Had a remarkably dull and flat bottle of 1986 Margaux, which was thoroughly dusted in a double blind tasting with its partner in the flight, 1986 Rauzan-Segla. The '86 Margaux was deeper and sappier than the Rauzan-Segla, but simple, four-square and really very flat on the palate, with its toasty oak really laying heavy on the finish. The nose was all black raspberry jam, tobacco and a touch of tar, as well as copious quantities of heavily charred wood. I had really liked this wine out of the blocks, but had not been back to it in many years, as I thought that there should be no way that it should be ready to drink. But this wine did not give the impression of just being youthful, but rather a stillborn wine that is losing complexity, rather than developing it, and where the wood is starting to dry out the wine. According to our host, this bottle appeared perfect and had no issues at all with its provenance. Several of us thought that this was a merlot-based right bank wine from one of those simplistic, modern garagistes. This is the first time I have ever seen a First Growth from a top vintage lose complexity with bottle age! An alarming showing.
John, how much air did it get before tasting? I have found that it shows much better with 12-24 hours of air.
Hi Ken,
It was decanted for about an hour prior to serving, so perhaps that was the issue. It just seemed like a wine that was going rather dramatically in the wrong direction- emphatically not closed or shut down, but really simplifying on both the nose and palate over the last several years, and with a finish that lacked any sign of vitality. Will have to try a bottle over a couple of days and see if that helps.
Best,
John
Iād be interested to hear other opinions on this wine as I wonder if you happen to have gotten a bottle that, for whatever reason, just didnāt make it. Maybe itās not representative of the majority of the lot.
I had a bottle of the '86 Margaux back in August, and it was singing. I double-decanted it about 3 hours before dinner; that probably helped. But I only have 4 left in the cellar, and I am in no hurry to drink them ā decades of life remaining!
This is on tap for a tasting group on Thrusday. I will be curious how this shows blind against other first growths.
Mine have been fine. Canāt write it off because you had one bad bottle.
It was more than fine, it was my WOTN!!
Every time I had 1986, it was always great, so maybe you had an off/fake bottle
Leo, he is writing about the 1986 and not the 1996ā¦
I have had the 86 Margaux three times. To my limited palate it certainly doesnāt show all the charms that normally make Margaux such a beautiful, elegant wine. It is atypically brawny and sturdy. That hasnāt stopped me from rating it 94 on 2 of the 3 occasions, so it clearly didnāt bother me too much though. Shocking similarity in all three of my notes, all mentioning it being ārusticā which I would never normally say about Margaux:
-
1986 ChĆ¢teau Margaux - France, Bordeaux, MĆ©doc, Margaux (6/20/2006)
An unreal tasting of ChĆ¢teau Palmer and ChĆ¢teau Margaux with Thomas Duroux of Palmer (Los Angeles, CA): This was my third taste of this wine in the past 4 months, and I am a fan. It is a brawny style of Margaux, chewy, minty, rustic and powerful. In this evening of Margaux paired with top vintages of the supremely elegant Palmer, this was a bit of a brute. Better to have it on its own with a bloody piece of meat I think. -
1986 ChĆ¢teau Margaux - France, Bordeaux, MĆ©doc, Margaux (4/8/2006)
First growth Bordeaux at Michael Gordonās (Bellevue, WA): Mmm, tangy, chewy and a bit rustic on the nose with some cranberry. The palate is tannic and very powerful, sweet and tangy, coursing with acidity and structure, so masculine and powerful. Very enjoyable. (94 pts.) -
1986 ChĆ¢teau Margaux - France, Bordeaux, MĆ©doc, Margaux (2/17/2006)
More Bordeaux with Leve at Providence (Los Angeles, CA): Powerful, almost rustic, brawny, masculine, tannic, extracted. But wow, what a kick in the teeth, love it! (94 pts.)
Posted from CellarTracker
John,
I have only sold one wine in my life for profit, 1986 Margaux. I agree with your assessment, having tasted the wine numerous times since release. I think āstillbornā is a perfect descriptor. It displays all of the things I dislike about the vintage: harsh tannins, no elegance (it is Margaux, after all), no pleasure. In '88 I bought 3 cases pre-arrival from my importer-distributor friend, who stored it at his warehouse until someone saw it while walking by the fine wine lockup in 2003. Made enough on the sale to take my family to Cannes and Portofino for two weeks (stayed at the Carlton and the Excelsior Palace). I received much more pleasure from that trip than I would have ever enjoyed from the wineā¦
Eric posted while I was typing. You liked it much more than I did at that fantastic Doroux dinner!
