TNs: Vertical tastings of Chateau Latour and Chateau Lafite Rothschild in ATL with Mark Taylor

WINE TALK
1

Vertical of Chateau Latour and Chateau Lafite Rothschild in ATL with Mark Taylor
This past weekend several individuals came to Atlanta for a tremendous vertical tasting of Chateau Latour on Saturday and Chateau Lafite on Sunday. The tastings were led and moderated by Charles Curtis MW, Michael McNeil MS, Eric Asimov and Mary Margaret McCamack MW.

It was obvious from the beginning of this tasting that this was going to be special.

I want to thank Mark along with his wife Judith for their generosity and hospitality to the group. Many people were from out of town. Roy Hersh, Bob Cunningham, Bryan Jacoboski, Todd French, John Hames and John Pagnucco all flew in from distant sites to join in along with a collection of locals.

The first day we tasted Chateau Latour. Michael Mc Neil MS gave a wonderful history of the vineyard site and estate.

Flight One – Chateau Latour not blinded

2010- A beautiful, precise nose of darker fruit and chocolate. The nose is classic for Chateau Latour and follows through all of the wines in this Chateau Latour tasting no matter the vintage. This one is powerful and loaded with precise dark fruit. It is tannic but the tannins are fine and supportive. The finish is extremely long. A special Latour in the making and an excellent showing today. My favorite of the first flight. The groups second favorite.

2009- A nose that took a little time to come around but when it did was so open and opulent. Beautiful precise darker fruit that to me is Chateau Latour. The palate is more open knit here with up front succulent fruit. Very fine tannins with an extremely long finish. I loved the precision of the 2010 but most seemed to love this fruit bomb. My second favorite. The groups number one.

2007- This one shows a little more coffee, chocolate mixed with the darker fruit. An elegant nose that again has that Chateau Latour profile. The palate is lighter here with plenty of complexity but not the power and fruit definition I usually find in Chateau Latour. The finish is very nice. Great freshness.

2006- The nose is darker fruit that aromatically tells you it is Chateau Latour. Dark fruit and very tannic. This wine took forever to unwind. More compact mid palate.
Not quite as complex as the best here. The finish is still quite good.

2004-Beautiful nose. Aromatically this soars from the glass. Dark fruit, chocolate and very precise. The hallmark Chateau Latour nose. Dark precise fruit. The palate shows some decreased palate presence versus vintages like 2010 or 2009 but it finishes great. Fine integrated tannic structure

2002- A fantastic nose. Beautifully aromatic and classically Chateau Latour. Very precise darker fruit. Laser focused. Some integrated chocolate elements. I loved this nose. This wine is very elegant and shows well today. Very long finish. I liked it quite a bit. It was my third favorite.

A tremendous lineup of young Latours!

Flight Two - not blinded
2001- An incredible nose. Focused darker fruit with that Chateau Latour stamp on it. Very accessible on the palate. Dark, precise fruit that is medium concentrated and showing very well today Nice length. To drink today, this one is one of the best.

2000- A tightly wound wine at first which evolves into a beautiful powerhouse. Classic Chateau Latour nose of darker precise fruit with cocoa notes. This one has it all. Texture. Power. Smooth integrated palate. Explosive finish. Just still very young.

1998 - A very dark version of Chateau Latour. The nose is there but it is almost one dimensional on the palate. Very dark and tightly wound. Tannic.

1996- Flawed. Very vegetal and herbal. Two bottles were mixed to keep bottle variation out of the mix. There were 30 of us.

1995 - A stunning nose. Dark fruit. Coffee. Chocolate. Precision in spades here. Classic nose. The palate is darker precise fruit that is so accessible. The length here is special. This is an amazing teenage Latour that I wished I owned.

1990- This bottle was a little off. Slightly brown sugared on the nose which detracts from the precision I usually find. The palate is gorgeous. Explosive finish but just aromatically just a little off. (Two bottles were mixed to decrease bottle variation. One showed some slight maderization. )


The 2001, 2000 and 1995 wines were stellar. It was amazing how the aromatics of Chateau Latour carried through all these wines. A signature stamp. Amazing experience.



Chateau Lafite Rothschild -

We had a nice synopsis here from Mary Margaret McCamack and Eric Asimov concerning the vineyard and history here. Lots of interesting observations. One of best to me was that Lafite is a product of the vintage and shows the area Paulliac instead of having an aromatic house stamp like Latour.

