Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsBordeaux

About Wine

Bordeaux Hits Again With 1986

May 11, 1989|DAN BERGER | Times Wine Writer

Bordeaux is on a roll, and wine lovers are agog.

With the release of the 1986 vintage red wines of France's most prestigious wine region, those who collect wine for aging in their cellars are having a tough time deciding what to do. Should they buy a case of Chateau Latour and a case of Chateau Mouton-Rothschild, or should they buy a three-bottle assortment of a whole lot of stuff?

No matter, they are eager to spend their money, in spite of high and rising prices, and in spite of the fact that their cellars are already full from their enthusiasm of the recent past.

Bordeaux is almost never blessed with so many great vintages in a row, and never have so many good vintages coincided with large harvests too. (Great quality and large quantity are supposed to be impossible together, say viticulture experts.) And with six excellent vintages in eight years, there are fears that the consumer will simply say "enough!" and stop buying.

Yet, even though the multitude of top-quality vintages confounds longtime observers of Bordeaux, they merely shake their heads and reach for their wallets yet one more time.

The 3-Years-in-10 Rule

It once was said that Bordeaux would have a great vintage only three years in 10, and during the 1940s, only 1945, 1947 and 1949 were rated exceptional. Through the 1950s, one could rate '53 and '59 as tops; in the '60s, the great vintages were 1961, 1966, and, if one wanted to stretch a point, toss in 1962.

And although the 1970s offered the usual complement (1970, 1975, 1978), a number of other "off" vintages showed better than expected. That set the stage for the 1980s, a wow decade. Red wines of 1981 were hard but showed classic lines; 1982s were highly praised, and the vintage was rated one of the best of all time (though I never thought the wines were that impressive, considering them to be far too ripe and diffuse in character, certainly not classic Bordeaux).

Then 1983 and 1985 were rated as excellent, and we are hearing experts rate the 1986s as equivalent to the best of all time. (And now chateau owners are touting the 1988s.)

The expert in the current case is Paul Pontallier, managing director of Chateau Margaux and a man not given to extravagant claims. Yet at a dinner staged here May 2 to show off some of the best 1986s, Pontallier remarked that 1986 was "quite an extraordinary year, as good as 1945 and 1961, with the same level of concentration (of fruit)." That sort of talk excites wine collectors, who rarely hear anyone draw parallels with the Year of the Victory--1945--or 1961.

Pontallier compared the heralded 1982 wines with the 1986s:

"In 1982 we had a level of maturity (of the grapes) that we don't often get, and the reason was the high heat before the harvest. It gave us an incredible ripeness. Perhaps it was too hot, I don't know. But 1986 was better.

"We had drought and high heat in 1985, but it was even hotter and drier in 1986, and these wines show the true characteristics of a dry vintage, and the true product of the terroir , the soil. They are very concentrated wines, tough wines. The only thing we have to be afraid of is, it will take such a long time for them to develop."

The reference was to the fact that the '86 Bordeaux are now so hard and tannic that they will need years in the bottle to smooth out. The best will need many decades. But there is ample depth of fruit and complexity for them to become drinkable.

Most wine lovers fear long-term aging not at all. The longer-lived a vintage, the more they want it. And the '86s certainly will satisfy them.

At the dinner staged last week by Steve Wallace of Wally's on Westwood, nine of the 1986 Bordeaux classics were served. Only one, Chateau Haut-Brion, failed to impress and the major difference between the others was style.

Top wine on my score card was the Chateau Margaux, a magnificent wine that exceeded the others on the basis of a bit more finesse and classic lines. The Margaux is just as deep as the others, but has an aftertaste that goes on and on, with hints of cherries, cassis, cedar and sandalwood.

At $75 a bottle it is expensive, but wines like this don't come along very often, and Wallace expects that the price will rise to $100 a bottle as soon as the first run of wine sells out. Which could happen in days, such is the word on the '86s.

It's splitting hairs to say which wine was next best, but on my list, the Chateau Lafite-Rothschild bested the Mouton by a shade. I preferred the fruit in the Lafite to the oak in the Mouton, though both are intense and loaded with potential. Both are also about $75.

Another wine with grand potential, but on a smaller--and less pricey--scale, is the second label of Margaux, which is called Pavillon Rouge du Chateau Margaux. At about $22, the wine is an excellent value, and one all wine lovers should consider.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|