Latour a Pomerol - historic vertical...

After a run of really rather amazing "Jordi dinners" over the last year or so:

40th Birthday
La Tache vertical

Grouse and Richebourg at The Square

Clos des Ducs 1920-2002 at La Trompette

I was especially looking forward to this - a very thorough look at the wines of Latour a Pomerol at Les 110 de Taillevent in London with Edouard Moueix in attendance. I have always had a real soft spot for Latour a Pomerol, now yes there might be a commercial edge to that (I work for the agent) but it is more than that. The estate has made several legendary wines. It is part of a very great collection of right bank estates in the hands of ETS JP Moueix. It still somehow seems to fly slightly under the radar. I think this is for a couple of reasons, it is made as a wine to drink, it tastes well when young but is not showy or uber-extracted. People always tend to think that something must be wrong if the legendary wines of the past have not been replicated, not so. I am always excited to open a bottle, even more so a magnum of course, of Latour a Pomerol.

A few stats and background on Latour a Pomerol

7.9 hectares

90% Merlot

10% Cabernet Franc

Two plots: Firstly the nucleus which is 5 ha from the original Clos de Grandes-Vignes located on the central plateau on gravel soils close to l'Eglise St-Jean. The second plot named l'Ecole is located around the Chateau adjacent to La Grave a Pomerol on gravel soils and produces a slightly lighter wine than the first plot.

Production: Around 2500 cases a year, with no second wine

The team at "110" did well with the wines and the full menu can be seen here (a few pics are at the end of the post).

Pate en croute
Foie Gras canape

Mushroom Tartlet Cocktail

-

Duck egg, poached, lardorns, champignos de Paris, baby onions

-

Risotto, creamy with a fricassee of girolles

-

Turbot meuniere, beurre blanc

-

Saddle of lam, roasted with pickled garlic, glove and rosemary

-

Le Vieux Comte, 30 mois d'affinage

-

Petit Fours

I have resisted the temptation to score the wines in this post. I would find it very difficult and therefore it is rather pointless. When comparing a wine that is young (2005) with a wine that is very old (1929) what do you really achieve with scores?

Bollinger started us off as so often at Jordi's dinners, it was rather apt here as the Moeuix family often serve it. R.D. 2002 en magnum was the choice here, very taut and reductive with a little mocha note, clearly will repay considerable time.

The wines were split into logical flights as below:

Recent Vintages
2005 - So full of vibrant fruit with just a dash of saline. Very moreish and alive, voluptuous but with good structure...excitingly good. As with other 2005's this is just starting to "strut it's stuff".

2000 - A little bit of stink, then opens into a wine that is lovely from now onwards, still primary in fruit but with added complexity. I would love to drink this alongside the 2005 in another 5 years. A little spice to finish. Proper!

1998 - A little more savoury and textured, a little iron on the palate . Very moreish indeed. At a lovely point in its evolution - the beginning of the second phase. The quality of the 1998 right bankers is still not really as well known as it should be. Complete. 

1996 - Quite iodine like, with a little meatiness and then a very slight lack of flesh on the palate (the vintage) compared to what went before. Nice to drink now without profundity coming along. More a wine of minerality than fruit. Solid.

1995 - Really good, a vintage that has somehow not had the profile or praise it deserves. There are proper tannins here with the nicely mellowed fruit to contrast. Will age well for sure but good now. Everything as it should be. Classically Pomerol.

Mature Vintages
1990 - Sadly not a perfect bottle. there was a minty volatile edge but then an overly lean and savoury palate. A shame.

1986 - Meaty but also sweet, elegantly developed, pretty and almost fragile. Surprisingly good for such a "Cabernet" vintage. Really like-able.

1985 - Ever so slightly muted nose initially but then this revealed a lovely red-fruited sweetness and lovely moreish (how many times do I have to say this!) texture. This is perfect now, so wonderfully drinkable, preferably in volume! There is the balance to age further by why would you. Just lovely.

1982 - Some iron-like savoury note then almost sweetness, a little blood but with lovely fresh acidity, expressive, extrovert and slightly high-toned.