First Flight - not blinded

2010- Amazing young nose. Dark spicy fruit with an element of spice box. Very feminine but at the same time quite structured. Red fruited. Very long and very young. Fantastic young wine. My second favorite of the flight.

2009 – More forward fruit on the nose with elements of cigar box and very red fruit. Quite sexy. Great mid palate but lacks the precision of the 2010 to me. My 3rd favorite.

2007 – More spice and coffee on the nose with more subtle red fruit. Quite sexy and aromatic. The tannins are fine, and the palate is lighter but quite complex. Beautiful, elegant finish. It just lacks that upper gear of the better wines of this flight. I really liked this, however.

2006 - Very dark color. The nose is all coffee, spice box and darker fruit. Very stern. It reminds me of some 1986 wines in many ways. It has a clipped finish due to the rush of tannin.

2001 – A shy sexy nose. Red fruit. Spice box. Gorgeous fine tannins that carry through to a nice finish. It lingers. Not top level but quite nice.

2000 - Absolutely stunning. Red fruit. Spice box. Beautiful integration and wonderfully aromatic. Great mid palate. The finish is silky long and lingers. My favorite of the first flight.


Second Flight – not blinded

1999- Red fruit. Spice. Coffee. Elegant and so satisfying. Incredible. The mid palate is medium concentrated. Red fruited. Gorgeous finish that goes on. For drinking now, this is one of the very best.

1998- Red fruit but firm. Tannic. Took some time to unwind. I loved this finish here, but it just never opened to me.

1996- A WOW wine to me. (N.B. some didn’t like this one) Concentrated. An incredible nose of red fruit, spice boxy and some element of coffee. So integrated. Powerful. Elegant. Amazing length. This one showed young and was my favorite of this group.

1990 - Less intense nose. Darker red fruit with spice box. Silky palate which has pretty nice fine tannin, but the fruit is a little lighter. Just not showing the mid palate presence of the best here.

1989- This one is better than the 1990. Intense red fruit, spice box and coffee. Sexy and ethereal. The palate is red fruited, and the tannins are totally integrated. Fabulous complexity here compared with the 1990 . This is a nice wine.

1986 - The nose here takes some coaxing. The palate is deeply concentrated and quite tannic. There is some element of elegance as it opens the tannins just slam the door as the wine lingers.


EXTRA

Mark opened 2 single bottles of Chateau Latour that he had left over. What a treat.

1975- This is one is starting to show its age. The nose is a little oxidized. The palate is just not showing all the fruit of the next wine. Still fun to taste!

1982 - Absolutely stunning example. House style nose. Dark fruit. Coffee note. Now completely integrated and penetrates your sinuses. The mid palate is completely resolved with respect to tannin to me now. Great rush of fruit and complexity. Now more about complexity than power. What a fun taste! Thanks Mark.


A great weekend. I really had a great time.
Cheers! [cheers.gif]

11 Likes
2

Blown away. What a tasting event. Thanks for sharing!

3

Thanks, Don, for starting this one out. I had some work on the road up in Buford GA yesterday and got home quite late last night.

While tasting wonderful, legendary wines is always a highlight, my favorite part of these events is what I learn from them. What I learn from myself, in the combination of single-blind (like other years) or simply tasting through a vertical knowing the vintages, but being cognizant of what my preconceived notions are about each of the vintages as well as having the rare opportunity to taste these legendary Bordeaux in near side-by-side vintages, one day after the next. Much was learned about the ‘house styles’ of each as a result, and you can see how Lafite or Latour performed in great vintages, sleeper vintages, ‘bad’ vintages, etc. It became obvious how Latour is built for the long haul, and Lafite shows up out of the box elegant and presentable. The most valuable learning experience for me is hearing from all the great (and not so great) minds on their thoughts, opinions, and theories on the wines. It’s an in-person opportunity to learn from a huge variety of wine lovers, which is EXACTLY why I went to wine forums to start learning about wine.

