On August 12, the last day of the 2003 heat wave, nine of us met at my home for our first “ten year” tasting. Twenty-three 1993’s were served single blind by ad hoc sommelier Karel Moonen.
First flight: Rieslings
1. Schloss Lieser Lieser Niederberg Mosel-Saar-Ruwer Helden Riesling Auslese**. Very ripe, but also very refreshing. Nice balance, nice citrusy acidity . Very Good. 91+ (Group: 91 / WS: 89). Wine Spectator called it “drinkable now” in 1994, but it has held up beautifully and it has still some years in it.
2. Marcel Deiss Riesling Alsace Grand Cru Altenberg de Bergheim. Nose rather closed. A bit cloying. Lacking acidity. Over the hill. 85 (Group: 80 / WA: 91). I thought it a bit better than the group did. Wine Advocate thought this to be a Riesling “that will last for 10-15+ years”. Not this bottle!
3. Deiss Riesling Alsace Grand Cru Schoenenbourg. Buttery nose, with hints of citrus fruit. Exotic yellow fruit. A lot of acidity that masks the fruit. Slightly bitter. The nose is better than the palate. 80 (Group: 82 / WA: 87). I liked it even less than the Altenberg. WA commented: “They (the two Schoenenbourg bottlings of Deiss) will undoubtedly behave like serious red wines in terms of their aging curves”.
The day after this bottle had come around. The wine was more open, both in the nose and on the palate. It was much better integrated. I gave it 87. Ive Marx, who tasted with me (see the “post mortem” part of this post below) gave it 85 (I think). My wife drank the reminder of the bottle and commented she liked it better than Schloss Lieser “because it is not as sweet”.
Second flight: Assorted whites
4. Ch. De Fieuzal Blanc. This bottle was completely oxidized and undrinkable. WA gave it 92 points when last tasted in 1997. “This offering should last for at least 10-15 years.” Not so, at least not this bottle.
5. Leroy Corton Charlemagne. A slight “stink” in the nose. Hints of maderization. Caramel, stony minerals. On the palate more minerals and stones, a strong acidity, very concentrated. Lacks fruit. Good. 88 (Group: 92 / WA: 88). Some in the group where outraged by my “low” score. I tasted it again at the end of the evening and the wine had improved a bit. Based on that I could adjust my score to 90, but certainly not higher. However, WA scored it 88 in 1995, so I was not far off the mark with my initial score. “Woodiness should smooth out by 1998”, commented WA in 1995 and it certainly has.
6. Jonathan Barrel Select Chardonnay Napa 1989. This wine was oxidized but still somewhat drinkable. 70 (Group: 76). This was inserted in to the tasting to throw people off and to answer a question posed on this forum: “Can California Chardonnay Age”. The answer is no, based on this bottle.
Flight 3: Assorted reds
7. Castello di Ama Chianti Classico Vigneto Bellavista. No fruit, lots of acidity, over the hill. 78 (Group: 80 / WA: 87). It confirms my take on the Bellavistas as being wines that do not age well and are totally overpriced. JS called it “better after 1998” in the Chianti Retrospective of 1997. Not so!
8. Domenico Clerico Barolo Ciabot Mentin Ginestra. Nose is closed. Palate is watery, with a bit of fruit and a metally mouthfeel. 82 (Group: 88 / WA: 90, WS: 91). Again I disagreed with the majority of the group (some gave it a 90, right on the mark if compared to WA and WS). But I’ve drank this wine since release and have seen it go downhill. It was a 90 some years ago but not today, imho. WS gave a drinking window of 2000-2005 in 1997, while WA gave 1997-2009 in 1997. For me, these drinking windows are much too optimistic. It is a wine to drink up now.
9. Piccolomini Brunello Pianrosso. Sadly, this bottle was corked.
10. Bussia Soprano Barolo Bussia. Fresh red fruit in the nose. Very fruity on the palate, with well integrated acidity. Slightly bitter. Light, but very agreeable. 88 (Group: 89).
11. Paolo Scavino Barolo Bric del Fiasc. Dusty red fruit in the nose. On the palate lots of red fruit. Medium body. Some complexity, but not as fresh as the Bussia. More of an international style. 87 (Group: 90 / WA: 95, WS: 92). I would drink it up, but WA thought in 1997 that “it should last for 15+ years”. Not so for me. PM was somewhat more conservative and thought in 1997 that it was “worth waiting until after 2000 to drink”.
12. Avignonesi Grifi. This cuvee was last made in 1996. The fruit now al goes in to the Toro Desiderio of the same house. In the nose smoke, drop, coffee. Soft, tasty but somewhat dusty fruit. Slightly bitter. Medium bodied. 92 (Group: 89 / WA: 89, WS: 87). WA thought in 1997 that it would hold until 2003 and that was right on the money. Drink up.
13. Mondavi Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Private Reserve. Beautiful nose with chocolate, coffee, toasty oak, ripe black fruit and a slightly vegetative touch. On the palate lots of tasty black fruit, somewhat sweet, but delicious and very balanced. Everyone agreed that this had to be a Californian wine. Very Good to Excellent. I gave it 95, a much higher score than I had given it non-blind in the past (Group: 95 / WS: 90, WA: 93). WA called it (in December 1995) “a 25-30 years wine that ideally needs another 4-5 years of cellaring”. Based on this bottle, that was right on the money (and more so than the WS which couldn’t hide its disdain for this wine when tasted in November 1996). WOTN for everyone.
