1986 Bordeaux Wine Tasting

Using the introduction of the beverage board as a motivating force, it was my pleasure to set up a blind wine tasting (horizontal) of Bordeaux from the 1986 Vintage. Having purchased several cases of these wines back in 1988 as futures, the cost was extremely accessible compared to the ridiculous prices going for these wines in today’s marketplace.
I have had the pleasure of tasting them throughout the last 15 or so years and felt it was high time to retry a few of the better examples.

Of the five primary wines we tasted (Cheateaux Lafite-Rothschild, Mouton-Rothschild, Ducru Beaucaillau, Pichon-Lalande, and Cos D’ Estournel), I have tried every one of them at least twice, basically throughout the 90’s, never having an eventful experience with any of them. The Mouton-Rothschild showed promise with its amazing depth and huge mouth-feel and Lafite-Rothschild having its patented beautiful aroma but, overall, a disappointment across the board. Even though the 1986’s had been highly touted initially by notable wine critics such as Robert Parker and others, I have always found them extremely closed and tight with unyielding levels of tannin. Imbalanced wines to say the least. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that my expectations of 1986 Bordeaux ever coming around would be slim, to say the least.

Until now…

From the first taste, I knew immediately that the tide had turned for these 86’s. Whereas before they were nothing more than extremely aggressive wines with no balance between their fruit and tannin, the wines now displayed grace and elegance. The tannins had toned down, allowing other nuances within the wine to come out.
20 years of aging has been a real good thing for some wines of the ‘86 vintage.

One of the great thrills of buying a case of wine instead of just individual bottles is being able to try it over many years to see how it matures and develops. I have found that most quality Bordeaux that are great in their youth usually are at least as great with age. I would also say that, in general, disappointing wines in their youth will disappoint later on in their life as well, regardless of aging time. However, it isn’t unheard of that after many years of development in the bottle, a prince can come from a toad.

Some of these wines definitely turned into princes.


Tasting Notes

1) Ducru Beaucaillou (St. Julien) – Chewy, beautiful tannin with easy fruit.
Excellent balance. Impressive.


2) Cos D’Estournel (St. Estephe) – Wonderful nose. Lots of fruit for a 20 year-old wine. Deep, rich color with a youthful appearance. Medium body. Elegant.

3) Lafite-Rothschild (Pauillac) – Very pleasant nose. Brown sugar aromas. Starting to age gracefully. Has a lovely balance between fruit and tannins (body). As the great GWiv often says; “delightful”.

4) Mouton-Rothschild (Pauillac) – Wow! Sensational bouquet. Unquestionably, the highlight of the tasting for me. Deep, youthful color. Medium tannins with excellent balance. Not overly chewy. Still youthful tasting but certainly coming around in a big way.

5) Pichon-Lalande (Pauillac) – Extremely youthful. (So youthful, in fact, that I had to wonder if I was being served one of the younger 2000 wines!). Doesn’t have super depth to it compared to others but good overall balance. Feminine. Ever so slightly volatile.

In summary, I found all five wines to be at the highest levels as a whole with the standouts being Chateaux Lafite-Rothschild, Mouton-Rothschild, and Ducru Beaucaillou.

Two bottles from the 2000 vintage were also tasted as reference wines to show the difference age will have on great wine. These were Chateau Du Tertre from Margaux and Chateau Bahans Haut-Brion, the second label of the great first growth wine, Chateau Haut-Brion. Although beautiful wines in and of themselves, their charms were clearly overshadowed by the five sensational wines that came before them.

Thank you, eatchicago and petit pois, for hosting this debauchery in your beautiful new home.

PIGMON,

Thanks for posting on the tasting. This is the kind of thing that is a little harder to react to than a beef at Johnnie's, where I can go (er...well, maybe in a month or two) and try one for myself. I can't pull an '86 Lafite Rothschild out of my basement.

But, I really enjoy reading about others who do. It's one thing to read wine mags and other wine-specific forums, but I don't do that too often, mostly because I don't have any non-wine context in which to understand the palates of those authors.

So this is fun. Not as fun as the drinking, no doubt, but still fun.

One question I always have about the "buy a case, try one every few years until its good" method. How do you remember?

