Blog

Since first growths are now worth more upon release than aged in the bottle, I figured it was a good time to recount a couple of recent verticals held in New York City of Latour and Mouton Rothschild, held at Jean Georges and Picholine respectively.

Nestled away in a private suite above the restaurant, we started off the Latour vertical 2000 miles and running with the 2000 Chateau Latour, of course. The 2000 had a fabulous nose; its breed, character and strength of finish components were all there. The nose was very chunky and sweet, rich, nutty, lightly earthy, creamy, exotic and very smooth. Dalia noted ‘pink roses and honey,’ giving the traditionalists something to think about. The wine had a lot of baby fat on the palate, a bit lost initially, soft and easy, its backside in hibernation. It had flavors of ‘brown dates’ and was indeed ‘shy’ according to Dalia as well. It clearly had a lot of potential and started to awaken from its slumber if any one was patient enough to let it wait in the glass. It was many people’s favorite of the first flight, which also included the 1996 and 1995 (96+).

The 1996 Chateau Latour had a spinier nose with nice pitch and vigor, more classic in its style with aromas of nut, cedar and pencil. Wendy and Mike combined for an observation of ‘chili oil and pepper.’ The ’96 was nutty, and Dalia observed ‘smoked meats of sorts.’ It almost had a caraway edge to go with its touch of plum and cassis fruit. Oily, spiny, cedary and minerally, the 1996 had nice acidity and a touch of exotic banana, although Dalia gave it a big thumbs down overall (94).

The 1995 Chateau Latour had a decadent nose, aromatic and nutty with a dessert-like, caramel sex appeal and sweet perfume. The nose was rich and balanced, the most expressive of the first flight, as well as the most approachable. There were nice mineral and cedar flavors, and someone mentioned ‘iron.’ It was the most flattering of the first flight as far as drinking on this night at age eleven (95).

We began the second flight with a 1990 Chateau Latour. It had a fabulous nose which was rich, nutty, deep and full of black fruits. There was also a marzipan edge to its singing nose. The palate was rich, beefy and minty, long and balanced with a touch of tasty vegetable. Rich and creamy, its flavors flirted with wood but settled more on charcoal and tobacco. (96).

The 1982 Chateau Latour was paired with the 1990, a good vintage combination for practically any Bordeaux vertical. The ’82 was bready and tasty with a lot of front-end aromas of nuts, minerals, pencil, coffee and cream. Rich and tasty, the ’82 seemed a touch short in the middle, but overall was a long, sensuous and stylish wine, although Big Boy found it to be ‘eh’ (96).

The next flight was comprised of the 1978, 1970 and 1966. The 1978 Chateau Latour was full of Asian spice, mint, earth and carob, very forward, open and smooth. The palate was nutty, pleasant, smooth, soft and caressing, more mature than I remember, but that could always be the bottle (91?).

The 1970 Chateau Latour has never been one of my favorite Latours, but this bottle was rather fresh and rich in its caramel, nut, cassis and grape aromas. It had this sexy, grapy quality to it, and its flavors were similarly those of nut, grape and meat with great minerals on its finish. This was one of the freshest, purist bottles of 1970 Latour that I have ever had (94).

The 1966 Chateau Latour was unfortunately a bad bottle (DQ).

The next flight started off with the great 1961 Chateau Latour, and this was a fabulous bottle, one that had the room buzzing right away. The nose had loads of sweet cream and nut, rich and lush with its grape, fig, cedar and spice. In the mouth, the wine was long, spiny and still very vigorous, full of cedary and peppery flavors (97+).

The 1959 Chateau Latour was equally as good; rich, creamy, nutty and long, and also full of sweet cream but with more caramel. The palate was rich and chewy and possessed tremendous texture. Someone likened the 1959 to Reggie Bush, i.e. young and darting, while the 1961 was O.J. Simpson, aka ‘a killer.’ The 1961 did have more character, but the 1959 had a friendlier, up-front sex appeal. The 1959 was the bottle you wanted for a wild weekend, but the 1961 was the one you wanted to take home (97).

