Very Old Cabs

My Cabernet group (CLONYC-Cabernet Lovers of NYC) had dinner last night at Zoe in SoHo. The theme of 1970s Cabs came together when Greg Dal Piaz and Steve Eisenhauer hatched the idea of opening some pristine mags of 1970s Cabernet that Greg had secured. They enlisted planner extraordinaire, Mike Pobega, to secure arrange the particulars.  When you are opening wines this old, there are always going to be hits and misses, but the highs were extremely high here, with the two Mayacamas showing magnificently, and the misses were nothing if not educational.

First up were a vertical of Martinis that Greg donated to the group. Greg brought these museum pieces that he had acquired off the sweat of his brow and the change in his pocket. With crumbly corks and just decent fills, it appeared we were in store for a real crap shoot. That's pretty much what we got to with a pretty decent range of quality. The general consensus was in favor of the '76, although both Greg and Greg T. preferred the '75. I didn't get that at all, but different strokes, especially when it comes to older wines.

• 1974 Louis M. Martini Special Selection - Sadly, this tasted a bit past its prime. It started out a bit reductive and rubbery, but that cleared leaving an interesting savory nose of cassis and dried leaves. It seemed slightly madierized on the palate, with the one distinctive characteristic being a persistently long finish of amaretto. Blind, I would have said this was an extremely old Nebbiolo, as it didn't have much Cabernet character left. The ripe rabbit that has been passed by the tortoises of the less famous vintages.
• 1975 Louis M. Martini Special Selection - I know Greg liked this one, but I found it rather disappointing. I never got passed the grassiness and rubber ball smell and the palate was a touch sour with really tired fruit. If there was more fruit, perhaps the dill wouldn't have bothered me as much as it did. Ultimately, whatever balance this wine once had has been lost to the ether.
• 1976 Louis M. Martini Special Selection - Here is a wine I can get behind, although it was more pleasant than earth-shattering (which is fine). The funky, reductiveness that it had at first receded and gave way to dusty blackcurrants and earthy mushrooms. It had a gentle body and decent palate presence, although it lacked a certain amount of intensity that would elevate it to oustanding. As it is, it was very good, but I'd certainly drink these up if you have any.

Next up was 4.5 liters of outstanding Cabernet Sauvignon in the form of the magnums that were the original subject of this dinner.  These wines were all in absolutely pristine condition, having been culled from a cellar by Greg when he worked at Astor.  The wines never saw shelf time in a store and were kept in a temperature and humidity controlled environment. The performance of these wines really speak to the storage element to the tasting of wine, with the Martinis as a counterpoint. The corks were fantastic, the fills unbelievable and the wines were...

• 1973 Mayacamas Vineyards - What a wine, what a wine. Dark and lovely, it was magic from the second it was in the glass. The nose was a gentle dusty cassis intermingled with dill (I'd expect this saw a fair bit of American oak in its day). It continued to evolve in the glass and gained complexity with cigar ash and earth. It had a certain tranquility in the mouth, not that it lacked vivacity, but in a way that showed great self-assurance and restraint. It was an effortless wine in the mouth, with smoky dark fruit that was reminiscent of mature Graves, but with a sweetness to the fruit that was quite California. Here was a wine truly in balance with each element clean and precise. A truly classic Claret and a revelation.
  
• 1975 Mayacamas Vineyards - This wine started slowly and built to an amazing crescendo. Unmistakably California Cabernet, it displayed brawny and brambly mountain fruit with a youthful vibrancy that belied its age. It evolved beautifully in the glass, picking up charcoal, mint and earth, without fading one iota. The dark profile of the fruit carries through to the palate where it showed great breadth and power. There is still a fair amount of tannin to resolve, but it surrounds and elevates the sweet California fruit rather than obscuring it. Impeccable balance and precision carry through to a long and tasty finish. A remarkable wine that should continue to evolve.
  
• 1977 Heitz Cellars Bella Oaks - I thought this was going to continue the streak of great mature CA Cabs, but after a brief promise it faded. The nose initially showed dark plum mixed with cocoa powder and leather, but dipped a bit picking up some soy notes and generally becoming more reticent on the fruit side. It didn't have much intensity or weight in the mouth, although it was not at all unpleasant. It just seemed to struggle a bit to keep up with the 2 wines next to it. Still, it was clearly well crafted, even if a bit tired.
  