Here are my notes, including my ratings and the group’s ratings, though I missed the announcement of the group ratings for flight 2 first day

Day 1 - Chateau Latour

First Flight:

2010: Big on graphite, can coax some violets out of it but it’s shyer than the rest, grippy and austere, very acidic, fruit not yet integrated with the tannins and for the most part still a bit hidden, but some sweet red cherry does come through. Finish is quite tannic - so not ready - big wine, needs time. 6/2

2009: Beautiful color, shy nose, darker fruited, palate is soft but still very finely tannic, green notes, black pepper, fruit a bit unripe and shy. 5/1

2007: with my preconceived notions of the vintages (as instructed) I’m shocked how similar these wines are, particularly on the nose, as the vintages are far from similar. Color was more bricky than I’d have expected from a 2007, even though this is considered an ‘early drinking’ vintage. Graphite, cedar, nice floral note on the nose, satiny but not weighty on the palate, fruit is not terribly ripe, as expected, more of a blue to red fruit than predominantly red. I did have quite a bit of sediment in my glass. Finish has more acidic grip than tannic grip like the others before it, quite long, drinking quite well now 4/5

2006: Nice spicy note on this one sets it apart slightly from the rest, expressive red ripe fruit and pencil on the nose as well. Sweet fruit on the palate, beautiful and just starting to integrate into the tannins, finish is long and carries that fruit profile with it - great 3/6

2004: Nose is big on graphite and blue fruits, blackberry, some pie crust, beautiful blast of sweet fruit greets you on the palate, like 2006 the fruit starts to integrate with the tannins that just prolongs the enjoyment, finish is quite long, well balanced overall, satiny and slightly weighty, great acid and dusty tannins. Fantastic 1/3

2002: Leather, graphite, baked pie (I see a trend here), a bit more rustic, more soil/dirt, gorgeous mouthfeel, weighty and silky, fruit isn’t terribly ripe but it’s delicious, iron/minerals, berries of all sorts, starting to integrate, great - enjoyable now but plenty of time 2/4

2nd Flight

2001: Tobacco, floral nose, a bit sharp, nice weight and explosive fruit profile immediately on the palate, very energetic and rewarding, long finish - anise, blackberry and raspberry, bright fruit on the finish, excellent 3

2000: Smoky, red fruit, graphite, spring water, structured and regal, powerful and generous in fruit, dusty tannins, super long finish, still not fully integrated but it has everything. While this isn’t the best drinking NOW, it most likely will be. 2

1998: Ripe fruit on the nose, a swirl got rid of the ripeness and it became more traditional slate, graphite, blue fruit and maybe apple skin, a bit more austere than the other two, minerality is a bit unique, very gum-drying dusty tannins, even into the finish, and goes and goes and goes - will the fruit ever match the tannins? 5

1996: baking spice, perhaps stewed tomato? Vegetal nose, no TCA on nose but clearly on the palate, fruit shuts down immediately - can’t be TCA if it’s not on the nose, no? Bad bottle (changed quite a bit, some red fruit showing up, anise, still getting some TCA notes on the palate) 6

1995: Smells very bright and lively, expressive, smoked meats and sweet red fruit, lovely weighty palate, bright acidic profile, sweet tannins round and integrated, finish carries the fruit well, wonderful. 1

1990: Coffee, truffle, herbaceous, ripe fruit on the nose, floral and forest floor, red fruit, seems fully developed and perhaps too early? 4

DAY 2 Chateau Lafite Rothschild

1st Flight

(I am happy I watched the wonderful feature on SOMM.TV on Lafite before this tasting - several weeks before - as I felt more experiences on a wine I can’t afford, and would never get to drink without the generosity of other wine lovers. It’s a fantastic feature, definitely recommend you watch it if you took advantage of the amazing BerserkerDay offer they had)

Overall Lafite showed far more drinkable at all stages than Latour

2010: Big on graphite and forest floor, stony nose, bit of darker fruit comes through with a swirl, beautiful satiny mouthfeel, tannins seem small and rounded, very pleasant already. Dusty tannins poke through in the (very long) finish a bit, carrying some of the red fruits with it, but definitely tastes young - the mouthfeel is the most rewarding part at this stage 3/2

2009: Blue fruits and fresh spring/brook on the nose, gives a nice hint of sweet fruit on the nose. Blast of sweet red and blue fruit, grippy tannins, long finish. More voluptuous than rest, but still elegant 5/3

2007: Beautifully perfumed nose, very floral, cigar box, black tea, olive oil, just gorgeous layered, expressive nose, even a vegetal quality but not green. Palate is tender and soft, great energy from its acid, some dusty tannins must be fully integrated, carrying the fruit with it. Super elegant but strong and light on its feet as well, builds into the finish which is always something that impresses me, and it is extremely long. Fantastic, in a wonderful space now. 2/5