Is it like golfers who can replay every shot in their head from a round 10 years ago? Can you say, when I first had this bottle in '89 it was such and such, and then in '92 it was like this, then in '95 etc.?

I've got a decent memory for when I've tried different bottles, especially ones I've liked a lot. I can see remembering the bottle and some elements of the flavor profile. But to be able to mentally trace what must be somewhat subtle changes in the same wine, tasted once every few years over the course of 15-20, and to be doing this with, say, multiple wines from multiple vintages...it's a little hard for me to imagine keeping track.

Do you take notes each time and refer to them? Or is it just as simple as remembering, "Nope, not ready yet?"

Rob,

It is so interesting to read about your 1986 tasting and especially your "results". Until now, I thought the only thing 1986 Bordeaux was good for was to remove the rust off my Camero! Honestly, I worried (and still do) that it would turn out to be like the dreaded 1975...those suckers have still not evolved into beautiful swans. In fact, some are dying as ugly ducklings or worse. I look forward to tasting some of my (or your) 86s.

To answer Aaron, yes, you do remember special wines, but more often than not you remember a wine for the event or occasion that it marks. I still remember a 1978 Trotanoy that Rob and I drank in 1985 at his parent's house. It was memorable because it marked the beginning of our long and still standing friendship. Even though I live on the other side of the world, we still share many spirited food and drink conversaions.

Thanks Rob and keep it coming.

Jim

HI,

I find your comments about buying wine by the case interesting, especially as the wine may improve as time goes on.

In my teens, my best friend Cathy had an intense interest in wine, though she only had sips from time to time. It became very important to her to get an interesting wine for her 21st birthday. She did quite a bit of research before buying 2-3 bottles of different varieties. Unfortunately the wine cracked open on her 21st birthday was still not up to par.

I can't help wondering from your experience, if Cathy had bought a case then she could have had it over time to see how it evolved.

Regards,

lucky you. a nite of allstars from le grand cru.

wouldn't you normally taste the lesser younger wines prior to, rather than afterwards? they'd never hold up after the fact of the bigger richer wines.

Aaron Deacon wrote:One question I always have about the "buy a case, try one every few years until its good" method. How do you remember?
Do you take notes each time and refer to them? Or is it just as simple as remembering, "Nope, not ready yet?"

Aaron,

One of the great misnomers about expensive wine is that they should naturally all be good. But the sad fact is that most of them are relatively unmemorable, no matter who’s producing them or how expensive. I’m not trying to suggest that intrinsically the best winemakers don’t create more complex and interesting wines. Far from it. But it would be a stretch to say that most of them will knock your socks off. So, remembering specific details about an unmemorable wine you tried in the 80s or 90s is impossible for most casual enthusiasts, such as myself. What you will remember, however, are notable qualities or liabilities of a wine; the beautiful aroma, a unique or dominant fruit characteristic, loads of tannins, overly astringent, etc.
Another big factor is how much of a wine enthusiast one TRULY is. If they are, it’s much like remembering specifics about a dish or meal you ate 5 years ago. I know I can’t remember 90% of the things I ate yesterday but someone like trix can remember, to a tee, what we ate years ago (almost always!) In fact, we play the “restaurant game” on road trips: name a restaurant you ate at years ago and recall exactly what you had there. She DESTROYS me.
However, I do fairly well in remembering the significant highlights of a wine for quite awhile. For example, I last tried 1986 Mouton sometime in the late 90s and can recall that it was a hugely powerful wine because of its excessive tannin levels. My thoughts at the time were “Will the tannins soften and allow the other elements of the wine (such as the fruitiness) to come out?” I might make some grand speculations about when the wine will come around but that’s about the extent of it.

jazzfood wrote:wouldn't you normally taste the lesser younger wines prior to, rather than afterwards? they'd never hold up after the fact of the bigger richer wines.

Al,

Normally, that would be absolutely true except that I was more worried about palate fatigue than actually comparing the ‘86s against the younger Du Tertre (Margaux) or Bahans Haut-Brion (Pessac). They would almost always be outclassed any way you slice it. I strictly presented them as a comparison of an older wine versus a newer one. Nothing more.