The 1955 Chateau Latour had a very peculiar nose, but its palate was much better, balanced and with nice texture. Sorry for the short note (93).

The 1949 Chateau Latour began our last flight and was consistent with the signature style of Latour that we saw unfolding throughout the evening. Sweet, rich, creamy, nutty, grapy and long, the 1949 had nice t’n a and minerals in its nose, emitting a smooth and balanced impression. There were lots of cedar flavors in this long, balanced and tasty Latour. This was the first time I had had a good experience with the 1949, which was smooth and satiny, an excellent wine overall, but not what I would consider one of the great all time Latours (94).

The 1945 Chateau Latour has always been one of my favorite Latours. Every time I have had it, it has performed as well if not better than any other Latour. This time was again no exception. In the context of the great Latours, it seems to be the forgotten one of the twentieth century. The 1945 had a fabulous, sweet nose, fresh and full of baked cream, cedar, spice, spine, nut, caramel and what Wendy called ‘cocoa butter.’ It was indubitably the best nose of the evening. The palate was rich, creamy and nutty with lots of sweet flavors, long and balanced and just flat out awesome (98).

The 1928 Chateau Latour was a reconditioned bottle and had a rich, almost Port-like quality to it, and it was clearly not as pure as an original bottle would have been. Polished and smooth, it was still excellent but not as great as other 1928’s I have had (93).

Somehow, we ended up at Cru afterwards for a couple of bottles of Champagne, beginning with the 1981 Bollinger Vieilles Vignes Francaises. The 1981 was absolutely great, incredibly meaty, oily, thick and rich with loads of bready and nutty aromas and flavors and a chunky personality. I was most impressed. Rob called it ‘six stars,’ and it was pretty damn close. Round in the mouth and long in its finish, this was a straight down the middle, 96 mile-an-hour fast ball. Rich, tasty, long and meaty in the mouth, Robert Bohr and I both admired its ‘wine-like’ personality (96).

We paired it with the 1981 Krug Clos du Mesnil. Robert called it a ‘lemon bomb’ and found it fresher and ‘more minerally, but too immature.’ It was much too young and very linear as a result, a touch oaky yet indubitably great, but way too young. It was interesting how the Bollinger was so much more mature than the Krug, although that could come down to storage as well (95+).

Our Mouton vertical also began with a 2000. The 2000 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a sweet, seductive nose full of rich, sweet, creamy and nutty fruit. There was incredible musk and earth to its pure and long nose. Its t’n a blended skillfully into its fruit, and the 2000 possessed a great freshness overall. It seemed as if it hadn’t shut down yet, as many 2000’s have been observed to do. I spoke too soon, as it was shier on the palate with light grit and long acidity. There were lots of earth and carob flavors and a touch of black currant, along with secondary flavors of coffee and raisinets. It lost its focus a little bit compared to the 1998 and seemed to still be in a ‘teen’ phase. Someone found it ‘a little New World’ (95).

The 1998 Chateau Mouton Rothschild was a huge surprise for me. More classic in style, I thought it was going to be this New World nightmare, to be frank, but the nose had great vigor and spine, and it was long, elegant, penetrating and just plain impressive. There were classic aromas of nut, earth and almost a kiss of lemon, ever so slight. It seemed lighter in its weight and texture in the mouth, but its acidity was very impressive. There were classic flavors such as black currant bordering on cassis, earth, nut and minerals. There was this exotic, herbal edge, almost a coriander, soy and pepper blend. Dan observed ‘rubber, spice and tobacco.’ Its acidity really stood out (96).

Mike observed a ‘touch of mint,’ in the 1996 Chateau Mouton Rothschild, and it was definitely there, blending into its minerally t’n a and lightly grilled root vegetable aromas. Again, the wine was more finish oriented than fruit, with medium-weight up front but long acidity in the back, elegant and smooth overall. Ben observed that ‘the acid was a little too dominant and shut down.’ It got slatier in the nose, but the palate was the lightest of the first flight. I was surprised by its showing after news of it winning two separate, blind 1996 wine tastings recently. I expected a bit more based on that news (93).

