TN: Denny Does Dallas

WINE TALK
1

Awesome dinner Thursday night at Denny’s as I was passing through on business. I did not take notes on the various grilled beasts we had, but all were excellent. It was a really fun night, great to see some old friends and also great to meet Bill and Phillip.

2003 Pape Clement - Nice nose of leather, juniper and wild raspberries. Smooth, elegant texture on the attack, with strong red fruit, menthol and nice backbone of earth. Some definite tannins present, but nicely integrated for such a young wine - very approachable.

1997 Insignia - This is just a beautifully constructed seamless wine. Red and black fruit, dusty sun baked california earth, a hint of leather - all remarkably consistent from nose to attack to finish. My #3 WOTN.

1994 Phillip Togni Cab - Perfumed chocolate, sweet black cherry fruit, sage and cedar. Nice lively mountain fruit on the attack, but starting to show some mellowing on the finish, very consistent flavors with the nose. Starting to show a little sign of age, but still had some tannic structure to it - not going to get better, but can last for quite a while longer.

2007 Robert Foley Merlot (served blind) - A huge blast of chocolate milk shake and plums on the nose. Very thick and viscous with a little more finesse on the palate, but not my cup of tea.

1990 Montrose (served blind and decanted for 3+ hours) - A blast of bretty horse shit that was just hard for me to get over. You could definitely sense the powerful tannins and fruit behind the stink, but I just couldn’t get over the brett.

1995 Lokoya Diamond Mountain Cab - This was stunningly good. Road tar, leather, tobacco, menthol and deep dark black fruit on an incredibly complex nose. Great balance of bright black and red fruit with a nice undercurrent of sun baked earth on the palate. Poised with tannins just starting to really resolve themselves, but no signs of starting to age. Just in a great place. My WOTN.

Bill’s Mystery wine - Lots of sweet dark cherry fruit on the nose. Just a horribly offputting syrupy sweetness on the nose. Yosemite Mountain cab from the local 7-11. Thankfully just a brief interlude before we could go on to the good stuff.

2005 Quilceda Creek Galitzine Vineyard - Tons of sweet oak on the nose with some dark cherry fruit. Very disjointed on the palate - just tons of sweet simple syrup, oak and alcohol. Very over the top. Maybe some more time to integrate?

2002 St. Clement Howell Mountain cab (from mag) - Still young, but tons of promise. Spicy black fruit, earth and tobacco on the nose. Lots of layers on the palate, but some hard tannins as well. I think this will be quite something in another 5 years, but a little rough around the edges at the moment.

198+5 Beringer Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon Rhine House Selection - Just tasted faded to me - had some black cherry fruit, but seemed like most of the life and complexity had leached out.

198+5 Phelps Backus - Denny made the mistake of letting us choose something from the cellar. This was phenomenal. Black pepper, elegant red fruit, tobacco, licorice and sun baked earth on the nose. Just smells like classic aged Cali cab. Still very young - no bricking, still a lot of tannic structure with just beautiful pure mellowed cab fruit on the palate. My #2 WOTN.

1994 Chave Hermitage - Still a baby, and quite tight and unyielding. I really was having trouble coaxing much in the way of aromatics out of it. On the palate, lots of beef blood and a real hint that there are layers of complexity waiting to come out. Check back in 10 years.

198+8 d’Yquem - Leaker, with fully soaked cork. Gorgeous nose of honey, hazelnuts and grapefruit. Unfortunately, palate was a little off and oxidized - still a pleasure to drink for the great velvety texture, but was missing some of its vibrancy.

I slept well on the plane ride home the next morning…

2

Hi Jud,

Sounds like a very interesting tasting apart from:

Montrose is a super second, 1990 is a top vintage, and this wine has been colourfully-well reviewed by a particular wine writer. Yet, the wine is flawed, it has been badly made so the brett was not eliminated. I’m not one of those bonkers Europeans who equate brett (or other signs of poor wine-making) with terroir; brett in a wine is almost invariably a fault. So are we really supposed to believe that a flash Claret like Montrose 1990 is stunningly good and worth the epic piles of cash it sells for when the winemaker cannot even do his job properly?

It has been 15 years since I tried Montrose 1990, but I clearly remember being under-whelmed by it when I tasted it (blind) and quite scandalised when the person who provided it revealed what the wine was and the staggering price he paid for it. Claret, especially ‘oooh fancy!’-Claret is just doesn’t provide enough bang per buck.

Anyway, thanks for the notes.

Cheers,
David.

PS. I hope you will all forgive me for this rant (and no doubt others in the future), I just have a ‘thing’ about Claret which makes me slowly turn purple with rage whenever I see lovers of fine things being cheated out of or massively over-changed for quality experiences.