Subjectivity vs. Objectivity in Analyzing Wines

Let's discuss whether one can definitively say that one wine is better than another. There will always be an element of the subjective in analyzing wine because people have different palates and preferences. So, does that mean there are no objective truths when it comes to wine? Are all things are necessarily subjective? Not really. Objective "truths" can be measured by applying agreed upon standards. In things that are not automatically quantifiable or easily measured, like beauty, we use a standard of fixed criteria to determine what is objectively "true." Why the quotes around truth? Essentially, we are making an approximation of the truth, which we can better judge with more knowledge, in the same manner as the prisoners in Plato's Allegory on the Cave. Now, certainly, these criteria may vary with societal norms. For example, a Rubens model would not necessarily be regarded as the height of beauty today. Notwithstanding that "objective" standards may change with the times, we apply the applicable normative standards to try to a mental checklist by which we can compare two things. Make no mistake, those with greater experience have a superior sense of what is comparatively "better" because they can consider more factors and, accordingly, describe to others why something has more value. On the other hand, if everything is subjective, then the value of everything is minimized. Red Skelton's clowns cannot be considered better than Picasso's ladies simply because someone likes them better without diminishing the value of all art. We are elevated by beauty and diminished by the regression to the mean.

Isn't that why we have critics for things like wine? They are presumptively the most experienced and, therefore, they can best judge one wine against another (in Plato's Allegory, they would be closest to the sun). Variation in judgments may exist because of externalities and general preferences. It becomes, then, our responsibility in relying on these critics is to try to calibrate our palates to theirs, mostly to narrow the inherent elements subjective preference. Another way to blunt the manifestation of the subjective, would be to have a panel in lieu of a single critic. When the panel is a number of experts, such as the Grand Jury European, the result may be compelling. When the panel is a bunch of amateurs, especially in the context of a blind tasting, the results are often absurd.

A Counter-intuitive Thought on Multiple Tastings

I've already discussed some thoughts about how drinking wine is both an act of creation and destruction.  This tidbit on Jim Laube's blog over at Wine Spectator got me thinking about whether you lose something from multiple tastings of a wine, namely the creation from a blank canvas as opposed to retouching an existing work.  Laube relates:

With wines, one reason people diverge in their opinions is that we have different perspectives. I’ve tasted most of these many times and have many different points of reference. For some of our editors, with a wine such as the ’68 Souverain, it’s perhaps a once in a lifetime experience.

I've thought about this topic quite a bit, especially as I've moved up the learning curve of the wine journey. The wine writers that I admire most have a gift for putting a wine into context, such that, even without the sensual experience of the wine, the reader can imagine what it is like. Those points of reference can be external indicia of the real (wet stones after a rain) or the theoretical (Satan's urine after eating asparagus). They can also be internal, such as with a vertical tasting or repeat tastings of the same wine. It is this last point that Laube is getting here and it is one that I often overlook. It is amazing how the first time we taste a wine we record every experience in minute detail, the second time we double check our impressions and note evolution and thereafter really shorthand as to whether the wine is consistent with past tastings. Said another way, we lose the wonderment of the initial impression and are left comparing it not with other external factors, but only with how the wine is supposed to taste. That is not to say one can't maintain the discipline of writing detailed notes on the wine, but the perspective is quite different. Laube's point then is that that change in perspective will immutably change our opinion of the wine. We will judge it differently for having tasted it.

Analyzing Napa Cabernet

I started a discussion over on the Parker Board yesterday, which I figured I'd link to here. My point is that people are quick to judge California wines in their youth in a way that we are trained not to do with Bordeaux. We had a '98 La Mission Haut Brion at the Pratt's lunch and people judged it for what it would become. Much younger California Cabs were judged for what they are now. I'm not sure this is fair to the wines. Yes, they are monolithic and rambunctious, but is that any different from many young Bordeaux, even traditionally styled ones. What was the gorgeous and massive 1986 Margaux like at release? I would guess pretty damned big and I'm sure someone can tell me for certain. Bordeaux is Bordeaux and Napa is Napa in a whole lot of different ways and I love that dichotomy. Still, to the extent that we try to look at wine objectively in terms of our intellectual analysis, should we not be consistent?