Pigmon, you are quite the generous soul to pull out those heavy hitters. I wish I was in town to be able to share those. I bought a bunch of the 82's and they are fair at best now, all well past their prime. They had been stored perfectly at Strongbox. Over the years I found that the 1st growth wines like Mouton, Haut Brion, and Petrus were overated. I kept waiting for the tannins to dissolve from the Mouton and Petrus, and by the time they smoothed out, the fruit was gone. However, the less expensive wines such as Cos, Pichon Lalande, Branaire Ducru, etc. were magnificent when they matured. I just sold the rest of my 1st growths at auction, but I still have a mixed bag of about 30 bottles left. Waited too long to drink them. It sounds like you still have some life left in your wines. Bring some to Tahoe or Florida and I'd be more than happy to help you finish them. Of course we can share some 82's.

Routine housekeeping of both the real-world and LTHForum varieties has kept me from commenting here for too long, so first I have to simply say thank you, from the bottom of my heart, to Pigmon for sharing these treasures from his cellar (which I like to think of as a Bond villain-like space located far beneath the city; hopefully this notion will go uncorrected). The actual monetary value of the wines, if you tried to buy them today, is fairly heartstopping but pales next to the intangible value of being invited to share something someone's been saving for the right moment(s) to try for close to two decades. His generosity and the hospitality of Eatchicago and Petit Pois in hosting the tasting are overwhelming.

So, how were the portions?

Well, where do I stand as a whine-o-phile, for starters? A moderately informed cheapskate, I guess would be the best description. I've had a number of very good wines (more often in restaurants than what I've bought myself), though very few significantly aged wines, my idea of what really impresses me has, clearly, a fair amount of fruit but I find some California and Australian wines too Welch's-y ("fruit bomb" is overdoing it to me). I also like that buttery-leathery smoothness thing you get sometimes, and if I had to pick one area of the world, I suppose it would be Rhones, which have some fruit, some Gallic dryness, some spice-- and are priced reasonably. I also have had some food-wine combinations that were magical in ways I don't even know how to categorize or explain, let alone reproduce. So, as I say, probably a pretty typical, moderately informed, far from highly experienced American palate.

Which means, I'm afraid to say, that these just weren't my style of wine. What you're evidently going for in a Bordeaux that has aged-- for fruit and acidity to fall back, leaving a sherry-like astringency, a kind of mineral-limestone character-- just isn't what I like, and more to the point it isn't what I know-- I struggled with the wines trying to find points of distinctions that I could put into words on our little cards, I kept swirling and swirling trying to find that nose in the glass that made other folks go wow.

Afterwards Pigmon commented on the fact that the preference for this type of wine is very much an English thing-- something I noticed some years ago when dining at La Clos de la Violette in Aix, where we drank the local wine and everyone else, I mean everyone else, in the restaurant was knocking back bottles of "lunch bags," Chateau Lynch-Bages claret, the Coca-Cola of the English upper classes. And as the world of wine becomes Parkerized, Californiaized, fewer people want a sherry-like dryness, they want California Cab bigness and Super Tuscan boldness.

Well, I learned that I do, too. No, I actually don't really want sheer bombast. I don't want a wine meatier than my steak, the party in my mouth should not have music by the Boston Pops on the 4th of July. But I do want some fruit, not chalk and astringency, I learned. Would I get more into these wines, would I appreciate the distinctions better with more time and tastings? Probably, I tend to think that's true of anything in life. It took me a number of times to even get what flavor truffles had, for instance, let alone why it would be desirable. But the world of wine has so many things in it today, it's hard to see the circumstances in which I would devote my drinking energies and funds to that pursuit. In the end, I guess what I can say is: thank you Pigmon, for the chance to experience a rarefied world which probably won't ever be mine.

It was a distinct honor to be part of this tasting. My experience with tasting aged wines prior to this event was limited and I had never experienced a horizontal tasting of 20-year-old bordeaux.

It is sufficient to say that this was an eye-opening experience, but I will include some notes below:

The lineup, including the two reference wines


--I was impressed how these different wines that are made in the same region of the world (from presumably similar grapes) diverge in character over time.

