Three fine Bordeaux to celebrate my wife’s birthday/birth year over two nights.
Disclaimers: I probably haven’t tasted a good Bordeaux in over twenty years. I’m not against the region by any means; I just fell hopelessly addicted to Italian wines many years ago (Nebbiolo in particular). I state this so you that you are not expecting any particularly sophisticated or insightful notes here. I did find all the wines (initially) light on acidity, which is not to say they were flabby or lacking structure – that may just be a factor of my drinking Italian wines as the norm. Also, these were drunk out of Riedel glasses, not fancier stemware. This is because, while my wife has noble gracefulness, I am of clumsy peasant stock and steadily broke our six good stems.
I’d like to give heartfelt thanks to Peter Hickner who supplied us with these wines from his personal cellar. This was done on his initiative and it represents the finest Wine Berserker spirit.
We paired the reds with freshly thick cut, grilled, prime NY strip steak, mushrooms stuffed with brie, panko, garlic, and parsley, and asparagus. I stored the extra wine in six oz. bottles in the fridge overnight. We ate the leftovers on night two.
1975 Leoville Barton, St. Julien
C: Sort of a caramel, burnt crème color with just a hint of red. Lots of sunset shades of orange.
N: Even after a twenty year hiatus, the first whiff was a “that’s Bordeaux” nose. Wet stones, earthy forest scents, moss, mushrooms, and dark Italian plums. As it opened further, there was perfectly ripe bing cherries baked in a clafoutis.
P: This wine was immediately inviting. Beautiful, soft texture. Still some tongue-drying tannins, yet so very mouth-watering at the same time. Still fresh (well persevered), if not lively (youth is a memory). On night two, this wine picked up where it left off, neither better nor worse.
1975, Beychevelle, St. Julien
C: A bit richer red than the Leoville Barton.
N: A tighter nose, but with tons of dark fruit underneath. Some funk, like an old bookstore, anise, and tree bark of a decaying conifer (Douglas fir).
P: Definitely more powerful and tannic than the Leoville Barton. The tannins still seem to be dominating the fruit. It is less inviting and more serious (or stern). Perhaps it still needs five years? Perhaps it is just a wine that reflects the challenge of the vintage? We both preferred the Leoville Barton for the first night.
However, this wine was better on night two. The nose still has that inviting funkiness while bringing along sandalwood dust and also dark cherries. The tannins have calmed or the fruit has gained in presence. The grumpy old man has become more cordial. I am also getting more fine acidity than I got the first night, obviously a plus for me. The Beychevelle won night two.
1975 Romer du Hayot Sauternes
C: Like marmalade jam.
N: Well toasted marshmallow. Caramel. Browned sugar. No fruit to speak of. I got an odd scent that I couldn’t place. Waxy? Soapy? Slight oxidized note.
P: My wife called it “fermented crème brulee” and I’ll leave it at that. It wasn’t my thing, but she loved it and that’s what counts. I suspect I would have liked it far more at a younger age.
On night two, I found that this wine grew on me. The odd scent had dissipated. I started getting some dried fruits - apricots and perhaps guava or papaya. I also got a nice flavor of dried figs. Like the Beychevelle, this sauternes is also showing very nice acid support that I did not detect on the first night. And this changed the wine from a bit too sweet to just right. In all, I really misjudged this wine and it went from a disappointment to a really fun surprise.
Thanks again to Peter. This was a huge thrill for my wife who never expected to drink a birth year wine. One fun thing I noticed on the bottles was the alcohol listed as 12%. Perhaps that was a generic labeling, but probably more true back then than now.