There's some interesting replies over there.  Check it out.

Wine Word of the Day: Backward

The term "backward" describes a wine that is out of balance in that the structural elements, primarily the tannins, obscure the central element of the wine, the nuance of the fruit. Generally, the term is used for a wine that has not yet reached its drinking window and requires some cellaring, such as a young Bordeaux. These wines are often described as "closed."

An analogy...think of the fruit as the picture and the structure as the frame. Now turn it around. You can't see the picture, but you can still see the frame.

The Big Game

It was a light drizzle, so I eschewed my daily walk from the office to the subway in favor of the #22 bus to Chambers St. I was seated across from a man whose black and yellow Pittsburgh Steelers jacket was handsomely accessorized by his black and yellow Steelers backpack. Both were on prominent display. Onto the bus climbs one of his co-workers and they begin (loudly) discussing a variety of topics, including the Super Bowl. She asked him for whom he was rooting and he replies that, well, his team isn't in it, but he's pulling for the Giants. So, she asks the obvious question, "Oh, who is your team?" The jaw drops.

Gooooooooooooo, Giants!

Bordeaux on the Hudson

I was lucky enough to again be at the Bordeaux table at the 3rd Annual Peter Pratt's Lugeresque extravaganza in Yorktown, NY.  The event, organized by a member of the Wine Advocate Message Board, was a wild indulgence into two of my favorite:  steak and mature Bordeaux.  My two wines showed on opposite ends.  The 1998 La Mission Haut-Brion was wonderful, but the 1990 Figeac underperformed.

The Year was 1982...
...and the wines were excellent. Ah, the beauty of mature Bordeaux. The GL, a generous gift of our sick friend Mark Golodetz, had a lot of fans at the table and was quite a well-made wine. My distaste for GL being well-documented, let's just say that there were plenty of people that would happily pick up the slack in drinking that wine. The LP was probably the favorite of the table, but I had a big spot in my heart for that La Conseillante. All in, a fantastic flight and probably the most consistent.

• 1982 Château Gruaud Larose (St. Julien) - A very nice Gruaud Larose, if that's your thing. The nose started out with some tomato notes that I find common to GL and has really prevented me from embracing this producer. The nose is quite complex with charred wood, slightly stewed black fruit, leather and earth. It was pretty substantial in the mouth with some fine grippy tannins and tart acidity framing smoky cassis. It faded a bit in the end although not significantly. Overall, a very good wine that will have its fans, but it did nothing to make me love GL any more than past bottles.
  
• 1982 Château La Conseillante (Pomerol) - This is a wonderful wine for lovers of mature Bordeaux. A complex and evolving nose of earth, leather, gunflint and licorice. It also possesses a pretty herbal quality. The palate is gentle and the sweet cherry fruit rolls on a balancing acidity past the skeletons of resolved tannins. It just got better and better.
  
• 1982 Château Léoville Poyferré (St. Julien) - Sorry, boys, the secret is out on this wine, which showed even better than the bottle we had last year. The nose is all delicate beauty and finesse with some light cherry fruit intermingled with cedar and eucalyptus. The real magic is on the palate though where one finds the marriage of power and elegance. The delicacy of the nose shifts as the fruit turns darker, more tarry and, ultimately, more savory. The ample fruit is wonderfully framed by great structural acidity and fine tannins. This bottle showed broader and more complex than the previous one and I'd recommend holding it for a while; this wine will last forever. A superb, effortless wine.
  

A Wide Variety
The wine that stands out here is the '98 LMHB, so let me explain why it was in there in the first place. Rich, Bill and Paul (and the absent Mark Golodetz) had to suffer through a corked bottle that I brought to our LMHB vertical, so this was to make amends. The wines were so disparate that I don't think its fair to say there was a favorite.

• 1989 Château Palmer (Margaux) - Here is another repeat performer from last year's lunch and, unlike the '82 LP, this was a much poorer showing. To quote Wilfred, there was nothing wrong with this wine, but nothing particularly right either. Nothing really stood out about this wine other than an edgy steeliness. The nose was reticent with some slight floral notes and graphite. The fruit was so delicate as to be an afterthought and so all you were left with were the structural shell. Still, it wasn't a bad wine, just perhaps a slightly off or under-decanted bottle, and I certainly wouldn't panic if I owned any. It just was outclassed today by some great wines.
  