PPS. An anecdote: One of my very favourite Burgundy producers had a lunch engagement with the owner of a super-second growth. When they sat down to eat M. Bordeaux said, “We don’t need to order any wine, do we? Wine is for selling not for drinking.” My chum M. Burgundy ordered a bottle of something flash for himself which he did not share with the tight-fisted weasel Bordeaux producer.

3

Jud,

Sorry you got stuck with a horsey bottle.

David,
Methinks you should perhaps not overly pontificate about a wine that you haven’t tasted in a decade and a half. [wink.gif] I have had a couple of nasty 90 Montrose as Jud describes, but I have had a couple of absolutely pristine bottles as well, including one very recently. When it’s on it is stunning. I’ll be having another next Sunday, and I will report back.

4

Fair comment, Brent.

Don’t your experiences with a couple of nasty bottles of Montrose 90 suggest that there were wine-making problems and that the wine should not be universally praised as a faultlessly fine wine that is worth every penny it cost? Perhaps I am being too cynical, ah well…

Cheers,
David.

5

Could be, David - I’m not necessarily excusing a wine that may have as much bottle variation as any 100-point bottle ever has, but I think it’s inarguable that when the wine is on, it is one hell of a drink.

6

BTW, Jud, I think you’re selling the aging potential on the '94 Togni a little short - I still think it’s got a ways to go, but that’s just IMO.

7

David,

At current market pricing, I would not touch the 90 Montrose. But if you bought a case or two on futures or at release for $20-50, pitching the bretty bottles and favoring the good ones is easier to take. I do not know enough about the science of brett to say it was a ‘winemaking problem,’ I thought brett results from issues in the cellar itself, and I presume Montrose has cleaned things up since the 1990 was made.

Certainly, anyone ponying up current market price should know about the brett issue. I think that only a neophyte wouldn’t at this point, as there are plenty of reports on the problem with this wine. In that case, a fool and his money are easily parted. [basic-smile.gif]

8

Thank you for that, Brent.

9

Great notes, Jud. Looks like a fantastic evening. FWIW, I too think the '94 Togni is one that can age. Too bad that the Chave didn’t show great and that the Yquem was a bust. Those would bum me out, but you had so many other fantastic bottles that the disappointment must have been dulled just a tad. …And I am DYING to try a 90 Montrose some day…

Michael

10

Good times and great to meet Jud.

The '90 Montrose will always be a controversial wine when the brett is taken into account. I actually like the wine more than the others I think.

The '85 Backus was stunning and I really like the '85 Beringer as well, even if others thought it was fading fast.

The '88 d’Yquem was a shame as it was a leaker…no great wines, only great bottles.

We also had a 2003 Leoville Poyferre in there as well (thanks Denny) that I think is my favorite wine from the vintage. Really primary and brooding at the moment, but let’s hope it turns out like the '90 LP. I think it is better that Lafite in '03.

11

Bill - What were the various meats we had? I know there was a ribcap and pork tenderloin, but what were the others?

12

Not to mention that the label of the 03 LP can’t be confused with a $40 counterpart, unlike the lafite.

Hard for me to pick a favorite of the night. I think it would be a toss up between the Insignia and the Backus. I didn’t get horseshit on the 90 montrose to the extent Jud got horseshit, perhaps I’m used to a little horseshit from the cattle dogs arses (and their steady gas attacks), but it certainly wasn’t my favorite wine of the night (not even close).

Jud, Bill brought over an akaushi flank steak to go with the hangar, rib cap and pork tenderloin.

As always, Jud, it was great seeing you. Good times!

13

That only happens once.

14

Not true…that $4 “Cab” from 7-Eleven was the Molly Ringwald of the event.

15

Hey, I resent that!!

Wish I could have made it.

Bill, that’s a strong statement about the LP being better than Lafite in 03! But, I hope you are correct as I have a lot of the LP and none of the Lafite (nor have I tasted it). I’m a big fan of LP and I suspect RP underscored the 05 based on the comments of some tasters I respect. Oddly, I haven’t found the 05 with significant discounts other than the mags I received today that I paid $130.

I’m another lover of the 90 Montrose and I guess I’m fortunate that I haven’t had a brett bomb yet. The first time I had it, it was served blind and it stood out like a sore thumb as excellent and clearly better than a lot of other top wines.

Chris

16

Chris, I have had both Lafite and Leo Poy twice from 2003, once was side by side and for me, the LP is the clear winner. Kinda like the '90 LP is my favorite of that vintage. When they do it right, they do it REALLY right.