2006: Nose a bit shyer, but similar to ‘07 in perfumed quality, just nowhere near as expressive, quite a bit of graphite, cassis (opens up a lot with time, really getting much better). Palate lacks some of the grace and silkiness of the others, a bit austere or rugged, typical graphite and saddle leather, finish is not as enjoyable as others either 6/6
2001: Getting some blue fruits and lilac on the nose, graphite and leather, smoked meats. Good acid, red fruits, leather, wine is seamless and integrated, nice finish, just not standout for me 4/4

2000: Expressive nose, layered and exciting - smoked meats, red fruits, floral, cinnamon, delivers a lot on the nose. Palate has weight, strong tannins, good fruit profile, very long finish, tremendous energy, rewarding - world class, legendary in the making, wonderful now. 1/1

2nd Flight

1999: There’s a brightness/sharpness/vibrancy to the nose, graphite and lilacs, a bit shy, coffee emerges strongly after a while. Dusty tannins, light and elegant on the mouthfeel, high acid, lots of structure here, nice cassis and fresh fruit profile, great finish, seamless 3/3 (tie)

1998: Some very slight flaw on the nose, can’t tell what. Cigar box, berry fruit nose, palate has a bit of TCA in it. Flawed 6/5

1996: Extremely fresh nose, rose/floral, smoked meats, red fruit, black tea, fresh spring water, loads of graphite. Raspberry and blackberry, grippy tannins, super energetic, chiseled, graphite on the palate with cassis and darker fruits, great 2/2

1990: A bit stewy on the fruit, coffee emerges as you swirl but still a pruniness to the fruit (I noticed this on the Latour as well, didn’t realize ‘90 was that ripe a vintage? Apparently they picked late because they picked ‘too early’ in ‘89 and overcompensated) prepared meat, blackberry on the nose, palate has beautiful sweet red fruit, tannins seem fine and integrated, rounded, beautiful finish which is probably its best quality at the time. 4/3 (tie)

1989: charcuterie, blue fruits, dark cherry on the nose, graphite and cigar box. Beautiful mouthfeel, satiny and lively, sweet red fruit, seamless, long finish, great acid and tight, tiny tannins - fantastic, in a great space 1/1

My top 2 in this flight were my top 2 of the weekend.

Wonderful opportunity to see my buddies Don, Roy, Eric Asimov (missed Eric LeVine this trip), meet new friends, have wonderful wine and fellowship - wine’s unique quality to bring people together was firmly at play and dear to my heart. My thanks, as always, goes out to Mark Taylor for his incredible generosity, and Judith for her flawless management of the hospitality side, including her flawless cheese plate selections she puts so much time into.
1986: Iron, florals, forest floor/menthol, palate is interesting but some of the fruit has faded quite a bit, quite austere and bloody 5/6

4

Very nice notes Todd. Thanks also for overseeing the Covid testing and tabulating scores. It was great to see you.

5

sounds like a fantastic gathering gents. i was smitten by the 00 bdx bug when i was a young pup that eventually catapulted my wine journey, but i’d say the 01 bdx kept me wanting to explore more given how approachable they were and available everywhere for a nickle. amazing how the profile of 95, 00, 01 still remain similar after all these years. i can still taste it reading from your notes.

cheers!

1 Like
6

Dom and Todd, really spectacular notes. Thanks for taking the time to share them in that detail. Hard to imagine a better tasting! Both make sublime wines. Latour, it’s like it can do no wrong, even in so-called bad years. I popped a 1973 a couple years ago with MarcF, it was wonderful. Love these Chateau, just cost-prohibitive now.

7

Absolutely, Ed! '99 and '01 were SO overshadowed by '00 in the market, with '99 being termed a ‘restaurant wine’ and '01 just picking up the leftovers of the market demand for '00, and both far outplayed their estimates in both Banks, making for some great ‘deals’ (so to speak) on the higher end Chateau

8

Great notes and a fun read.

9

Hi Don, thanks for posting on an amazing tasting. A couple of questions for you

What was the difference of opinions amongst the tasters on the 1996 Lafite? How youthful were the 2004 and 2001 Latours, still primary or showing some development ?

cheers Brodie

1 Like
10

Not Don, but I will take the liberty to answer.

Difference was bottle variation - Don and I were tasting from two different bottles for that '96, and variation is common, obviously. The others were relatively similar, and for the 2nd flight of day 2 I know the pourers mixed it up a bit, poured from different bottles on different tables/seats in that same table. Cool idea.