• 1985 Château La Mission Haut-Brion (Pessac-Léognan) - A classic Claret in an old school Graves style. LMHB seems to have different faces which show from vintage to vintage, but always with a certain style and remarkably consistent. This version displayed the elegant side of LMHB. A wine of finesse with an intriguing nose of dark cherry fruit, herbs and earth. The fruit turns redder on the palate although delicacy remains from the nose and carries all the way through to the finish. A wine that stays within itself and maintains impeccable balance and charm. I wonder if they still make wines like this.
  
• 1998 Château La Mission Haut-Brion (Pessac-Léognan) - A young buck of a LMBH with lots of potential. A bit out of place with its older neighbors, it nonetheless showed tons of personality and was quite wide open and expressive. The fruit is really quiet primary, but is beginning to show some classic Graves elements as it jumps from the glass with opulent black fruit, tar, wet earth and charred wood. It is quite substantial in the mouth, although not heavy, with plush, luxurious black fruit buffeted by silky sweet tannins. The finish is pretty much fruit driven at this point with the ample fruit overwhelming the structure. Overall a bit simple today, but I'd say on revisiting in 5 to 10 years, one will find a profound LMHB.
  

A Visit to the Right Bank
The Angelus' were stupendous and head and shoulders above the Figeac (which I think just tasted like Figeac but others thought it corked). 

• 1989 Château Angélus (St. Émilion) - Every once in a while, a wine just buckles your knees. While the sheer powerful joy of the nose on this wine is the attention grabber, it is the wonderful balance displayed that keeps you coming back. A complex intermingling of sweet black fruit, spices and smoke meet you on the way to the glass. In the mouth is shows wonderful weight and concentration with an undercurrent of acidity and strong tannic backbone that keep the fruit in focus. A nice reminder that power does not have to mean over-the-top. The best is yet to come for this wine.
  
• 1990 Château Angélus (St. Émilion) - Not much to not like about this wine. A three dimensional wine with the alluring richness of its vintage. A compelling and exotically fragrant nose of dark fruit, spice, chocolate and smoke. Soft and sexy smooth from start to finish it has a decent structure that frames rather than dominates the fruit. Don't be mistaken, this is a fruit story and the story is long and complex as the fruit spreads out over the palate. A bit more acidity would have brought this pretty close to perfect.
  
• 1990 Château Figeac (St. Émilion) - Again this wine shows controversially. There were numerous cried of corked, but I think that people are thrown off by the Cabernet Franc dominated herbal dustiness on the nose. As it is, I find a delicate perfume with dry cherries, herbs galore and leather. The palate is similarly gentle with a refreshingly high level of acidity. This is a counterpoint to the open and generous wines of the Right Bank in 1990. A wine in a minor key that clearly didn't appeal to many at the table.
  

A Couple of LLC's to Finish
These wines suffered for being the last flight in terms of attention, but not in terms of quality. Clearly, the 1985 was the better wine today.

• 1985 Château Léoville Las Cases (St. Julien) - This is a wine they don't make much any more. It had a quietness to it that I don't usually associate with LLC reflecting the finesse-driven 1985 vintage. The nose seduces rather than wows with concentrated cassis, anise and graphite. Silky in the mouth, I loved the striking acidity which carried the remarkably fresh and vivid fruit along through the finish. A classic.
  
• 1989 Château Léoville Las Cases (St. Julien) - Not without some charm, this wine is years away from being ready. A wine of similar weight to the '85 LLC, it lacks that wine's calm presence. There is a quiet anger lurking underneath the placid exterior. Still, it is a wine of distinction with pure compact cassis at its core and a nice fleshy mouthfeel all of which is somewhat obscured at the moment by its own impressive architecture. The wine today has an unrelenting steeliness and I don't think it wants to be that wine. I'd expect that some time down the road those tannins will integrate and the fruity core will explode and we will have a truly compelling wine.
  

