of lamb: chop with braised Cavolo Nero and ragu with gnocchi.

Wine 6A. Garnet in color, pale meniscus and a ruby core. The nose was subtle but charming: plums, cinnamon, leather with a touch of game and cedar. Surprisingly rich in the mouth, almost fatty, with fully resolved tannins and a moderate finish. One thing the wine lacked (possibly just in juxtaposition to the previous flight) was intensity. 91

Wine 6B. This was entirely undrinkable. Cloudy, tart, acetic, and reeking of acetone. Gets 50 points for being wet. 50

Wine 6C. Deepest in color of this flight, largely violet. I was immediately struck by aromatics of mint and green pepper over dark fruit, a recipe I did not find appealing. With time, the green pepper faded and the nose became more pleasant and the fruit richer, almost a little too much so. The wine was better on the palate, extracted, plums and dark cherries, inelegant but substantial. Given the change in aromatics, with more time this wine might have improved. 84

Wine 6D. Deep garnet in color with a little browning at the edges. The wine had a sweet nose with interesting undertones of earth and autumn herbs but was all drying tart cherry fruit on the palate. Interesting for a few minutes, it fell apart rather quickly. 81

Mike took a shot at these wines and guessed very old malbec. Given my propensity for pulling bottles of ’77 Weinert Estrella and the deep, rich fruit profiles of wines 6A and 6C, I thought that was a pretty good guess. The other suggestions were all over the map, which makes sense once you know the wines…

The wines: 1969 Cheval Blanc (6A). 1969 Gaja Barbera (6B). 1969 Mayacamas Cabernet Sauvignon (6C). 1969 Cos D’Estournel (6D).

Incidentally, the group scores were: Wine 6A 90.8, Wine 6B 68.6, Wine 6C 84.3, Wine 6D 84.

The flight was just an excuse for me to pull some wines from my birth year and see what they were like. The Gaja was totally shot, but that’s no fault of the wine…it was probably not meant to be cellared four years, much less forty. The Cheval was a very pleasant surprise. And I’m still uncertain about the Mayacamas. Was it a flawed bottle? It seemed like it might have some volatile acidity. The only other note I’ve read was from Jamie Kutch who found his bottle drying out. That didn’t seem the case here. Oh, well, just not enough data points it seems…

Flight 7. With Japanese wagyu spencer steak and cauliflower black truffle.

Wine 7A. Dark in the glass with a browning at the rim. The wine had an ebullient nose of plum and cherry brandy, cigar box, olives, lavender and chaparral. On the palate, the the wine was more monolithic in flavor but with nice tension and a moderate finish. There was something vaguely port-like about the wine. 92+

Wine 7B. Noticeably browning in color, the nose reminded me of chocolate-covered cherries with a twist of lemon. Extremely soft on the palate, the wine seemed in decline, offering soft fruit but drying in the end…disappointing relative to the nose. 86

Wine 7C. Indistinguishable in color from 7B, this wine had a nose more reminiscent of very old Haut Brion, full of raisins and firewood and notes of amarone. On the palate it was mouth-filling but starting to dry, showing most roasted fruits and and dry finish. 89

Wine 7D. My favorite wine of the flight after 7A. Similar to that wine in color only, this wine had an entirely different personality. The nose was caramel, prunes and forest fire, and on the palate it was more concentrated but without the lift that gave 7A its lovely tension. 91

At this point in the night, it was our guest’s turn to figure out the flight, and I know he was cursing me under his breath (okay, it was outloud) for making him guess after we’d had 16 bottles of wine. Joe guessed 1978 California cabs. Interestingly, I could see what he meant. The incredible richness of at least two of the wines made sense in that context, reminiscent of ’78 Diamond Creek Volcanic Hill (or even more, to my palate, ’85 Groth Reserve). Other guesses included 1978 right bank wines. No one thought the wines were any older than the 60s.

The group scores were: Wine 7A 92.2, Wine 7B 88.2, Wine 7C 89, Wine 7D 91.8.

The wines: Chateau Rouget - 1947 (7A), 1929 (7B), 1928 (7C), 1945 (7D).