--I had a very hard time discerning the nuances of the bouquets. Pigmon told of oenophiles who could identify a Laffite by the bouquet. This would either take me years of training or a new nose. While they all smelled remarkable, I found the differences in the nose to be extremely subtle, sometimes nonexistent.

--The differences in the wine that I found most apparent were how the tannins and acidity levels played out. Some of the wines started with nearly no astringency but finished much higher on that scale, some were the exact opposite, and others remained constant. As Pigmon pointed out above, these levels were relatively toned down overall, allowing the nuances of the fruit to come forward.

--Unlike Mike, I do find myself having an affinity for these wines and from time to time throughout the evening I found myself daydreaming of meals I have had or wish to have these wines with. Often times I was picturing feasts fit for Louis XIV--full of roast meats, rich root vegetables cooked in fat, and fresh bread.

--It seems silly for me to denote a preference among the five wines, as they were all unique and excellent. But, if I had to choose two to drink again they would be the Cos D’Estournel (rich without being overpowering, very pleasant) and the Mouton-Rothschild (impressive, balanced and powerful).

A million thanks to Pigmon for opening his cellar to us. It was a rare experience that I was honored to attend.

Best,
Michael

Pigmon,

I've had a few eureka wine moments over the years, Gruner Veltliner with Huitlacoche at Topolobampo, foie gras coupled with Château d'Yquem at Gary Danko, but for some odd fate my palate does not pick up nuance of flavor individually with wine as with food. Talk of chocolate, barnyard, fresh mown grass and sun ripened blackberries leaves me feeling slightly lacking.

That's not to say I can't differentiate between plonk and pretty good, tannins, acidly, mouthfeel, basic flavor are readily apparent, making the leap from pretty good to paradise is where the train leaves the tracks.

For me wine is a total experience, holistic if you will, conversation, people, food, environment, and Saturdays Bordeaux tasting was a wonderful experience and, as an added bonus, I learned a thing or two.

Thank you.

Thank you also to the Morowitz's for opening up their lovely home for the tasting.

Enjoy,
Gary

Many thanks to our gracious hosts and to PIGMON, whose noblesse oblige regarding wine is unmatched. This was a wine-based trip to Disneyland, courtesy of PIGMON.

I'll echo the remarks about this 20 year old wine's startlingly youthful character in most aspects, color, fruit, tannins.

I thought all of the wines were voluptuous and easy to appreciate upon tasting, with the exception of the Ducru Beaucaillou, whose tannins slammed the door on my novice's palate. I think I'd really enjoy this particular wine with a steak over the course of a long meal, as opposed to a first taste under controlled conditions.

I thought the Mouton was tremendous in every way, sort of an ideal Bordeaux, and I'd like to see what its like in another ten years, God willing.

Like some others, I really enjoyed the Pichon-Lalande, which stood out as particularly fruity and youthful. Possibly some fatigue had set in and the change stood out for that reason, but I'm pretty sure this is a wine that I'd like to try again. Following up, I saw that Pichon-Lalande often uses more merlot than others, which might help explain the relatively exuberant character. I could see where it lacked a certain profundity compared to the others, but hey, it also looks like a bargain in relative terms.

PS, I also stumbled upon a site documenting that the Soprano's episode centered on a wine hijacking involved the 1986 Pichon-Lalande, which Tony S. was shown guzzling from the bottle, drinking around the Jersey McMansion and such. I'll take that as a semi-negative comment on this more "accessible" wine.

It's really interesting to read about the different experiences people had to the same wines, or as in Rev Andy's case a different vintage. However, I must admit that I'm perplexed at how Rev A found the 1982 1st Growths "past their prime". To be fair, I have not had an 82 1st Growth in a while, but have had plenty of "lesser" 82s in the last few years. In fact, I had an 82 Clinet (Pomerol) about a month ago when I was in Tokyo doing my comparitive tasting of Tokyo-X pork vs Kurobuta. The wine had amazing depth, amber edges, and the flavors evoked the minerality of the Right Bank soil. However, the fruit element was what had probably changed the most. It was no longer rich and jammy, yet contained notes of sweetness to remain intact.