A Rare Double Vertical-4 Decades of Haut-Bailly & Pape Clément

This event was a great way to kick off the year. I love Bordeaux and I love drinking it in the context of a vertical tasting. One of the strengths of the wines is that each vintage tells a different story and we were lucky enough to be joined by the owner and manager of Haut-Bailly, Robert Wilmers and Véronique Sanders, to weave the tale. I had the good fortune of sitting across from the charming Mme. Sanders, whose family owned the chateau and made the wines for years. The idea for this dinner germinated in a conversation between wine writer Panos Kakaviatos and the real Jay Miller (i.e., not the Wine Advocate critic) about the changes to Pape Clément in recent vintages. The plan essentially was to taste a vertical of PC to see the changes since Magrez took power using HB as a classical control. To that end, it was a smashing success.

Both Haut-Bailly in the heart of Léognan and Pape-Clément in Bordeaux suburb of Pessac (it is within the BDX ring road) showed very differently, owing perhaps to their unique soils, although both showed the classic elements of traditional Graves. The wines were wonderful (other than a couple of early hiccups), especially the HB which showed a consistent style and quality. I own some HB, but never really sat down with it as seriously as this and really fell in love with the freshness and purity of the fruit common to these wines.

Thanks to Jay and Panos for organizing and to Veronique for her generosity and unique insights that pepper this report.

Mature Clarets
We had much more luck with the HB in this flight. The '88 HB was in particular a revelation, as expectations were pretty low. Véronique particularly enjoyed it as they have none at the chateau and this was an unusually good showing. She indicated that in the past in had shown "square" and this was much more "round" and complete. She also noted that the '78 was the last vintage of her great-grandfather. How nice it must be to have that much personal connection to a wine!

• 1978 Château Haut-Bailly-A beautiful mature Claret. The nose was a delicate perfume that evolved gently showing graphite, ash and loamy earth. The fruit was fresh and pure on the palate and I was surprised by the sneaky persistence of this wine: it rippled slowly on and on. The freshness of the fruit was a nice counterpoint for the spritely acidity leaving the overall impression of balance and delicacy.
  
• 1978 Château Pape Clément-I kept thinking this bottle was going to right itself, but it never did. It was musty and musky with some varnish notes (VA?). Not much relief in the mouth as it was pretty thin and diluted. It must have been an off bottle.
  
• 1988 Château Haut-Bailly-This wine started out a touch angular, evincing nothing more than cedar and graphite, but with a little aggressive swirling it blossomed in the glass into a charming Claret. Popping from the glass were aromas of sweet and slightly sour cherries mingled with orange peel and some Asian spice. The fruit in the mouth was slightly darker than it showed on the nose and was full and broad across the palate. If there were ever seams to this wine they have since hidden themselves admirably. This wine has years of life ahead and will only get better.
  
• 1988 Château Pape Clément-This wine was pretty dirty. I think brett can be a character enhancer, but clearly a fine line was crossed. The nose of wet diapers masked whatever charm was underlying this bottle. The bottle looked good, so I would think it's something in the winemaking. A real shame.

Flight of the Night
These wines were very fine. Any of them could have put up an argument for wine of the night. The '89s are all about finesse and the '90s about power. Véronique noted that to combat the hot harvest of '89, they kept the fermentation cool (<28ºc/82ºf) in order to tame the intensity of the fruit.

• 1989 Château Haut-Bailly-A wine of brilliant finesse, the '89 was probably the favorite wine of the night for the group. The nose was of exceptionally pure cassis and it gained complexity in the glass displaying touches of spice and cocoa. Wonderfully broad in the mouth, it had an alluring minerality and mouthwatering acidity to balance the ample fruit. The tannins to a certain extent contribute to the weightiness in the mouth, but I expect that they will step out of the way as the fruit matures. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.
  
• 1989 Château Pape Clément-A very good if somewhat incomplete wine. I wasn't wild abouty the nose, which was pretty reticent. A hint of fruit, but mostly lead pencil and earth along with a touch of VA. It was much more pleasant in the mouth, with a full mouthfeel, well-delineated fruit and an interesting steeliness. It had a nice acidity that carried the finish nicely.
  
• 1990 Château Haut-Bailly-A stikingly powerful wine, it seems to have more of everything. A deep, dark nose with notes of graphite, ash and roasted herbs. A full mouthfeel that showed impressive depth and breadth. Perfect balance between the ripe, ripe fruit and underlying acidity. It is a great example of the richness of the vintage that I so much enjoy. Perhaps it will have a lower apogee than the '89, but I thought it was the better wine for today.
  
