by Julian Schultz
julian@oxfordwineroom.com
At a recent Worcester Wine Tasters tasting of 1989 Bordeaux wines,
attorney Wally Myers asked me if I had attended the 2004 Boston Wine Expo. I
answered with an emphatic, “No!” I added that some years ago I had been
there once, which was twice…my first and last time, and that if
I wanted to visit a zoo, I would be more comfortable and relaxed there,
observing those animals: my not suffering to stand impatiently in line for food
and wine; no one crowding me, elbowing me, dinning my ears with unsolicited
comments. Well, I suppose if you’re a young guy and can shove right back –
yes, the Expo can be quite an adventure for meeting odd people and tasting
unfamiliar wines….Perhaps it has changed since I was there and is more
civilized.
Wally said that he has attended for years…so many wines to taste, so
many that he would never have had the opportunity to sample.
I said that many years ago, before Dr. Bob Ouellette started the
Worcester Wine Tasters, I believe I wrote a wine review of that first and last
experience – disaster for me -- for my own remembrance. Wally laughed, said he
would like to have read it. I said I would attach it to an e-mail message if I
could resurrect it.
Now to discuss the Worcester Wines Tasters tasting of the 12 ’89
Bordeaux red wines. Where possible, I will show Alexis Lichine’s 1962
suggested new classification, revised in 1969, of the obsolete 1855
classification.
Assumption College erstwhile professor of chemistry, physics, mathematics, and celestial bodies, Hubert Meunier, Ph.D, called me with the scores. Many low scores, especially of the wines in the second and third flights, perplexed him: “People may have been thinking of the obvious California fruits in the wines and not appreciating the complexity, fruit restraint and finesse in Bordeaux wines.”
The first four wine wines of the three flights were passed: Chateaux
Beaumont (minor chateau), Labory (good growth), Olivier (classified Graves) and
Meyney (minor chateau).
I
was disappointed in them; my highest ratings were 82 and 80, for the Beaumont
and Meyney, respectively; 78 for the other two wines. I raised some eyebrows and
caused some frowns when I said that I was “overwhelmingly under whelmed” by
them. I had expected more.
I
perceived the four first flight wines to be overly acidic and astringently
tannic; some, despite faint, mature fruit, were drying out or had dried out.
Some of us agreed; others in disagreement lauded the wines – perhaps they
approached the tasting with a preconceived positive mindset...come hell or high
water the wines had to be great!
First
flight composite scores: 87, 86, 87, 85. (Mine were lower.)
The
scores, however, of the tasters in agreement and disagreement were not
consistent within their perceptions: Some of the wines in “agreements” were
scored lower like those in “disagreement,” and those in disagreement were
scored higher than the wines in agreement.
The second flight of four wines: Chateaux Batailley (superior growth), La
Lagune (great growth), Tourelles de Longueville(minor chateau) and Fieuzal
(classified Graves).
For most of us this flight was a giant step above the first flight,
except for one respected palateer, who rated three wines 88 and awarded one an
89 in this flight…but rated all wines of the first flight in the 90s, except
for one 89. ???????!!!!!!
I rated the wines of the second flight, two 89s and two in the low-to-mid
90s. All showed discernible berry fruit, or fruit somewhat reduced to
accommodate and be augmented with complex flavors of tea, leather, cedar,
coffee, spice. All were balanced; most, however, were very near the end of their
sands of time: enjoyable now, but not keepers.
The spirits of the tasters rose with considerable excitement and
enthusiasm upon tasting this second flight.
Second flight composite scores: 89, 88, 88, 88. (Go figure. I rated them
higher. Some tasters don’t put their pens to what their mouth says.)
Third flight was socko, terrific, spectacular, gangbusters! Even our
aberrant respected palateer of the first and second flights rated these wines
93, two 94s, one 95. All my ratings were similar; others loudly expressed their
unrestrained enthusiasm and applauded the wines…and praised our WWT’s
president, Dr. Bob Ouellette, now lolling lazily around, lazily playing golf, or
lazily basking in the sunny 80s degrees of Florida, who selected the wines from
his cellar.
The third flight wines: Chateaux d’Armailhac (an 1855 classified fifth
growth, also known as Mouton-Baron-Philippe, and better than some second, third,
and fourth 1855 classified growths). Just a super wine that is still alive and
kicking with a deep complex nose and a palate-full of fermented cherries and
complex non-fruit flavors; balanced and smooth, with a persistent aftertaste.
Troplong Mondot (classified growth in St. Emilion – reminiscent of a
Burgundy) and Pichon-Longueville (Lichine-classifed “exceptional growth”)
for me were the outstanding wines of the evening. I rated them 94 and 95,
respectively.
Chasse Spleen (minor chateau – I question that) I thought offered the
fullest and most persistent nose of the tasting. Outstanding with complex
flavors of subdued fruit with ameliorating tastes of leather, tobacco, some
smoke, this “minor chateau” merited my 94 rating.
Everyone seemed to echo each other, saying about this flight: “This is
what Bordeaux is all about!” “Remarkable wines – justifying Parker’s,
The Wine Spectator’s, the International Wine & Food Society’s high
vintage ratings.” If there was disappointment with the first flight, it was
more than dispelled with flights two and three.
Flight three composite scores: 93, 91, 90, 90. (Some of us rated the
wines higher in the 90s, which means some other tasters rated them below 90!
(Our respected palateer, however, rated these wines: 94, 95, 93, 94. Welcome
home, good friend!)
