The Auswine Forum

Antony's getting married. His wine buddies tried to send him off in a bit of style. A thoroughly French affair with bracketed themes. Not all forumites have a handle on French wine. Don't be intimidated. The journey may not begin there, but sooner or later you might want to visit there and when you do leave your preconceptions at home:

Colour in Burgundy is not determinative of power;

Sometimes Bordeaux and Burgundy don't leap out of the glass like fresh daisies; rather they often slowly build in nuance, complexity and authority;

The first whiff may not be in any way the memory of the wine consumed with food;

Great wines tend to have wonderful texture; a viscous silken or velvety complete mouthfeel and persistent intense length. Secondary characteristics give a symphony of tastes rather than a brash single note or two;

It is not easy to source aged excellent examples, especially Burgundy, and the cost can be high for unassured provenance.
Enough of the advice what about the wines?

Roederer Cristal 1990 [last Langtons $347]
1990 is a great year for Champagne and we bracketed the twin towers Krug and Cristal with apologies to Salon:

The Cristal was pale, almost delicate in colour. Initially not a powerful nose but increasingly built upon a foundation of apple and pear with caramelised creme brulee and yeast autolysis. This was a powerful yeasty wine which had great elegant finesse but nevertheless packed a soft beguiling whack with food. It was the better complement to food than the Krug but the Krug had greater wow factor.

Krug 1990 [New Release around $395 Retail?]

Intense and fresh with far greater bead and compelling petillance. This is an extraordinarily fine and refined Champagne. It had explosive power and tight focus with a creamy complete fullness and marvellous texture. Magnificent. As good as it gets.


Armand Rousseau Clos de la Roche 1996 [Burgundy: Grand Cru, Morey St Denis: Last Langtons $242 net]
Pale red. Sexy as hell on the nose with an underlying seared BBQ meat congealment. It grew in richness and had lovely texture. High toned. It diminished over time which was disconcerting; the last sip not the best; rather the middle one in a bell shaped taste distribution and hence a wine during the third quarter you want to buy again as a classic perfumed siren, but faded in the last quarter to be one to watch closely in the future. Most had drunk their glass during optimum period.


Chateau La Fleur-Petrus 1982 [Bordeaux; Pomerol,Cab Sauv/ Merlot; last Langtons ~ $320 net]
Cedar, richness, a little astringency and a familial resemblence to its Mouiex great neighbour and sibling. A lovely velvety mouthfeel, there was strong fresh cut tobacco in a tobacco tin. Round, plump and focused it was at its peak or, perhaps as Chris noted, gracefully fading.

Chateau Leoville-Las-Cases 1982 [Bordeaux: http://www.wine-journal.com/leolascases.html; ~ $400+]

WOTN. Wow. Powerful, complex and sensuous nose with a core of focused primary fruit giving lie to its 22 years. Notes of white pepper, cloves and cinnamon with earthy undertones seamlessly fill out a complete, round and intense palate with persistent length. This had a youthful complexity which will further develop for decades. Profound.

DRC Grands Echezeaux 1959 [Burgundy Grand Cru Vosne Romanee: Price- A lot.Basically does not exist.]

A five star vintage with great notes from Michael Broadbent's Great Vintage Book with notes of "magnificent" from 1964 and 1977, the latter with Len Evans at an options lunch at Bulletin Place.
What do you do when you have the opportunity to source a bottle at modest (for DRC) cost? You take the punt.

Bugger. Faded, oxidised beyond recognition with a feeble deathly pulse which gave a hint, but no more of what could have been there. Two doctors could not revive it.

Louis Trapet Chapelle-Chambertin 1988 [Burgundy- Grand cru~ Price: Ray's generosity; check Como Cellars, South Yarra]

Initial strange disjointed nose hinting of swimming pool, cheese and other high tone no nos.High alcohol, it slowly and slowly came around and improved considerably. A strong masculine wine way too young at this stage and the last sip showed real promise.

Chateau Climens 1976 [Bordeaux- Barsac: last Langtons ~$160?]
Burnished gold but restrained for its vintage and age. Last tasted it was a cloying and powerfully rich heady wine. This had better colour but less vitality. Marzipan, fully developed and waning on attack with soft acid finish. From a very rich year this was fading. Climens tends to tight structure and for those who prefer backbone to their stickies rather than flamboyance and hedonism Climens is usually a winner. This was good.

Seppelt 1879, 1884, 1889 and 1904 Para "Sanjay" [unofficial] 100 year minimum blend [priceless]
Ridiculously crammed with powerful essence of rancio fortified grapes. This viscous alcoholic monster was a mainline overdose of celestial roasted hazelnuts, marzipan and tipsy Christmas cake. The last word.

Not a bad line-up really. Best wishes Antony.


Neville K

[Prices reflect general retail current price and do not reflect heroes' prices who may gloat that they bought the wine upon release at proprietor's mates' rates and then stored the wine between silk sheets in a quiet tree lined street underground at perfect- even Scottish castle temperatures whilst being in an auto massage bed with a woman whose beauty would make you weep with desire. (Leunig followers will get the reference).]

Excellent session Neville and thanks for the TNs.

Yes, the 82 LLC is, to me at any rate, irrefutably profound.

The 82 LFP sounds juts like my type of wine so might get around to it soon.

Glad you had a good experience with the 88 Chapelle. Did you feel it had enough underlying fruit? This seems to be the major question with the bottles I have had over the past 5 years of 88 Burgundy's in general.

Pity about the 59 GE. Never had it; unlikley ever to do so. Wish un-fulfilment.

Baby Chickpea wrote:
Glad you had a good experience with the 88 Chapelle. Did you feel it had enough underlying fruit? This seems to be the major question with the bottles I have had over the past 5 years of 88 Burgundy's in general.

Danny, 1988 Burgundy is a bit of an enigma. The 80's in general were not really kind and Burgundy in general was in transition. 1980 was light and undistinguished yet later it became a pleasant surprise. 1981 was tough, ordinary. 1982 was very variable and it unfairly received the reflected glow of the Bordeaux vintage. 1983 was OK. 1984 was ordinary. So when 1985 arrived the market was filled with relief of a very good year. 1986 was tough and tannic. 1987 ordinary and then 1988 was truly hyped. More hyped than usual because there was little else in the recent past to be excited about: just 1969, 1971, 1978 and 1985.

My experience of 1988 is that the wines are not pretty, nor classical. They brood. There is a darkness that you might like in cinema, photography or art:( Bill Henson, Louise Hearman); but in Burgundy, joy and expressiveness is a better proclamation.

Thus the Trapet Chappelle had "trapped" fruit to employ the pun. It was deeply buried, but tightly wound. I reckon there is a power pack of dark fruit and I don't see it coming around in the near future, given 16 years already under its belt. I had a similar problem with a case of 24 halves of Mongeard Mugneret Echezeaux 1988. After about 6-7 I thought these are just not coming around and maybe there is nothing within so I packed off 12 for auction. Then the very next one was a cracker and since then they have been very good to merely good. One left. 1988's are like bouncers wearing black at the entrance door. Be careful... (Hookesy)

Long winded answer.Apologies Danny.

Neville K