It was lovely to see the wines so far had almost perfectly translated the general perceptions of the specific vintages. 

Iconic 1970's
1978 en magnum - Volatile, "bricky", harsh and dried out more like 30 year old Sangiovese than Bordeaux. Edouard commented that this was almost exactly what he had expected from this substandard and very dry vintage. 

1975 - Corked (gutted as this is both Jordi and my vintage)

1971 - Stunning, so easy to enjoy, lovely now, so persistently sweet and fine. A cracking Pomerol vintage. Delicious notes of pure ripeness. Supreme...Wow!

1970 - Corked (a real shame as Edouard spoke very highly of good bottles of this)

Transition to ETS JP Moueix
1966 - A little more gritty and grainy and truffled than the 1971. I initially wondered if this might fade in the glass but it did the opposite getting more focused, there is a lovely nuttiness, not normally a positive in reds. There is a sweetness. Very fine.

1964 - Sightly briney, almost a note of bill-tong and pepper, lovely body with good texture and considerable power, a fully mature but not fading wine. Masculine and intriguing.

1962 - Really impressive, fully mature, precise, really lifted, pretty special, almost a mocha note towards the end, stood up well in the glass. A treat.

1961 - Corked, a rather collective sigh, but then one shouldn't meet their heros.

Madame Loubat
1955 - Really lifted, extrovert, superb, manages to be refined in a mellow way at the same time as being unreservedly hedonistic. Is there a better vintage for Bordeaux? My experiences of the 1955 vintage are almost universally spectacular. This was so good that I don't know I would want to have it again, if that makes any sense.

1953 - I think this suffered from following the captivating 1955 because in every other way it was glorious, a little creme brulee richness on the nose. Decadent. 

1952 - Clearly a cooler vintage, bricky and a little lactic, a very slight Bual character, just a well-bred wine that is getting weary.

1949 - Quite high toned and a shade volatile, a little madeirised and delicate.

1945 - Decadent notes, dates in the mix, delicious, good acidity, lifted (the acidity) but also dense, really lovely. 

1937 - Butch and rich but then disjointed not quite sure what this was, very dry and did not really fit with the other wines. 

1929 - High and dry, a little pithy, the palate is clean but totally dried out, rasping. The acidity means it is drinkable but astringent. By all accounts a very small crop with heat in September.

Climens 1942 - Sweet cep nose, mushrooms and brioche, oranges and now quite dry. weirdly would have made a good appetizing aperitif as well as a fascinating ending.

So what would I say in conclusion or summary? Well, Latour a Pomerol certainly has a great past but it is the present and the future that were the learning for me. I think everyone around the table, with the possible exception of Edouard who already knew, was very pleased to see how beautifully the younger vintages drank. Any site that can make wines as brilliant as the 1955 and 2005 but 50 years apart is exciting. There is a grace and elegance to Latour a Pomerol that can almost work against it in terms of standing out around En primeur time or in amongst other showier, glossier wines at tastings. To me Latour a Pomerol remains a very very good Pomerol that portrays the character of a vintage very well and drinks so splendidly...long may it continue! Thanks for the opportunity to taste these Jordi!

Duck egg, poached, lardorns, champignos de Paris, baby onions

Risotto, creamy with a fricassee of girolles

Turbot meuniere, beurre blanc

Saddle of lam, roasted with pickled garlic, glove and rosemary

La Tache - decades and decades...

A wonderful dinner that was years in the organising by Jordi Orriols-Gil. It was a quite wonderful marathon all in all from a kick off at 7pm we finished at midnight…The notes below are a little erratic that is only because with some flights there was a bit of quiet and everyone was quite studious with others the conversation flowed and I wrote far less. As always when dealing with great wine the notes end up being comments and observations, or even character assessments, rather than descriptors.

A mention must go to The Square whose service was good as ever and whose menu was really delicious (a couple of pics at the bottom).