Some of the more memorable statements that were made by some of the group
in flight two: “I was looking for a challenge; it was not there. The bread
tasted better.” “We’re all over the place with uppsy-downsy, ins-and-outsy
evaluations.” “We’ve heard every descriptor known to man, alien or beast
tonight and some never heard before.” “No one is exploding their palate with
enthusiasm.”
I wonder how consistent our scores would be if we rated the wines by the
Hedonic Scale -- rated primarily by pleasure – scoring done from a narrow
spread of numbers confined within their respective categories? For example:
Focusing on sight, smell, savor, swallow and balance we would rate the wines,
“Hate It” and why (0); “Dislike It” and why (under 80); “Acceptable”
and why (80 to 84); “Like It” and why (84 to 89); and “Love It” and why
(90 and up).
This is the article for Wally:
People
who participate in public wine tastings often exhibit perplexing personalities.
One young woman said: “This Dry Creek Fumé Blanc makes a statement on
the palate – yes?” She was not quite sure of her comment, but she wanted to
make an impression that she was knowledgeable about wine.
I drew a smile when I said I agreed with her. She asked over the hubbub
of voices and raucous exclamations for my description of the Fumé Blanc. I
first spoke about the fruit, then the fruit acids balance; I said we should look
for oak influence from barrel aging, or for a simpler “purer” fruit from
stainless steel aging. I spoke of heat and sweetness from alcohol, if it were
excessive. After that, I discussed swallow and length of aftertaste -- both that
maintained a gratifying glow in the senses; I then tried to find subjective
descriptors, telling her that very few palates agree 100 percent: “My cherries
and berries may properly be your blackberries and currants.” “My excessive
acidity may be your zesty, lively, verve on the palate.”
I suggested she retain some of the wine in her glass and that she accompany me to the Sutter Home booth, where she could taste an outstanding Montevina Sauvignon Blanc (Fumé’s other name), and make a comparison. Both wines, although different in aromas, flavor, body and texture, were excellent.
The lesson she learned, she said later, was that it is prudent to note
distinctions between wines – especially of the same grape variety – before
stating judgments.
At wine tastings, I usually meet three types of enthusiasts: the novice,
the connoisseur and the snob. When the latter variety makes arrogant, dogmatic
pronouncements about wines, he or she is fair game to challenge. They are tough
adversaries, though, who enjoy skirmishing. This enables them to impose their
convictions on attentive and awed beginners to wine.
I try to steer the neophyte away from such people because they inhibit him/her from expressing themselves and may discourage further exploration into the joys of wine. I hope this woman I met avoided such danger.
A wine writer friend with whom I have tasted wine many times visited most
of the wine stations, cradling an empty half-gallon orange juice carton in his
arm. He sighted, sloshed, sniffed, sipped, savored, sighed…and then spat into
the orange juice carton. He didn’t swallow – the mark of a professional
taster. He preferred to taste critically – not hedonistically for pleasure,
for senses gratification – which would have been impossible if he swallowed so
many wines. He wisely denied himself the wines’ pleasurable swallows and
aftertastes but he retained his physical equilibrium and mental acuity.
Spitting, although not aesthetically pretty, is proper and sensible and
is encouraged at tastings when many wines are poured.
All is not lost, however. You may savor wine despite spitting it out:
Here’s what I do when I exercise my suspect willpower to forgo the quintessential gratification of completely consuming a great wine: While retaining the wine in the front of my mouth, I swallow “dry” a few times, then I spit the retained wine and swallow… again dry. I usually have enough of the flavor in my mouth to carry it down to the throat. It is almost as good as drinking the real thing and you remain alert and sober.
I was amused by the ‘bearded one,” as we referred to him -- an
angular, sweat-shirted, dungaree-d, sneaker-clad taster. He sighted quickly,
rotated his glass rapidly, sniffed and sipped fast. Then, standing stiffly
erect, his expression pious, he looked heavenward as though seeking a
revelation. After a half-minute or so, receiving none, he frowned, tasted again
– this time slowly – scribbled into the wine booklet provided us, and
hastened to the next station where he repeated the routine.
Conversation with colorful figures of speech add to the euphoria that
comes with tasting delightful wines. One taster found his wine “grouchy, but
underneath (it had) a heart of gold.” Another commented that the wine
“aspires to greatness but lacks determination.” A late harvest, unctuous
Riesling had a “seductive bouquet that captivates the palate with exotic
flowers.”
Many such statements, however, are made with self-conscious good humor and are not meant to be taken seriously. That is part of the ambience at wine tasting that is unique: Exaggerated eloquence and odd conduct add to the fun.
Wine Pick: Trinchero Mario’s Reserve Chardonnay 2000, $33, top of the line, superior representation of this West Coast varietal. Aged nine months on its lees (fermented grape and yeast deposits in barrels), the Chardonnay also underwent 100 percent malolactic fermentation (harsh malic acids were removed in favor of softer lactic acid). Enjoy apple, pear, melon aromas with accent of vanilla; palate discloses creamy flavors and forward stone and tree fruits supported by a hearty smack of oak. I drank eight ounces last evening. Superb!
Wine Pick: Errazuriz Don Maximiano Estate Merlot Reserva 1999, $25,
produced in Chile with the Robert Mondavi influence; 20 percent Cabernet
Sauvignon added for complexity. Big wine with layers of ripe fruit, intense dark
berries, earthy components; silky aspect on the palate with emphatic fruit,
spice; closes with impeccable balance of zesty
fruit acids and full, soft tannins. Taste this Errazuriz and understand why
Chile rivals the world in winemaking. An example of a superb Merlot that will
improve with age.
Email Comments to Julian at:
julian@oxfordwineroom.com