As Rob previously mentioned, the guiding path for a great wine is the battle between fruit and tanin. However, which one of these wins the battle isn't the end game. In fact, it's quite the opposite, you hope neither overrides the other. The tanins are what gives the wine the ability to age, and you hope the fruit content is strong enough to stay the course, otherwise you end up with a very astringent wine (Brits love this taste). I remember a client wine tasting event we held in New York years ago. one of the London managers stood up to discribe a 1966 Mouton as "mature woman in silk stockings"; while my only thought was "this tastes like dirty socks"! It's a question of palate, but it must be said that palates can change.

Over the years, I have been priviledged to taste some wonderful and historic wines, either through work related events or the sheer generosity of my friends. In either case, what has happened is that I have begun to understand older wine. It is a different beast than the fruit bombs we get from a wine's initial release. You begin to understand the structure of a wine and the various components that create or destroy its character during evolution. I will admit that at least for me, this is not the type of wine that I want to have on a daily basis. I mean, who can eat foie gras or terrines everyday? The key to understand is that highend wine is an art form. It is a living organism that continues to evolve and probably one of the harder art forms because the winemaker puts into place various components in such a way that he can only hope will result in a masterpiece in the years to come. It's similar to going to a museum and looking at a painting over the course of several years. If you are an student of art, you'll discover different aspects or nuances in the painting depending on what has changed in your ability to "read" the components of that work. In the end, you have to separate wine into categories. There are wines for intellectual exercises such as vertical tastings and there are wines to kick back and enjoy while having a BBQ. That's the beauty of wine. There's something for every occasion, but none of the itellectual exercises should scare anyone off. It's all about learning.

I look forward to more wine from any place and any year; all in an effort to grow my knowledge and have a little fun in the process.

Thanks Rob for sparking this dicussion.

Jim

jmarzo wrote:It's really interesting to read about the different experiences people had to the same wines, or as in Rev Andy's case a different vintage. However, I must admit that I'm perplexed at how Rev A found the 1982 1st Growths "past their prime". To be fair, I have not had an 82 1st Growth in a while, but have had plenty of "lesser" 82s in the last few years.
Jim

Jim, as I said I have a varied collection of 1st growths down to 5th growths. They've been stored perfectly. When Parker did a reissue of his Bordeaux book a number of years later, many of the wines were downgraded. I'm not quite sure this was the all-star vintage he proclaimed, or at least not as long lived. Like you, I believe the lesser growths seem to have held up better. For comparison sake, I just had a 1990 Pichon LaLande and it was magnificent. The tannins have smoothed out and the the fruit is in all it's glory. I also just drank my last bottle of 1982 Wolf Blass Black Label cab-shiraz and it's held up better than the expensive bordeaux's. I paid $19.95 a bottle for it back in 1987.

I've attended a few 1986 vintage tastings this year, some paired with food and some in a sterile tasting environment with nothing but water and crackers.

One must remember that 1986 was a structured, tannic vintage in Bordeaux, and at age 20 it's becoming clear that most wines from the vintage are TOO tannic and structured for their own good. Those who had issues with the tannic astringency of the wines would have had VERY different reactions to the same labels from, say, 1985 or 1990 -- vintages which produced ageworthy wines with much better tannin balance.

Such tannic/structured wines are best consumed with a fatty hunk of meat, such as juicy burger or a rib-eye steak. In a sterile environment they usually come across as borderline undrinkable. It would be interesting to know whether these wines were consumed as part of a meal or were tasted on their own...

Andy, you bring up an excellent point. We can read all the reviews; buy according to suggestions; and ultimately hope for some spectacular results. However, what is truly exciting is when you have a wine that goes relatively unnoticed in the press and after several years, it yields amazing results. This has happened to me in the past with an 1984 Santa Rita (Chile), 1980 St Henri Shiraz-Penfolds (Australia), and recently with a 1998 Vosne Romanee Les Suchots - S. Cathiard (Burgundy). The point being that in the end, it's what I like and what I feel that really matters. Reviewers are a great starting point, but they shouldn't rule one's life. Mark is right, that there is no better way to enjoy a wine than with simple hardy fare, and even better when shared amongst friends.

