Légitime fierté que de poser avec les vins de ma collection qui figureront au dîner de ce soir.
Le dernier vin à droite est Yquem 1961 offert par Pierre Lurton. Puis Yquem 1861, et les deux qui suivent, que j’avais pris en réserve (Yquem 1893 en demie-bouteille et Yquem 1938) ne seront pas bus car l’Yquem 1861 fut splendide.
I have already talked about this bottle. Some news.
The story, as I already told, had begun when noticing that a Yquem 1861 had a rather low level, I decided to put it in one dinner, as an alternative option to a Yquem 1938 of pristine condition.
Pierre Lurton suggested that I would make the dinner in Chateau d’Yquem. You can imagine how I was happy and proud. I changed therefore the list of wines, taking care that the champagnes would belong to the Arnaud’s properties.
I had the contact with the man who usually does the dinners and lunches in Yquem. I changed many things on his proposal.
I wrapped with emotion all the bottles to put them in my car.
I went in my cellar to choose a gift for Pierre Lurton, and I saw a split of Yquem 1893 of a nice colour, but low shoulder. I took it, with an idea : to share it with Pierre, Valerie, Sandrine and Francis, to thank them.
I had a travel with an enormous stress : how will my wines accept such a travel? When at the pay toll on highways there are some elements on the road designed to wake you up if you sleep by driving, I was nervous as it would probably shake my wines above their capacity of resistance.
I arrived in Chateau d’Yquem and brought the wines in a cool room near the kitchen. I checked that no damage had occurred. And Valerie and Sandrine were with me to see my wines. The colours of the dry whites are fantastic : Laville Haut-Brion 1976 is of a deep gold, and the colour of the Carbonnieux 1948 is the one of a really young wine. Nearly incredible.
Then we look at the Yquem. Christiane who served for many dinners that I attended by the time of Alexandre de Lur Saluces and had tears of emotion for the last lunch with the Count for his departure was tetanised by these bottles. She asked me : “will I sip just a drop of these treasures?”.
The Yquem 1938 that I have brought for security is magnificent. The colour is perfect, like semi-brown honey, and the fill is very high. The Yquem 1893 in half was not announced as I took it this morning. It created an enormous emotion on the three women : 1893 is a myth, and the castle has only one bottle. So, their way of reasoning is so : “if there is only one, we have no chance to drink this wine, which will remain as a testimony, and there, you bring a possibility to drink one”. They were excited. Unfortunately, Pierre Lurton will not be there when Sandrine will be there, as Sandrine has to leave on Thursday when Pierre will come, so I will probably not open this bottle if the four of them are not all together. I will decide what to do.
The 1861 is low shoulder and significantly dark. Will it be as the 1950 which I opened last Sunday? We will see. As the 1950 performed well, I have hopes.
I stayed there, in the castle, talking with the three women, that I appreciate, for one and a half hour. What struck me is the emotion that they showed when seeing these bottles. Instead of being neutral, they were participating in advance with what will happen in two days in this castle, for which I have a unique and special love. This place represents to me the equivalent of the Taj Mahal in wine.
The bottles will be opened in two days. I will tell you.
Ce Rivesaltes 1907 à l’étiquette presque illisible, étiquette passe-partout de marchand de vin fut un vin d’une belle sensualité.
A boire en 2008 !
I could have named this new discussion : “is there a Parker taste ? (part 2)”, (if you remember a message that I wrote on a Thunevin wine) as you will see that my daughter has definitely the Parker taste.
My son, his wife and their son left our house, and my two daughters arrived for lunch.
We tasted with my son in law the Mission Haut-Brion 1929 which had spent one night in a closed decanter. The smell was nice even if going slowly to an earth smell. And in mouth, it was possible. The oxygen had played a positive effect, even if, it has to be said, the wine was really dead.
We continued with La Conseillante 1981, and the wine which did not talk to me last night was superb now. This is incredible how a night had such a positive effect. I was hesitant yesterday, and today I was enthusiast. A nice wine, a little strict in its definition, but having gained a joy of life.
I had opened a Lafite-Rothschild 1971. The colour is very clear, as some Cotes de Beaune. The smell reminds of some berries which are hell red or pink. Very dense and intense smell, and in mouth a very particular elegance. It is interesting to notice that this wine has obviously got age, so has not the shining beauty of a young Lafite. But it has developed a set of flavours which is rare. We enjoyed a lot, but here comes the Parker taste. My son in law adored the Lafite, my younger daughter adored the Lafite, but my elder daughter said : “no, not my taste. Give me the Thunevin wine for 4 euros, yes. Not this Lafite”. So the Parker taste stroke again. My elder daughter loves more straightforward wines (this does not mean that the Parker taste is simplified – this is not the case – but my daughter had adopted one of his advices : she had been convinced by this type of wines on which Robert Parker wrote recently and that my son had bought immediately).
With apple tarts I poured the remaining of the Yquem 1950 which had stayed for the night in the bottle closed by a neutral cork.