• 1990 Château Pape Clément-A powerful wine that speaks to the richness of the vintage and the character of its place. Soaring aromatics of dark fruit, scorched earth, spice and licorice. It had a nice minerality and purity to the fruit although the palate could have used a touch more focus and it lacked some of the complexity that it showed on the nose. Plenty of structure left here, so it will be interesting to revist this wine in 5-10 years. This isn't a classic wine, but it is quite excellent.
  

A Soft Landing
I found these wine to be somewhat unusual compared to the others in that they were much softer wines. Not making a value judgment, just noting the facts. For the HB, the '98 has 43% Merlot and the '00 had 50%, which are some high numbers for these wines. I would assume that the PC blends were similar. I was fairly well impressed by the '98s which were very open wines that could be drunk now, albeit a little simple. The '00s on the other hand were fairly closed, but were more complex, I thought, which runs counter to the logic that the '98 vintage was the better one for Pessac-Léognan. These wine also proved out the point for Pape Clément saw a real change to a more "modern" and aggressive style of wine. Not that that is a bad thing, the wines were much cleaner and were very well crafted. I could see many people finding them a bit of an anathema however. On the other hand, the HB wines were true to their historical style with very clean, pure performances. The '98 PC was probably the one PC that I liked better than its HB analogue, however, I could see someone easily perferring the freshness and true Graves character of the HB.

• 1998 Château Haut-Bailly-Plush and soft, this wine is a little too fruit driven at the moment. The fruit is pretty primary on the nose and there is an ample amount of it. It is quite full-bodied and weighty in the mouth, although by no means heavy. There is nice acidity there, but the finish is more fruit driven at the moment. It's open knit and ready to go now notwithstanding that age will certainly help in develop some more complexity.
  
• 1998 Château Pape Clément-This one was open and ready to go. Lots of plush, round dark fruit mixed with a bit of dark chocolate and a ton of licorice. Full in the mouth and bordering on heavy, it has decent concentration but is a little short on focus. The tannins are fine and the acidity merely adequate. A really juicy, chewy, fairly simple wine that has a nice "please like me" personality. I don't think it's going anywhere for a while but it certainly is enjoyable now.
  
• 2000 Château Haut-Bailly-While I usually prefer more Cabernet driven wines, I liked this quite a bit. That said, it is way too young for a proper evaluation of the details as it doesn't show much nuance. The beginning and end of this wine are fruit driven and the palate is balanced but somewhat uniteresting at the moment. That said, it is impressively crafted. It is a very soft wine (about 50% Merlot) notwithstanding the impressive tannic structure. While other vintages of Haut Bailly seem to use the acidic structure to balance the fruit, this one appears to rely more on the tannins. Accordingly, this is going to need some time to show what it's got. A very impressive value for the vintage.
  
• 2000 Château Pape Clément-This wine is an inch wide and a mile deep. The color, the fruit...black and deep. However, it isn't showing any breadth at this stage, so its a little bit of a waste. Made in a soft, round, modern style, the nose is dominated by black fruit, semi-sweet chocolate and oak-driven roasted espresso. There's lots of pure, concentrated fruit there and a huge architecture framing it. It's more of the pieces of an excellent wine than a good wine now. Hopefully, time will tie it up into a great package because it does have potential.

Sandwich Vintages
I tend to ignore these two vintages, sandwiched between '00 and '03. I did like the '01s as being good every day drinkers and continued my general dislike for the hard '02 vintage.

• 2001 Château Haut-Bailly-I am sort of torn about whether this is a sleeper of a wine or just an everyday drinker. It is pretty much textbook Léognan with deep cassis, smoke and earth. It's slightly on the thin side of medium-bodied and doesn't have much architecture, but it is wide open and impeccably balanced. A wine with an amiable, easygoing demeaner that will neither disappoint or set the world on fire. A nice wine to drink while you're waiting for your other vintages of Haut Bailly to age.
  
• 2001 Château Pape Clément-This wine is packed, but shows itself in a fairly restrained way. Not to say that this isn't made in a modern style, it is. The fruit is sweet bordering on jammy, but I didn't feel that it got out of hand, as there were ample tannins and good acidity. Common sense says to wait on this one, although it is certainly drinking well now with some fine secondary characteristics of spice and licorice. The style of this wine is not going to appeal to everyone, yet there is no denying the talent that went into making it.
  