Salad and Tartare of Highland Wagyu Beef with Nasturtium and Bouton de Culotte

Ravioli of Wild Mushrooms with Melted Onions, Parsley Oil and Snails

Glazed Veal Cheeks with Cauliflower, Chanterelles, Parmesan Caviar and Truffle 

Breast & Croustillant of Pigeon with Confit of Vegetables and Trompettes de la Mort 

Burgundian Cheese

Rhubarb Fool

So, on with the wines:

Bollinger RD 79 en magnum - Rich, opulent, a little dry Tarte Tatin, enticing with some saline.

Montrachet 1950, Comte de Moucheron – The Comte de Moucheron were the owners of Chateau du Meursault and the owners of the plot of Montrachet that was later sold to the Domaine in 1966. This was alive but fully mature, as you’d expect. A dry butterscotch and orange character, tangy.

The wines were then served in flights of between three and six wines. The glasses used were mid sized, bigger and some of the delicate wines would have been too prone to oxidation as we were 14 people to each bottle. No wines were decanted just poured straight from the bottle. Other than the magnum of Bollinger everything was from bottle format.

Flight 1: A brilliant flight of young wines that really showed exactly the characters I expected of the vintages.

1999 – Such amazing vibrancy, so rich with fruit but so focussed, a shade of graphite minerality but essentially a wine of opulent fruit, some of that fruit is quite dark. Really very special, on reflection one of the wines of the night. I have had this a few times and it is a stunningly exciting wine, no doubt about that. If you own this be very excited.

 
2000 – A shade more bruised in fruit character, mulled fruit a little, a dash of orange rind but only a tiny bit, light and elegant, no blockbuster, gentle, good focus, became more generous, easily nice, a little grip on the end but essentially very complete if short of being profound.

2002 – A shade degraded as you would expect, very 2002 to the 1999’s purity. “Mulchy” there will be undergrowth to come soon, some mushroom but also sweetness, young but on track to be a wine that has superb secondary and tertiary class. Structure is very good, definitely there but very balanced, retains it’s sweetness. On revisiting later is tightened up and kept it’s focus.

Flight 2: Possibly the flight where I learnt the most, wonderful differences.

1980 – Interestingly Aubert noted that this was the second vintage (after the ‘79) where they did no racking, straight from barrel to bottle so as not to lose anything. This wine reminded me of the Romanee Conti 1965 we had had the previous evening. Incredibly clear, clean and pure, so persistent, like rosewater, consommé and savoury notes all at the same time. Amazing and in most peoples top three wines of the night, who would have thought…

 
1985 – More red colour and depth than the 1980, sweetness, life, very fine. Three of those assembled commented that it was not as perfect as another bottle they had previously drunk together but to me this was high class and really pretty decadent.

1989 – This had a strictness and correctness but certainly a lack of charm. Good weight and density as well as darker, thicker colour, more robust but also a little clumsy. The tannin ws definitely there, as was dark fruit but somehow the two did not meld as they might. I was very re-assured by Aubert’s observation that this was a wine that went into bottle “in a bad mood and has never really changed”. In isolation a good wine from a vintage that has never been as great in Burgundy as other European regions.

1990 – Superb, decadent nose, very 1990. There is an element of the 1999 about this but may be more degradation. There is a little savoury side but fundamentally this is a wine of dark but fresh fruit, succulent texture and a dash of cleansing saline at the end. Odd though this may sound but it reminds me of a Burgundian Haut-Brion 1989 in so far as it is just so hard not to like it and yet it stands out as being of the vintage as much as the site. Delicious.

1991 – If the 1990 has always been the opulent, generous, crowd pleaser then the 1991 is the purists vintage, all freshness and red fruit with acidity to focus and sort of perfect leanness. Such focus and life, nervous energy if you like. Aubert commented that it corresponds exactly to the type of wine that he likes to make. Poised and classy.

1989-1990-1991

Flight 3: It is fair to say this was comfortably the most under performing flight, even those that were good had a degraded, powdery colour and texture.

1970 – It was noted that this was a very difficult vintage with botrytis almost floating in the air as in 1965 and 1967. The wine had some bruised oranges, then quite quickly mushrooms and mushroom water*, it was a little weary but I did like it, long as well.