That said, has anyone had recent examples with the Bordeaux 1996 vintage? This was touted to be classic in style, and some people have said it suffers a tad like the 86 vintage because of the tanic ctructure, but I think the 96s are turning out to truly class acts. Unfortunately I don't own any though.

Jim

Rob, I was delighted to read your post and more than a bit inspired. I recall I really liked the 86 Bordeaux 10 years ago and thought they were great values (certainly compared to the 82s and the 90s that were available and drawing raves at the time), but I was too "Homo Ludens" then to delay gratification and didn't save any of them. Older and more "Sapiens" now (well, barely), I've put aside some Bordeaux from the last decade. Following your example, earlier this week I opened both the 1995 and 1996 from Haut Brion.

I had tried the 95 a couple years ago and it was way too early, but this was my first trial of the 96: again, I'm guilty of cradle robbing both wines. They were closed with little of the secondary and tertiary flavors you'd expect of an old Bordeaux. The 95 should be the superior wine, completely balanced with mild tannins. The 96 is its little brother, with lots of ripe berry and a bit of pepper. These great wines will easily last another ten to twenty years and would benefit from several more in a dark cellar before drinking. I regret opening them too early, but it's only a small regret. These will be wonderful wines for any one with the patience to wait them out.

MakkH, while the atmosphere was warm and convivial, the food was limited to some remarkable bread and cheese poofs. The reaction, in general, was not that the wine was still too tannic to drink. However, my personal thoughts on the Ducru Beaucaillou and, to a much lesser extent the Lafite, were that I could use a steak.

Aaron Deacon wrote:One question I always have about the "buy a case, try one every few years until its good" method. How do you remember?

Is it like golfers who can replay every shot in their head from a round 10 years ago? Can you say, when I first had this bottle in '89 it was such and such, and then in '92 it was like this, then in '95 etc.?

I've got a decent memory for when I've tried different bottles, especially ones I've liked a lot. I can see remembering the bottle and some elements of the flavor profile. But to be able to mentally trace what must be somewhat subtle changes in the same wine, tasted once every few years over the course of 15-20, and to be doing this with, say, multiple wines from multiple vintages...it's a little hard for me to imagine keeping track.

Do you take notes each time and refer to them? Or is it just as simple as remembering, "Nope, not ready yet?"

Aaron,

I have been into wine for over 25 years and have a good memory for selected things and wine happens to be one of them, but you may want to consider using some wine cellar software. Your memory will improve instantly.

I HIGHLY recommend CellarTracker.com. It is impossible to stress how helpful this program is.

When it is time to select a wine, you can look at a list (which can be sorted many different ways) instead of having to pull bottles. As far as remembering, you can input your own notes, public or private (even if brief, i.e. not ready), prices paid, where you purchased, etc.

It may be a tad daunting entering your inventory to start if you have a large cellar, but do a few at a time. Once everything is in, it is minimal work to enter purchases as you go and remove as they are consumed.

Best,
Al

Tnx PIGMON, I really enjoyed the vicarious experience. It's good to hear that the 86's are hanging there like the were supposed to.

A random note or two:

I lost a case of Cos '88 in a rather nasty divorce. Any word on how much I've missed? [If I've missed a lot, don't tell me, pls...]

D'accord on the 75's. Has there *ever* been a more hyped, more disappointing vintage???

I never bought a single important bottle of the '82's. I figured the vintage was too good to be true. But I must confess to going through exactly 43 cases of p'te chateaux during the following decade, courtesy of an extremely extremely smart buyer who went Over There and found some incredible values to present to us chez Gomer's in KC. Sometimes Fortune favors the dumb.

Geo

Al Ehrhardt wrote:It may be a tad daunting entering your inventory to start if you have a large cellar, but do a few at a time. Once everything is in, it is minimal work to enter purchases as you go and remove as they are consumed.

Thanks, Al...not daunting at all actually, as my "cellar" consists of a $15 bottle of Bordeaux bought at a California wine shop on our honeymoon 7 1/2 years ago that the shop proprietor said would be just right for anniversary 10. And a bottle of late vintage port from 5 years ago or so, that I actually just recently opened. Oh, and two bottles of Anchor's Old Foghorn.

I can see starting a collection at some point, in theory anyway, but I'm always put off awaiting better storage conditions.