14. Castello di Ama Merlot Vigna l’Apparita. Slightly stinky nose. Lots of warm jammy fruit, smoke, drop. Rather sweet on the palate, but with a beautiful acidity. Very tasty wine but not as complex as for example the Mondavi. A bit too much alcohol. Can age some more. 93 (Group: 92 / WS: 96). WS thought overoptimistically (in 1997) that this gave “Château Pétrus a run for its money”. A very good showing nonetheless.
The next evening I performed a “post mortem” tasting with Ive Marx. Five left-over bottles that I had vacuvined and stored in my cellar were served blind to us by one of my sons. The Grifi had lost much of its appeal and had become oxidized. I scored it 83. The Bussia had held up and become somewhat more complex even. I scored it 88.
Flight 4: Bordeaux and some surprises
15. Leoville Las Cases Pauillac. Smoke, red fruits, in the elegant nose. On the palate drop, beautiful fruit. Rather structured, somewhat metallic, and short. Good nonetheless. 89 (Group: 90 / WA: 90). Parker commented in 1997: “Purity, balance, and super-concentration and intensity are hallmarks of this remarkable wine. Readers who find it difficult to believe that the 1993 vintage could turn out wines such as this only need to pull the cork on a bottle of the 1993 Leoville-Las-Cases. Anticipated maturity: now-2012.” I would drink it up, though.
16. Pichon-Longueville Comtesse de Lalande Paulliac. Little smoke and some stable aromas in the very fruity nose. On the palate somewhat disappointing, with dry tannins. Good (mostly because of the nose). 89 (Group: 88 / WA: 85). “The wine is soft, and thus best consumed over the next 5-6 years,” said Parker in 1997 and he was right. If you have some left drink them up soon.
17. Pichon-Longueville Baron Paulliac. Closed. Not very much going on. Mostly dry tannins and herbs. Not very complex. 86 (Group: 88 / WA: 84). “Mediocre” and “uninteresting” were some of the words Parker used to describe this wine in 1997.
18. Anne Gros Clos Vougeot. Smokey nose with beautiful fresh fruits. Herbs, chocolate, sweets. Very balanced. A pleasure to drink. Good to Very Good. 93 (Group: 92).
19. Montrose St. Estèphe. Closed nose. A little bacon and smoke. The bacon and some return on the palate, together with some fruit. Rather green. 87 (Group: 85 / WA: 87, WS: 90). Parker thought in 1997 this would be “one of the longer-lived wines of the vintage” and gave a drinking window until 2012. Maybe we encountered it in a closed stadium, but I wouldn’t bet my money on it improving.
20. Chapoutier Côte Rotie La Mordorée. In the nose stones, leather, herbs. On the palate tasty fruit, some smoke, herbs. Medium body, but a lot going on. Complex and keeps evolving in the glass. Good to Very Good. 90 (Group: 90 / WA: 91). “This wine is approachable, but it will benefit from another 2-4 years of cellaring; it should keep for 15 years,” commented RP in 1995. He gave a drinking window from 1999-2010 and was probably right. No need to hold it further though: it is just excellent right now.
21. Peyre Rose Clos Syrah Leone Pic Saint-Loup. Somewhat dusty. I thought it was slightly corked, but others tried to convince me that what I was smelling was Pic Saint-Loup terroir (which I know nothing of). I respect the knowledge of my betters, but I would have returned it when served at a restaurant. Herbs, coffee, a little fruit. Not very good. 85 (Group: 86 / WA: 90). RP gave a drinking window from 1997-2012 and deemed it a Hermitage-look-alike in 1997. Based on his notes I’m convinced this was an off-bottle.
22. Angelus St. Emilion. The nose is rather closed, with some chocolate and a little bit of black fruits. On the palate coffee, herbs and a little bit of fruit. For me not very exciting, but the others didn’t agree with me. 85 (90 / WA: 92). RP in 1997: “Amazingly rich and full-bodied, with massive extract, it is almost unbelievable that this wine could have been produced in a vintage such as 1993.” Based on that note, I would much rather have drunk this wine when young.
23. Harlan Estate Proprietary Red Napa. Vanilla, black fruits, some herbs, sweets. Not a wow wine, but good nevertheless. No match for the Mondavi, though! 90 (92 / WA: 95). RP called this “another 20-25 year wine” in 1996. It is probably in a somewhat closed state right now.
The next evening I performed a “post mortem” tasting with Ive Marx. Five left-over bottles that I had vacuvined and stored in my cellar were served blind to us by one of my sons. From this flight, the Baron had come around somewhat. It was much more pleasant and I gave it 88. The Comtesse on the other hand had lost much of its appeal. It had become very green and diluted. I gave it 83. The other left-over bottle was the Hacienda Monasterio Cosecha Propria 1995, which we had cracked at the end of the grand tasting. I gave it 91. There’s still a lot going on in that wine, although it is in an international, rather sweet style. Another bottle that was tasted non-blind at the concluding of our big tasting was the Cole 1996 Barbaresco by Moccagata. It showed beautifully and was gone in a sec. I have neither formal points nor tasting notes but it certainly is a 90+ wine that is drinking beautifully right now.