Iāve got some left. The last bottle I had, maybe two years ago, I didnāt give enough time. Iām in the camp of give it more air time and the 12-14 hour rec probably isnāt off much. . Iām not touching any for a while and, if I do, Iād probably decant (actually I prefer double decanting but thatās because I prefer to pour from the btl.) 6+ hours prior.
JD
It definitely did not fit in with the evening, but I did still enjoy it. I too would prefer the vacation you mentionedā¦ 
Typo on my side I will corect it. I meant 1986 but typed 1996 (both were consumed on the same night with Paul.)
Interesting, we will be tasting this wine in a mini-vertical (with dinner) in a couple of weeks. The cast of characters are all āberserkersā so I am sure notes will be forthcoming.
As of now, the wines are 1979, 1981, 1986, 1989, and 1990.
Cheers!
Marshall ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
I also had this (and also preferred the Rauzan Segla). Iām admittedly an iffier taster than John* and lack as much historical experience. That said, I have a tad more confidence in the '86 Margaux.
First of all, I donāt think it was a bad bottle. It was similar to a bottle that some of us had at Orchard 3 years ago, that bottle showed a bit better -it had been double decanted that AM. The bottle last night did show wood, but to me it wasnāt as obtrusive as it was to John and a couple others. I didnāt love the wine last night, but it seemed more tight to me than anything.
Howeverā¦ frankly if given a choice of the '86 Margaux or Lafite, Iād rather a 375 of the latter than a 750 of the Margaux. If I was spending my money, Iād rather have multiples of '86 Talbot, Gruaud, or R-Segla than a bottle of the Margaux. And Iād certainly rather have the '83 Margaux than the '86.
- to give John his props, he took about 2 sniffs and one sip of first wine in previous flight before yelling āCote Rotieā - it was '90 Jamet
Whatās wrong? Itās not from Burgundy or Champagne. ![[whistle.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/87d24eb81ec6dc01d84f3d6c19fa9a357e90218e.gif "whistle"){kind=small}
John and I disagreed on this wine. Not an off bottle, but still extremely closed and I had less problem with the wood than he did. While the Rausan it was paired with was jabbing away, this was a reluctant heavyweight that did not want to get involved in the fight. I kept some in the glass, and after everyone had gone home, it was beginning to to open up, but still incredibly backward. Did not get the garagiste Merlot notes that John mentioned, but as he pointed out, I knew what the wine was.
I had this wine only once, ten years ago. I wouldnāt be at all surprised if itās not still totally closed down today. I remember it as perhaps the most backwards wine Iāve ever tried, ever. At the time, ten years didnāt seem like it would make much difference. Twenty maybe, thirtyās probably more like it.
I have not had a chance to open another bottle of the '86 Margaux and decant it for an extended period, but will try to do so sometime after I get back from Burgundy and finish writing up that trip. I should observe that I did not have any issue with the heavily toasted oak of the '86 Margaux in terms of the wine being able to absorb it- there were no wood tannins sticking out uncovered on the backend of the wine like those that can be found in 1998 Scavino Bric del Fiasc for instance- but rather that the oak seemed to have flattened out the wine on the backend and dulled the flavors. The wine did not close with either sweet fruit or soil tones, but rather tarry and wood-derived flavors (despite the tannins being well-integrated) and the wine did not have the same freshness and bounce that the Rauzan-Segla had next to it. I also found the jammy raspberry fruit and cocoa tones out of synch with what I have usually found to be Margauxās signature notes of cassis, blackberries, tobacco, truffles and violets, and wondered how those tones could have emerged in a classically structured vintage like 1986. But there were at least a dozen of us at the tasting, and no one thought it was an off bottle- some just liked it more than others.
I have had the same issue with 1986 Mouton of late, which I had loved early on, but really wonder what is going on with it these days. The wine again does not today show any of the signature Mouton aromatics or flavors that have been in virtually every top vintage that I have encountred from 1945 onwards- red currants, red cherries, that great Mouton spicebox, coffee, tobacco and cedar. The '82 has these in their primary step of evolution, and vintages like 1983, 1979, 1978, 1970, 1966, 1961, 1955, 1953 etc all show this red fruity-spicy Mouton signature. Only the '59 stands out to me as singular in its aromatic and flavor profile of the older vintages that I have tasted. But the '86 on the last three or four occasions that I have tasted it has been this sappy black raspberry, cigar smoke and vanillin oak monolith that really makes me wonder where it is going, as it certainly seems to be cut from a different cloth than most of the Moutons that have preceded it. Perhaps it is just young, but like the '86 Margaux it does not seem to have gone anywhere in the first twenty-three years of its life, whereas there are plenty of examples of the vintage that are equally youthful, but are still developing their signature bouquets and flavor profiles. So the two wines are a mystery to me at the present time.
Best,
John