Jeff hated the wines. Steve and Joe seemed to really like the wines. I thought the 1945 and especially 1947 were quite nice and the 20’s wines in decline but still interesting. In fact, I recorked the bottles when leaving the restaurant and am having a glass of the ’47 Rouget as I write this, and it has held up quite well. As with everything in wine, it is just a matter of preference. Even the 1929 (which I scored the lowest of the four) would be my choice, in most cases, over any 2005 Bordeaux if I were sitting down to eat at my house, whether it was to roasted chicken, winter stew or just a BLT. It has the advantage of being a mature (in this case, a bit over-mature), integrated wine that plays well with food. So I’m glad to have wines like this in my cellar. I’m sure in the decades to come the ‘05s will be in a similar place.

Dessert. With assorted cheeses.

Wine 8. The wine smelled like a distilled spirit, an initial blast of alcohol followed by various herbal and medicinal aromas. It was more pleasant on the palate, very smooth and with the mouth-coating calmness one sometimes finds in old Burgundy. There wasn’t really much fruit flavor left, but there were interesting herbal notes…reminded me of Chartreuse without the sugar. Clearly way over the hill. NR

Everyone had already taken his turn, so we just chatted over the cheese course. I offered to open an older Madeira, but it was late and people had to get home.

The wine: 1860 Loeb Vintage Port (Shipper unkown)

Clearly, this wine was over the hill, and it is almost impossible to discern whether or not it was once a great wine (at least to a lay person like me). As far as I can tell, 1860 Vintage Port is as rare as hen’s teeth. I’ve never seen a bottle, and the only reference I remember reading was by Broadbent to a single bottle from an unknown shipper, quite possibly this same wine. Anyway, academically interesting…to me, at least. I froze the last several ounces in the bottle for Andy Velebil. Hopefully, he can make something of it.

Thoughts.

All in, I considered this a successful dinner. Sal, the owner of Il Grano and a great wine geek himself, did an amazing job working with me on the menu and the service. And I was very happy with the wines…we had no corked bottles, and, of those I had tasted before, none showed under my expectations.

As with all my dinners, I try to open wines that my guests will enjoy while at the same time focusing on wines they will not have had or had often. This can be difficult with a group of experienced tasters, each with an impressive cellar of his won. At the same time, I try to pull bottles representative of my cellar an tastes and present them in a context that promotes open-minded critique. I feel that this was accomplished Thursday night. For instance, Mr. Leve, an outspoken critic of Burgundy’s wines, scored the 1946 Beaune as tied for his second top bottle of red, behind only 1959 Mouton. And, in general, the muscadet garnered uniformly positive scores, certainly relative to its $15 pricetag.

I only hope that everyone in attendance enjoyed the meal half as much as I enjoyed organizing it.

Cheers!

8

Here you go:

Cheers!

9

Frank,
A wonderful recount of events and obviously a great time. I like the idea of wines that provoke a discussion or disagreement between people. It really makes things interesting hearing why people think a wine is good or not…well, at least for me anyways.

Not many old shippers or producers recork their old Port bottles. And since Loeb was a negotiant that bought Port in cask then bottled it themselves I suspect it was probably the original cork. Unless it was a private person that owned it previously who recorked it. I should also mention that the rule of bottling Vintage Port between the second and third year after harvest wasn’t a rule back then, that only came about post WW2. So often Vintage Port was bottled several years or more after the harvest and still labeled as Vintage Port (today they would be considered more of a Colheita or LBV).

Your description of the smell and taste sounds very similar to a bottle of 1815 Port that I had a couple of years ago (BTW, Napoleon was battling at Waterloo in 1815!). It too was very medicinal and herbally. I do thank you very much for saving me the remains to try, as you know how big my love of Port is. It will be very educational to try it and I’ve already reached out to some contacts to try and figure out who the producer was.

10

Great notes Frank! Seems like it was an amazing evening! I can barely even contemplate the opportunity to taste such an amazing array of wines.
Drying out, over the hill, DOA…who cares…the educational value alone would be off the chart! [welldone.gif]

Cheers!
Marshall [cheers.gif]

11

Frank,

Great notes, great theme.

Blind tasting is the best way for me.

I find it fascinating.

The Muscadet flight reveals so much.

Thanks for sharing and keep up the good work. [welldone.gif]

Serge, [welldone.gif]