The 1995 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a nice, nutty nose, back to the sweet and nutty style a la 2000. It was more reserved than balanced, still with great verve and edge but reigned in. There were excellent minerals, and Michael observed ‘more loam (moss) and mushroom,’ and there was definitely mushroom but in a good way. The palate was a lot drier, the driest of the first flight of four, very dusty and leathery, still will good acidity but a bit masochistic at that moment due to its dryness. It was Teona’s favorite of the first flight (93).

The 1990 Chateau Mouton Rothschild was a bit green as always, full of vegetable, mint, t’n a and zip. There were also green flavors to this medium-bodied and pleasant Mouton, but you have to like green to like this. Marc remarked ‘for a bad wine its pretty good.’ There were nice acid, stem and band-aid flavors, and Greg likened it to 1961 Lafite. The 1990 got richer in the glass (90).

The 1989 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had lots of cedary vigor, rock solid t’na, minerals, nut and tobacco. It was very racy and vigorous in the nose and voluptuous in the mouth. Its palate was rich, rocky and long, yet smooth and soft. Its rich flavors of coffee and nut were intense, and there was great balance to the wine (94).

The 1988 Chateau Mouton Rothschild was a lighter style, prickly, sandy, dusty, lightly nutty and lightly earthy with a nice ray of cassis shining through its gravelly clouds. Feminine, elegant and sexy, I was actually digging its nose, but the palate had much less intensity, solid but lighter and dusty. There was a touch of earth, sand box and tree bark to its flavors, and the 1988 clearly had the lightest body of the flight but was still very good with solid acidity (90).

The 1986 Chateau Mouton Rothschild was a return to glory with its spiny, intense and long nose. Razor sharp with a sparkling minerality, the 1986 had underlying aromas of nut, earth, cream and cassis. The nose was long and elegant and continued to get fatter in its fruit over time. The palate was far superior to the nose, incredibly racy and possessing tremendous lift. Its acidity was amazing, and the wine was ‘still very balanced,’ as Michael pointed out. It got sweeter and nuttier over time and was so long and vimful with the best tannins of the night so far (97).

The 1985 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a beautiful nose, Margauxesque with lots of olive and dry cassis aromas. It was sweet and nutty a la the 2000 and 1995 with nice t’n a and earth aromas to support it. The palate was light to medium in its body with flavors of tobacco, pencil and leather, also on the dry side a la 1995. The acidity was long, and there were flavors of ‘coca-cola’ and lots of ‘animal’ present. Someone observed that the wine had a ‘wild chemistry’ (93).

The 1983 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a pleasant nose, nutty and with some sweetness, with good earth and a coppery minerality. I was really digging its nose. Dan observed ‘pencil,’ and it was there 100% in this great nose. The 1983 was also very tasty, with excellent balance and acidity and nice floral and gravelly flavors. Rich and long, the 1983 won the Miss Congeniality award and is a great wine to drink now. I’ll take three of these over one 2000 or four over a 2005, but then again I have a drinker’s mentality as opposed to a collecting one (94).

The 1982 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a ‘wow’ nose that was so racy and vigorous, incredibly spiny and crackling with minerals. Earth, desert, spine, spice and sensuous plum were underneath but far in the distance like a gorgeous sunrise about to happen. The palate was similar but a bit smoother than the nose had lead me to believe but still great, perhaps in a dumb phase. Man, that nose was amazing. I have and will rate other bottles higher (96+).

The 1970 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had ‘sherry and kimchee,’ according to Bob. Mrs. B. observed ‘raspberry vinaigrette,’ and the 1970 was not cooked but a bit meaty and stewed. Plummy and chocolaty, perhaps this bottle was a touch cooked, but I couldn’t quite tell. The 1970 has always been an up-and-down vintage for Mouton; this wine was a bit above average, decent with its cedar flavors and medium-body but not thrilling (88).