1971 – We tried two bottles. Neal Martin, whose birth year this is, said he must have cursed the wine. The first was promising but ever so slightly corked and once you noticed this you couldn’t avoid it. The second bottle was more correct but not (cork aside) as good as the first. A shame, you could though tell in that the first showed real class and texture as well as savoury persistence.

1972 – Oranges and Verdehlo Madeira, a zesty powderiness, it was like must, pretty exhausted, so beyond mature but my note finished “bizarrely enjoyable”.

1974 – This was noted as a rainy vintage like 1967 and 1977. There was sweetness there and dry wood, a good surprise, not serious but really enjoyable.

1976 – Aubert commented that there are others who probably made better '76’s. It was very hot but picked in the rain that finally came. Someone asked about 1976 and 2003 being similar and Aubert felt that 2005 has more in common with 1976 than 2003 does. I like this wine, clean, precise and really quite dense, a great effort.

1978 – Sadly this was not as it should be. A Bual character and drinkable due to some sweetness but… 

  

Flight 4: A lovely flight, clear candidates for the wine of even this night.

1962 – Not correct in colour or tasting

1964 – Wow! Stunning, fresh and pure, red-fruited bliss, energy and life, vibrant. Not heavy just weighted perfectly and balanced, feminine even. Exceptional.

1965 – Some soy and balsamic, nice, on the savoury yet focussed side of things. Some mushroom came out and the colour did brown in the glass, elegant.

1966 – Delicious, nervous, so elegant, sweet yet savoury, some wood and nutmeg, real depth, I could see the ’99 developing this way but then I could say that for the 1964 as well and yet the two wines are quite different.

1969 – I made very few notes here sadly – I had it down as good but lacking a little fruit sweetness.

 
1964 – Another bottle, a little less “red” than the other, very good though, slightly more saline and savoury notes but the same focus. A magnificent bottle on any night but just shaded by the over 1964.

Flight 5: What our host would call mature wines!

1950 – Tea, some orange but lightly so, citrus, sweetness, almost some butterscotch, a little vanilla, lovely, elegant...with air some coffee notes appeared…fascinating. It was very interesting to note that this vintage was all but written off by the critics…it certainly “shouldn’t” be alive now!

1952 – Delicate, lovely, fresh, bright, a little edge to it but there is some volume, fascinating.

1953 – Sadly not in taste-able condition.

Romanee-Conti 1953 – Clean and clear, very very good, very persistent and focussed, real weightlessness but also sweetness. Light and elegant, very fine.

1958 - Sadly not in taste-able condition.

1959 – A dash of caramel, a real similarity of character to the Romanee Conti 1959 tasted a few weeks previously. There is a viscosity and intense sweetness, incredible.

Flight 6:

1937 - Sadly not in taste-able condition.

1943 – Bacon on the nose to a degree, richness but a light framework, in one place. It has an energy albeit delicate…surprisingly long.
Not that any more wine was needed but Jordi always likes to keep the line of vintages going back so we went into the 1920's with:

Climens 1929 – Very much Brulee initially, dried fruits quickly appear, good but fully mature of course.

Doisy-Daene 1928 – Fresher, lovely, toffee apple character even some pecan…

What an evening, a great reward for Jordi's hard work in assembling these bottles. Certainly a tasting I can't imagine will ever be repeated. I don't think anyone has ever doubted La Tache's place at the top table of vineyards in the world let lone Burgundy. Possibly the most true identifier of a great site is the ability to perform year in year out and in a series of different vintage conditions. La Tache does this from extroverts like 2002, 1990, 1959 to the refined and elegant dancers of 1980, 1991 and more…wonderful (however biased I may be)...

The beginning and the end...

Salad and Tartare of Highland Wagyu Beef with Nasturtium and Bouton de Culotte

Ravioli of Wild Mushrooms with Melted Onions, Parsley Oil and Snails

*Mushroom water - this is a note I have started to use a fair bit, it describes the smell you get when soaking dried mushrooms in hot water. This normally signals that Mrs Hargrove is making her mushroom risotto, always a good thing!