And I must say that if I had some reserves on this wine yesterday, I have been fully convinced today. Oxygen has a power to cure many wounds, and this Yquem 1950 is definitely in the league of a Yquem 1921.
Magnificent, combining caramel, burnt coffee to a delicious image of the grape that you chew. Something between an Escenzia, but largely more complex, and a more conventional Yquem. This time I adored it and my wife said to me : “yesterday, I saw you largely less enthusiast than our son. Now you like it”. But she added : “it was perfect yesterday too”.
I am glad that La Conseillante, which I love, came back to a significant interest, and that Yquem 1950 performed so well, even if I still think that very black Yquem have less interest than the golden ones, which explains why I do not praise so much Yquem 1921.
I write these lines in two parts. Now, it is just before the dinner.
I have just opened the bottles for a dinner decided at 5 pm.
My son says : “we come”.
As I am trying to put some order in my cellar, I have noticed bottles which have to be drunk.
The Mission Haut-Brion 1929 is certainly dead : big loss of volume, and a cork fallen in the bottle.
I open it without hope, but immediately I smell a particular smell indicating that the wine could live again. Not sure of course, but the possibility exists.
I decanted the wine as the cork was swimming, and the smell was really positive. Not any trace of cork smell. I have no illusion on this wine, but we will see.
The Yquem 1950 is low shoulder. It has to be drunk. When looking at the bottle, what is curious is that the upper part of the wine looks dark and thick, but the lower part is a pure gold. This is certainly due to the glass.
I opened the wine, and a fantastic smell appeared, deep, with a huge botrytis. We will see. I have hope with this one.
To be sure to drink something with no problem, I opened a Lagrange Saint Julien 1975. Nice smell. No problem. Just one curious thing : I have bought this bottle with 23 others in a sale. When, why, I do not know. But they have an additional label of an importer from Buenos Ayres. If it is said that travels forms the youth, I hope it is true also for this wine.
Of course the wounded bottles are only for familial consumption. But when as last year, I opened a Yquem 1921 which had to be drunk and which was perfect, it is worth making tries in our familial circle.
I write now after the dinner.
The Mission 1929 being served had a nice smell. The first sip was agreeable. But it was obvious that the wine is dead. One hour later the smell was still very agreeable, but the wine was hopeless.
The Lagrange 1975 is a very pleasant wine. It has nothing particular to say “wow”, but it is pleasant. The length is not enormous, but the balance, a very fruity appearance, show that we drink a nice wine. Let us say to make an example a wine which would be noted 88. But I would be probably more severe than many notes which are given in this forum.
Then the Yquem 1950. My wife who never drinks except Yquem is enthusiast about the smell and the colour. I am enthusiast for the smell but less for the colour. My son is enthusiast for the wine.
What is my personal view? I would say that this Yquem is in the family of Yquem 1921. An enormous botrytis, some aspects of an essencia, a generous weigth in the mouth. Very great Yquem, but as I am not too much a fan of the very brown Yquem, I am not on a cloud. Obviously a deep Yquem that you could put in comparison with a 1921. But not exactly what I expect from Yquem. I prefer the 28, the 47 or the 55.
Meanwhile, as we were a little short with red wine (so before the Yquem), I opened at the last moment a La Conseillante 1981. Very proper, very well built, but this wine does not talk to me. I had yesterday a wine that I bought the same day (so it had no time to get a seat in my cellar), a Latour à Pomerol 1997. I preferred the Latour to the Conseillante, very acceptable, but with no sign of what makes life happy : something unconventional.
Nice familial dinner. I would be happy to solve the problem of low levels to offer to my children 100% perfect wines. But it gave us an opportunity to open a Yquem 1950 of a high class. Why not ?
On peut assez aisément imaginer ma fierté de faire le prochain dîner de wine-dinners en ce lieu merveilleux. C’est dû évidemment à l’extrême générosité de Pierre Lurton mais aussi à mon "passeport", un Yquem 1861 dont le château n’a aucune bouteille.
La bouteille a un bouchon qui doit être d’origine. Elle a évidemment souffert, mais le liquide me plait. Une petite fuite a sali l’étiquette. Grande angoisse sur ce que ce sera. J’ai pris à titre de secours une très jolie Yquem 1938. Mais comme me l’a dit Valérie Lailheugue, agréable correspondante au château, "vous savez, on a aussi des solutions de secours".
Les autres bouteilles sont sans histoire. J’attends beaucoup d’un Corton 1929 qui m’est inconnu.
Cette bouteille est absolument magnifique et donne envie de boire ce précieux breuvage.
Cognac Roulleau "antérieur" à 1918. A quelle année classer cet alcool ? Cela pourrait très bien être un 1880!
Il y a trois ans, sur un forum américain où l’on parle surtout de vin, je fais un pari avec un contributeur hollandais sur le gagnant du prochain Tour de France. Je gagne. J’avais mis la barre assez haut, avec, pour enjeu, un dîner à Paris dans un restaurant d’au moins deux étoiles et des vins pour plus de 500 €. Cet ami ayant ensuite disparu du forum pendant plus de deux ans je me suis dit que mon pari devenait de plus en plus virtuel. Quand j’ai reçu un mail m’annonçant sa venue à Paris, le pari reprenait des couleurs.