The 1966 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a great nose full of green mint and olives, with lots of cedar, supplementary earth and crispy bacon aromas. Dan found it ‘panacea and superb,’ possessing ‘every conceivable meaty flavor.’ The nose was very spiny and intense, but the palate was smooth and satiny, less intense but still possessing some dusty vigor. A breadstick brought out a little power in the mouth, and there was nice slate on its finish (92).

The 1961 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a beautiful nose, subtle with a grapy, sexy sweetness and also with some seed aromas and dripping with gyro-like meat, a lamb-like quality. There were also great earth and carob aromas and touches of caraway and minerals. The palate was rich, smooth and delicious. The 1961 was fleshy yet still possessed a touch of grit and dusty length. There was great balance, and the 1961 was on its plateau with maybe a touch of ascension left. Pretty, delicious, mature, soft and plush, the 1961 was excellent but short of outstanding due to the lack of intensity left in its structure (94).

I had actually had the 1959 Chateau Mouton Rothschild on three separate occasions this very same week! You know the saying, ‘When it rains, drink up.’ That reminds me of another saying, ‘When it’s sunny, drink up.’ Ok, back to the wine. It had a ‘stove top stuffing’ of a nose that was nutty, creamy, meaty and oily, full of fruit and rich caramel aromas. This was the freshest bottle that I had this week, another divine nose that was deep, chocolaty and nutty. The palate was rich and spiny, possessing excellent acidity with flashes of fruit and earth, and great minerals on its finish. This was definitely the best of the three bottles but they were all similarly close in quality (96).

We had a great bottle of 1955 Chateau Mouton Rothschild which some found ‘better than the 1959,’ myself included, photo-finish required. This bottle had come from an original wooden case, which never hurts. Sweet, nutty, chocolaty and meaty, there were great aromas of musk oil, peanut, carob, cassis and plum. This was sexy juice! The palate was rich and creamy, possessing great acid and divine cedar flavors. Long and outstanding, the 1955 held its own if not more than its esteemed brethren from 1959 and 1961 (96+).

The 1947 Chateau Mouton Rothschild had a nice nose with a yeasty and bready edge. Also nutty but a bit pruny, this bottle was nowhere near the mentholated bomb that I remembered it to be. This bottle was definitely reconditioned, nice and smooth, but less than thrilling and less than what it should have been. I neglected to write down a rating, so you can tell I was left unimpressed especially after knowing how great this wine can be. Attention all Chateaux no more reconditioning please! As a disclaimer, I will say that I have had some outstanding reconditioned bottles, and I’m definitely not counting the Nicolas cellars for reasons I can tell you if you care to ask, but generally they can be more of an exception than the rule.

The 1945 Chateau Mouton Rothschild was the grand finale. Even though this, too, was a reconditioned bottle, it was a Nicolas one and many people’s favorite wine of the night. Rich, succulent and delicious, the wine was great. As you can tell, I was a bit out of gas, so I guess I will explain why the reconditioning done at Nicolas is far superior to most. First, the cellars of Nicolas were kept around forty degrees (some say 38), delaying the maturation process significantly. Second, they reconditioned their bottles using the same vintage as opposed to topping the wine off with younger wine. Third, whatever methodologies they used were excellent and allowed the wines to maintain their original personalities, or maybe that was just the fact they used wine from the same vintage, but I’d like to think that the methodology had something to do with it (97).

We went around the table to see which wines were everybody’s ‘Top Three’ favorites.
The 1945 won by a landslide, followed by the 1955. There was scattered support for the
1959, 1961, 1982 and 1986. What was most surprising was how many times the 1985
actually appeared on people’s top three lists, which was five times. The 2000, 1983, 1966
and 1947 also made appearances.

I think it’s Margaux’s turn this Fall – hopefully, we will see you there.