Classed Growth Bordeaux blind tasting

I love red Bordeaux – it’s the answer I give when people ask me the unanswerable question “what is your favourite wine?” simply so that I don’t have to give a long-winded explanation to someone who probably doesn’t care and was only being polite. (Anyone who does care would probably ask a better question). But I learnt two things at a tasting of classed growth Bordeaux on Saturday.

First, when you get a good Bordeaux in a lineup of random wines (of equivalent quality, let’s say), it sits head and shoulders above the others in terms of its attraction, and it becomes very easy to label it ‘beautiful’ or ‘classic’. But when you try a lineup of good Bordeaux against each other, one’s critical faculties come to the fore, and no wine seems good enough for approval, when under any other conditions, any of them would probably emerge the favourite. I was really disappointed that in yesterday’s lineup of 6 wines, I only really liked one or two of them. But I bet that if any of them had been presented on its own or in a lineup of other wines I would have been making all the right noises about it. Lesson: don’t drink a lineup of just classed growth Bordeaux if you want to cream your pants over every sip.

Second, when I try a glass of Bordeaux on its own, I always struggle to find more than a few generic descriptors for the wine – blackcurrants, cedar, mint, tobacco. But when I try a lineup of all Bordeaux, a whole spectrum of flavours appears that is much wider than I would have expected, and includes flavours that I would never even expect to find in Bordeaux let alone in such abundance. Turns out the people from Berry’s aren’t bullshitting me in their daily emails encouraging me to purchase wine I couldn’t afford in my wildest dreams. Lesson: if you want to expose the variety of Bordeaux, drink it in a lineup of Bordeaux. Why must the lessons conflict?

Anyway, here are my notes for the wines tasted.

1995 Chateau Lagrange (St Julien)
Mid red, with a brickish rim. Nose shows mint, river pebbles, blackcurrants, mulberry leaves. The palate is on the thin side, to be perfectly honest, with a little too much acid for my liking and almost no tannin at all, and slightly sour on the finish compared with the others. Fully developed, I don’t think it will improve greatly from now on.

1998 Chateau Langoa Barton (St Julien)
Dark red-purple. The nose is fairly closed and restrained, but what does emerge is quite fragrant – perfumed sour cherries. The palate has a more cedary edge to it and is rather green but finishing with fine tannins. To be honest, neither of the two St Juliens excited me that much, despite having been impressed on previous occasions by the same wines on their own.

1995 Chateau d’Armailhac (Pauillac)
The two Pauillacs were the two that most obviously reflected their terroir, and this one was the most classic of the wines tasted. Nose of cedarwood, blackcurrants and tobacco, the palate is plummy with violets and a minerally streak to it, finishing with medium tannins. All elements well integrated and mature, and showing some complexity.

1999 Chateau d’Armailhac (Pauillac)
The general consensus was that this was the favourite wine of the afternoon, and I agree. Mid-red in colour, with an opulent nose of ground coffee, chocolate and cigar-box aromas. The palate is supple and concentrated, with ripe red fruit and finishing with mouth-coating, persistent tannins. Well proportioned and will continue to improve in years to come.

1995 Chateau Haut-Bailly (Pessac Leognan)
Nobody could believe this was a 1995 – still an incredibly youthful wine, and built to last. The other interesting thing is that the half of us that didn’t think it was Pessac, thought it was St Estephe, such was the minerality of the wine and the power of the tannins. But wrong we were, and to my mind it is interesting that so many people were wrong in the same way given how remotely different the two communes are. Anyway the nose is minerally, with loads of slate, river water and wet pebbles, with ink and green capsicum too. The palate is forward with loads of ripe fruit and mint, with a long finish with very firm, drying tannins. Powerful.

2002 Domaine de Chevalier (Pessac Leognan)
Mid-red, nose of caramel, rhubarb and cream, boiled cherries and mulberry leaves. The palate is restrained and a bit green, with oak that is a far way from being integrated. A few years yet before it is ready.

We joined a party at a Lebanese restaurant after the tasting. Naturally the only thing on the wine list there was Chateau Musar, so we had a bottle of the 1997 with our meal, which I suppose is worth noting. Translucent red (but throwing a massive deposit), nose of raisins, spices and dried fruit. Palate is relatively light, and forwardly fruity with bright acid, but almost no trace of tannin on the finish.