Nous arrivons au restaurant Laurent accueilli par Patrick Lair, sommelier avec qui j’ai débouché des centaines de flacons de rêve. Sur mes suggestions Harry, mon ami, avait commandé à l’avance les vins qui sont apparus sur table avec la température idéale. Le menu est imprimé en français et en anglais, ce qui est une attention fort délicate, avec le nom des vins.
Une araignée de mer dans ses sucs en gelée, crème de fenouil accueille un Corton-Charlemagne Bonneau du Martray 1996. Le vin met un peu de temps à s’ouvrir, mais quand il l’est, c’est un beau Corton-Charlemagne riche. Moins fantasque que le Coche-Dury de la même année bu récemment chez Patrick Pignol, il est plus orthodoxe. C’est un grand vin rassurant.
Le Lynch Bages 1985 que l’on boit sur une noix de ris de veau truffée dorée au sautoir, asperges vertes et Périgueux est extrêmement impressionnant. C’est le nez qui envoûte, qui signale un très grand vin. En bouche il est serein, dense, velouté, et la sauce lourde à la truffe l’épanouit encore. Les asperges sont trop jeunes encore, même si elles croquent bien avec le Lynch Bages.
Le nez du Sociando-Mallet 1990 est beaucoup plus serré, strict. On sent le bois austère. En bouche, alors que le Carré d’agneau de lait des Pyrénées caramélisé, artichauts violets et petits oignons mijotés au beurre de romarin serait un partenaire idéal, la carapace de bois empêche toute autre saveur de s’exprimer. Je sens toutefois qu’au fil du temps, le vin a envie de se libérer. Et j’ai alors une intuition. En croquant une gousse d’ail, toute adoucie par la cuisson mais fort goûteuse, l’ail décape le bois et libère de belles saveurs où même du beau fruit, caché jusque là, se libère généreusement. Il se peut qu’en d’autres circonstances ce vin se montre mieux. Nous n’en avons pas eu la magie.
Le Saint-nectaire devait accompagner le Sociando-Mallet. Mais je le préfère sur le Corton Charlemagne, à l’aise sur ce fromage.
Mon ami s’étant souvenu que j’aime le Banyuls, un Banyuls Solera hors d’âge, Docteur Parcé vint flirter avec un Sabayon froid, chocolat-noisette, crémeux aux épices et glace caramel à la fleur de sel. Cette cuvée, commencée avec des vins de plus de soixante ans, et incrémentée d’ajouts annuels ne me convainc pas autant que cela, même si c’est bon, car j’ai connu des Banyuls plus chatoyants. J’ai classé les vins de ce dîner ainsi : 1 – Corton Charlemagne 1996, 2 – Lynch Bages 1985, 3 – Banyuls Dr Parcé, 4 – Sociando Mallet 1990.
Le service de Laurent est exemplaire, la cuisine rassurante et solidement campée dans la qualité. L’atmosphère est unique. Mon ami avait avec élégance assumé son pari. On en refait un ?
C’est le Sociando-Mallet de ce soir qui m’inspire l’envie de parler du guide. Le guide Michelin est une institution. Outil indispensable avec des cartes remarquables, une précision dans la description des moyens de rejoindre un établissement, ce guide est très complet. Il ne joue pas l’aventure. Or notre monde veut du sensationnel, du sang à la une. Si le guide ose changer un classement, on le lui reproche. Si le guide ose le conserver, on le lui reproche aussi. S’il est conservateur, il agace. S’il innove, il agace également. L’habitué des plus grandes tables se soucie peu de voir le guide faire des pirouettes. La date à laquelle Eric Fréchon et Yannick Alléno auront leur troisième étoile importe peu, car l’amateur les adore déjà. Et quand l’Astrance vient briller au firmament de la gastronomie, des journalistes avisés en ont déjà parlé. Le guide est un peu comme le classement des vins de Bordeaux de 1855. Il est solide mais n’intègre pas toutes les nouveautés. C’est cela qui crée le lien avec Sociando-Mallet. Cet aimable vin ne fait pas partie du Panthéon. Un gourou écouté, faiseur d’opinion, dit que le 1990 est éblouissant et lui donne une note maximale. Je n’ai pas réagi à cette nouvelle fièvre. J’ai bien fait. C’est comme cela que je considère le Michelin : s’il n’a pas l’information qu’il « faut absolument » avoir, ce n’est pas gênant. Il a les autres. Alors bien sûr, la rétrogradation de la Tour d’Argent au moment où Claude Terrail est malade est aussi fâcheuse que l’incident belge. Mais la fonction remplie par le guide est indispensable. L’avant-garde est traitée par d’autres, les brusques apparitions sont traitées par la presse. L’accoutumé des grandes tables est bien informé. La sécurité du Guide lui va bien.