Reporting from the Medoc, southwest France: tastings at the great Margaux estate, Palmer, and at Lynch Bages. Had 1996 Palmer and 2009, 2001, and 1997 Lynch Bages, the latter at a 2+ hour BLIND tasting with an expert at Lynch Bages who taught us some new ways of assessing wine. The '09 was surprisingly closed and not all that promising, or so it seemed, but Parker has given it 94-96 points. The '01 and '97 were both excellent and '97 a real surprise since it's reputedly not a good vintage.
2009 Lynch Bages: From the barrel, acid high on attack, OK on mid-palate, very acid on finish. Not too much alcohol on the nose. Long acid finish with tannins drying, not very soft. Not much fruit on finish. Charles, who led the tasting for us (and it was just me and Francie, quite an unusual experience), said the tannin isn't bad. No balance at this point between tannin, acid and alcohol, something he urged us to notice on the nose and on the palate. He said at this stage the strong acid and tannin is a good sign. This one I pegged as a very young wine but didn't think it could be from the heralded 2009 vintage. He also said to notice the brilliance of color, i.e. its reflectivity (which was excellent) and the transparency--could you see your fingers through the wine? The more opaque the better, and this one was opaque.
2003 Haut Bages Averous (second wine): Much more balance and silky, softer tannin; with alcohol not hot like the '09. Alcohol is, says Charles, the referee between acid and tannin. Acid gives freshness, alcohol gives smoothness. In this particular wine he says, alcohol is too prominent on the finish. The wine is too warm, more "rustic" therefore than the Lynch Bages. It is given less age before release, lower age of vines, no new oak, and more merlot for earlier drinking.
2001 Lynch Bages: Better balanced. Alcohol makes for roundness, soft tannins, good mid-palate with balance. This one finishes with the tannin and acid more pronounced than on the first two wines and on mid-palate. Yet the finish was also longer; and he says, shows as a typical vintage of the terroir.
1997 Lynch Bages: Perfect balance. Fresh acid on the attack, balanced middle and finish is just as balanced as the mid-palate (unlike the '01). The finish is long and elegant, as well as complex. '97 seen as a bad year because it came between 1996 and 1998, two hyped vintages. Alcohol here nicely serving to round off the acid and tannin. The lesson says Charles: look for those off-vintages from excellent terroirs with good winemaking practices.
It's interesting to see what Parker wrote in 2000 about the 1997: This wine is jammy black currant fruit intermixed with cedar wood, herbs, spice, and pepper. It is a light-styled yet friendly effort with creamy new oak, low acidity, and a medium-bodied, attractive albeit superficial appeal. Drink it over the next 5-6 years.
Parker gave it 86 points and said it would drink until 2006, yet we tasted it in 2010 and it was really delightful. So one wonders, did the reputation of the vintage actually decrease Parker's scores for 1997, leading him to underestimate its potential?
Above is a picture of Palmer's barrel aging room with workers topping off barrels (which lose about 5% to evaporation, I believe, each month). More info on Palmer in separate posting of July 14.
No comments:
Post a Comment