• 2002 Château Haut-Bailly-While others seem to enjoy the '02 vintage, I have not and this wine did not convert me. It's a hard, steely wine that reveals little on the nose. It is pretty angular and doesn't give much more than structure and the slight astringency that I've found common to the vintage. Perhaps age will soften it up as it is well-made.

Young Pups
We finished with some great youngsters that show great promise. The star of the night though was the '05 HB. An absolutely stunning wine and I put my money were my mouth was the next morning by purchasing a case.

• 2004 Château Haut-Bailly-This wine seemed to be in a bit more modern style than other vintages. It had some nice fruit and some Graves undertones, but it had a bunch of oak as well. The results are much better in the mouth where you get a little bit more of the purity of the fruit. It's pretty big boned and quite tannic that should give it some structure to age and integrate, but it was somewhat lacking in acidity and that worries me a bit. Still not a bad effort for a vintage that hasn't warmed my heart.
  
• 2004 Château Pape Clément-A big and juicy wine. The nose is all about power with waves of cassis hitting you with little subtlety. It is not without complexity however and it already is showing some nice secondary element of Graves. It doesn't seem to be going for elegance, but may acheive it in spite of itself if it can shed its youthful exhuberence. It also may veer off into pure decadence. For now though, it comes across as a bit blowzy despite some good structural elements.
  
• 2005 Château Haut-Bailly-Wow, what a wine. The nose is explosive, yet precise, filled with pure, fresh fruit and typical Graves notes and baking spice. This wine is a dream in the mouth with so much fresh fruit that you don't mind the ample but super-fine tannins. An undercurrent of acidity knits the package together. Exquisitely put together, this wine was a star that should easily top the wonderful '89 and '90 vintages.
  

The Anti-Wine Snob

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) has dubbed Master of Wine and former wine drinker Jim Hanni the "wine antisnob" in this marginally interesting hagiography. All in all, it's a pretty shoddy piece of journalism. For example, the subject of the article is the sole source for POV of Hanni's importance to the wine industry (e.g., "Mr. Hanni was immediately 'a god in the wine world,' he says.") While Mr. Hanni is purportedly the anti-snob, the article never clearly defines what it means by "snobbery," but that shouldn't be terribly surprising from a piece that refers to Loire Bordeaux (comparing it to Tuscan Brunellos-so it's wrong on so many levels). I almost hate to point out that uneducated error for fear of being called a wine snob myself!

The major thrust is that one shouldn't feel bad about liking white Zinfandel; they can't help it, physiologically speaking, because they are prisoners of their taste buds. That to me sounds a lot more snobbish than educating someone on better (yes, better) wines that have similar attractions, but are seriously made. "I'm sorry, Mr. Jones, you like white Zinfandel due to your genetic make-up" "But Doc, can't I have a Riesling?" "No, I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do for you." If the focus is getting people to pick wine on a one-off basis, then I think it' a reasonable approach to getting people started on their wine journey. However, if the idea is to educate people to think constructively about wine choices, then it fails entirely. The bias seems to be that the hoi polloi can't be educated, so we might as well dumb things down to their level. I really object to that way of thinking.

Parker Incapacitated-Last Call on '05 Bordeaux

Eminent critic Robert Parker is currently dosed up on drugs following back surgery and not drinking any wine. Normally, he'd be tasting in Bordeaux in advance of his third and definitive rating. Meanwhile, the Bordelais with their very expensive product must be waiting with bated breath for his recovery and his final scores. This may be the last opportunity to get your hands on the "vintage of the century." After the scores come out (and I'd be shocked if they are anything but up, up, up), the wines will most likely go from outrageously expensive, to astronomical to gone baby gone.

Quite frankly, the only reason I follow Parker's advice on BDX is that you know the prices are going to skyrocket on the best rated wines and get out of reach. As an actual guide based on the taste, rather than pricing trends, I much prefer Neal Martin's reviews. He's been a real breath of fresh air over at the Wine Advocate, bringing a disparate view to a publication that has long been dominated by one voice (and one palate). I find the most useful thing is to try to triangulate between the two of them, as a truly great wine will appeal to any palate.