Eric, that sounds awesome! I am definitely envious. ![[highfive.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/db21b9263a9105e51f6f8b11e61dd4de095611f9.gif "highfive")
Last year I had the chance to try a bottle of the 2001 and thought it was a special treat, by far the best 2001 Bordeaux I’ve ever tasted. While everyone liked it, some of the others at my table weren’t as entranced. Tom Nixon wrote the dinner up on that other board:
But in case I’m not supposed to link here or for those who can’t access it, here were my notes:
To follow up Tom’s excellent notes with a few shorter, less organized thoughts of my own…
Flight #1… 1979, 1986, 1988, 1991, 1994 and 1996.
This was a fun first flight. The ’96 Le Pin was a very nice wine, youthful and balanced with an unexpected, though not unattractive, dill note. I thought it showed great promise. The ’94 was also very nice, a bit richer and more mature but with less intriguing aromatics. The ’86 was another of my favorites of this flight. It must have been very ripe when young, as some of that still shows through, and, if I were to have a criticism, it would be that it seems a bit sweet. My least favorite wine of the flight was the ’91, which was a bit tinny on the nose and acidic on the palate; that said, it wasn’t really a bad showing for a ’91, just not exciting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steen T. Olsen
Its funny with that 1979 vintage… I´ve tasted several 1979s, and this “musty, though not corked” element has been rather prominent in several bottles of the wines I have tasted from that year…
Steen, I’ve noticed some of the same. Initially, I suspected this might be corked, but the musty cardboard aromas blew off and it became a nice wine. I managed to save some wine from each glass until after the lunch was over and then revisit them all. This had become a clean, light but reasonably elegant claret. It reminded me most of some bottles of ’79 Certan de May I have been working through lately, although the Certan de May was a wine of higher quality.
Flight #2… 1983, 1985, 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2002.
Very different wines, the ’83 and ’98 were my favorite of this flight, each a delight. The ’83 was lovely, smoky, feminine, like some starlet from a bygone age. The finish was seductive and lingering. Full of coconut and dark fruit, the ’98 was surprisingly light on its feet with a long, slightly acidic finish. The ’95 and ’99 were also nice wines, the former of darker fruit and nuts and the latter of cherry and toast. Neither were inspiring but both elegant and enjoyable. While the ’02 was probably a good wine for the vintage, it didn’t really speak to me.
The ’85 met with mixed reviews. Initially, I found a medicinal quality on the nose that bothered me (although there was good concentration and even a hint of youth on the palate). Tasting it again, after the meal, I enjoyed it much more, a soft, mocha-tinged wine, but it was not in the same league as some of the others.
Flight #3… 1982, 1989, 1990, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
This was a fantastic flight of wine. The 2000 was one of the best young wines I’ve tasted, incredibly dark fruit, beautiful back-of-palate intensity and finish, firm structure and a beautifully balanced nose. Very different than the ’00 Lafleur tasted recently, but these are my two favorite Bordeaux wines of the vintage. While I was not quite as hot as Tom on the 2005, it was a fantastic wine and among the better ’05 Bordeaux, which says a lot; to me, the 2000 was simply in a different league. The 1982 was very nice, elegant, sexy, with great back-palate presence, notes of truffle and compote, and a soft, lingering finish.
The ’89 and ’90 wines were a fun comparison. Personally, I have a slight preference for ’89 Pomerol (and Right Bank in general) among these twin vintages, but in this case the ’90 was my favorite. An intense, exotic, enveloping mass of fruit and sweetness, it managed a perfect and refreshing balance…I was dazzled. The ’89 was no slouch, either, a rich wine, more cherry in its fruit profile and less generosity on the palate.
The 2001 was a special treat for me, a wine I seemed to like better than many at my table (and at the tasting, in general). While I have grown to appreciate the 2001 vintage, one that has really been eclipsed by 2000 and now 2005, this wine is hands-down the best 2001 (red) Bordeaux I’ve tried. Pavie, Pape Clement, Ausone are all nice, but this is just a step above, with an intoxicating perfume and layered palate. I loved it…if only it weren’t the only crazily expensive ’01!
A number of people were impressed with the ’06, but it wasn’t my cup of tea. Maybe it was the company of this flight, but I found it to be a bit hot and out of balance. It might be out of sorts and need to come together, so I will reserve judgment (if I ever get the chance to try it again).
Flight #4… 1981, 1984, 1987, 1992, 1993 and 1997.
By the final flight, I was busy talking and didn’t take very comprehensive notes. Very quickly, the ’81 was mature and pleasant but marred by a note of iodine that kept me from really enjoying it. The ’84 showed a touch of cherry cough syrup (something I find in some Burgundies, even very highly regarded ones…and something I cannot stand) so was not to my liking. The ’87 was surprisingly good for the vintage, soft and smooth with red fruit. The ’92 and ’93 were both pleasant wines but a bit short, the ’92 with more cherry and the ’93 more plum; neither blew me away. To me, this was the least exciting flight (with the least span between wine styles, as well). There was a consistent Burgundian aspect to the wines, which I did enjoy, though made them seem light in following the thirds flight. It’s possible that, after three days of tasting and some ancillary dinners, my palate was fatigued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Leve
Interestingly, I spent time with Alexandre and Jacques after the tasting. They both really liked different wines. They enjoyed 86, 85 & 81. I’m happy to see you got one of the good bottles of 82…
Jeffois, it’s always interesting to hear winemakers’ perspectives, but it’s also important to remember that they are often looking at different issues than the consumer or the critic, things such as how the wine turned out given the challenges of the vintage, how the bottle showed relative to other bottles of the same wine, how the wine has developed relative to their own expectations at the time of blending, bottling, etc. I assume that Alexandre and Jacques were taking these or some other issues into consideration, as it seems highly unlikely (at least to me) they were positing that ’85, ’86, and ’81 Le Pin are superior wines to ’00, ’90 and ’82 (or ’89 or ‘01, if the ’82 was corked).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad England
Its always interesting what makes a market. I went to an all vintage Le Pin tasting in London in 1999. One of the least exciting wine nights I can remember, in fact a lot of downright bad wine (not off bottles, simply bad wine). I’ll have to dig up and email you my notes. And provenance was excellent - wines brought and served by the winemaker. I always felt that dinner saved me a lot of money.
Brad, that’s an interesting experience. As a whole (and considering these were wines from every vintage, bad and good, not just select great bottles through history), I found the wines to be interesting and (mostly) excellent. Now, whether or not they are worth the money (to me, at least) to buy and cellar is a different question. Of course, I think both scarcity and prestige play large roles in the pricing, which isn’t really my thing. There are dozens, make that hundreds, of Bordeaux bottles I might buy at the same price or lower rather than fill my cellar with ’91 and ’02 Le Pin. So I have also saved a great deal of money not collecting Le Pin. But I did think the wines were good, overall, a few great, and the wines from poor vintages actually better than many other Bordeaux I’ve tried from the same vintages.
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