Basically everything Latour was primary, except for the '90 that seemed to have aged too quickly and the '96 which had the huge variation. The '95 was quite ready to go, but could still last a while, at least when comparing to the relative approachability of the Lafite tasting the next day

11

Can’t add much to Todd’s nice answer. I will tell you that despite being quite wonderful to taste on Saturday, the 2001 and 2004 Latour have many years of development left. Both of those wines have really started to integrate now but are still on the early part of the development curve. I definitely wouldn’t turn down a glass, however.

12

Don,
I had to laugh when I saw your note on the ‘86 Lafite, undoubtedly the most disappointing ‘perfect’ wine I have ever tasted. It was 34 years old when I drank it, having gazed at it hopefully for 20 in my bin. Completely impenetrable wall of tannin. Surely when the wine was originally released it could not have tasted like this, or such a rosy future for it would never have been predicted. I waited for the ‘86 Margaux and was amply rewarded — a gorgeous wine. The Lafite remains a mystery to me.

13

Sensational notes from both of you, love reading the compare-and-contrast between them. Also great to see, Todd, that you had the 04 and 02 as your 1-2 for that first flight. As you say, an amazing event. So pleased that you, Todd, and Roy were able to make it in for that.

How long did you have with each of the flights to assess them?

I opened my last bottle of 86 Lafite about 2 years ago. Here’s my note on that one:

"1986 Chateau Lafite Rothschild

So this is the end of a lovely story for me. The last of 4 bottles sold to me by a dear friend who passed a couple years ago, I had determined to use all the bottles only in a way that he would want. The first was opened at a charity dinner party that I put into an auction (I cooked all the food, opened all the wine and played the piano) for the organization I was a board member of. The second one was opened 7 years ago on a cruise with my family for my parents’ 50th anniversary. I put the third bottle into a FallTacular silent auction. The fourth bottle was for me. Originally, I was going to wait till my 60th birthday—and indeed, if you have some, I believe 9 more years will see it at the height of its powers—but the pandemic has given me a sense of incipient mortality, and so I chose not to wait.

This was a brick 7 years ago. Not now. I opened it the night before, intending to decant it for 3 hours. I took a first sip and reduced that to one hour. Capped it again and then poured a little more out to taste with a friend the morning of. Then poured for the evening, I’ve kept a little to track today.

This is pure Pauillac for me in the nose—super cigar box/tobacco in the lead, with dark, dried berries supporting. The palate is long, fully defined and, finally, accessible but with a sure acidic thrust still there to drive it down your throat. I find a little very dark plum joins the berry notes and there is some lingering tobacco and pencil lead too. I admire most Bordeaux. There are few that I can think of loving. This, if I get to try it again in a decade, has the potential to be one of those—a wine that can excite the soul. The main point is that, IMHO, it is finally safe to think about opening one and enjoying it. I’d give the peak drinking window lifespan at least 30 years."

14

I love reading these notes and I want to be jealous but it’s just so exciting reading that people are doing these kinds of tastings, I am vicariously participating

15

If you only had a bottle of 2004 Latour, would you open now or wait 4-5 more years?

1 Like
16

I say open now and buy more if you really like it or want to see where it’s going. That’s what I’m doing with my 03 next week.

17

Depends on how many bottles are in your cellar and how much you want to taste it.

Given that you’ve brought up the possibility I’d say open it.

2 Likes
18

Love Mark Taylor. Could turn a comfortable three into a cheeky single.

19

I would disagree with this. Pauillac is a big AOC and there is no one expression of Pauillac. E.g. Lynch Moussas and Pichon Baron are both just as much Pauillac, but the terroirs are very different. It is also a little ironic to identify Lafite with Pauillac “typicity”, since they often include a large block in Saint-Estèphe next to Cos in the blend! (they have the right to do this, on historical grounds, until such a moment as they rip up and replant the vineyard - an unlikely eventuality under the circumstances)

I would agree however in the sense that Latour has a more homogenous terroir and thus a more direct, one could almost say monolithic, expression. Lafite shares the plateau of Carruades with Mouton, but the rest of their holdings are very different, making the ensemble more complex. Margaux and Lafite have more diverse terroirs, in this sense, than Mouton and Latour which are more uniform, and I think that comes across in the wines. Informed by this, and their in-house cooperage (with staves sourced from Gauthier), I do think the wines have a strong house style, even with all the changes to the blend, which has trended heavily towards Cabernet in the last two decades: less muscular than Latour and more aromatic, with a strong cedar/cigar box scent.

2 Likes