This was part of a very generous gift from a friend of our family. Many of the other wines were really excellent. This I’d expected to be less so, and it delivered in spades. FWIW, it was significantly more interesting on the nose than the palate, but that was little comfort.
1991 Château Lafite Rothschild- France, Bordeaux, Médoc, Pauillac (7/2/2009)
Medium ruby/garnet color. Somewhat oddly medicinal nose, with elements of herbs, and after an hour or so in the glass, a little black currant and coffee. Austere on the palate, watery and thin. (79 pts.)
I had 1991 Beychevelle last year and was underwhelmed as well, although it was not awful, just not very good. 79 points according to many indicates an undrinkable wine (as one WA critic just pointed out when he rated a wine 75 points).
Not well, I’m afraid. Not from the one bottle of it I’ve tried, anyway. My notes from 10 March 2009:
…This wine had an alluringly perfumed, feminine bouquet (which Margaux wines are known for) of aged cedar, dark and exotically sweetish spices, bit of old-pressed violets (but none of decay) and a hint of pruniness in its molten dark fruit. The bouquet, however, was the best the wine had (left?) to give, as it was sadly thin and diffuse on the palate - giving up more drying cedar than any fruit or ghosts thereof.
Truly over the hill, in line with the lunch’s theme. Good to be able to try it, though. The opportunity was much appreciated.
Yeah, this is one of the perennial questions. I don’t consider a below 80 wine to be undrinkable. I consider it “C+”, FWIW.(A’s are 90s, B’s are 80’s, etc.)
