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

Legendary...

Now I've been lucky to have a few rather splendid meals and wine line-ups in my time (far more than I deserve if I am being honest). This was "right up there".
A 12.30 meet time and a seat at the "Experience" table at Royal Hospital Road was a good combo. Jan (Konetzski, Sommelier) looked after the wines brilliantly and as always Clare (Smyth, Chef) had orchestrated a brilliant menu. The food is at the bottom of this blog and was simply brilliant.
Proceedings kicked off with a magnum of Le Mesnil Blanc de Blancs Grand Cru 1989 from Bruno Paillard. I used to buy Bruno Paillard NV in France years ago and always loved it. I never knew he had any holdings in Le Mesnil this was a lovely magnum in great shape, at a lovely stage of it's evolution, a little bit of weight from the age but still the focused precision of Le Mesnil.

From here we went to Prum Wehlener Sonnenhur Auslese GK 1949, this was of course fully mature with a definite aroma of Lapsang Souchong and herbal tea, a slightly dry marmalade as well, it has become quite dry but the fruit was still there, fascinating. The partner to the Prum was Auslese 976 from Muller which was amazingly fresh for such a dry and hot vintage, it was soft, mellow lemon and lime with a little light honey edge to it. Really impressive, of the pair I found the Prum more intriguing but I think more of the group preferred the Muller by a shade.
White Burgundy now took centre stage with a Pair of Montrachet's. Montrachet 1992, Lafon had an almost lemon spritz and a lighter colour then there was a mocha note that weirdly I usually associate with older, late disgorged Champagne. I liked it. The Montrachet 1993, Ramonet was more evolved with a dry intensity at the same time as a little honeysuckle, it was good and very enjoyable but possibly not the very best showing of that wine.
Now we had a Red Burgundy extravaganza with three great wines both being represented by the 1991 and 1999 vintages. Two vintages that have a real purity of fruit focus. Each pair was done blind and each time the consensus (and certainly me) got it wrong.

Grands Echezeaux from Domaine de la Romanee Conti was up first. 1991 first, this caused me problems as I know this wine quite well and rave about it on a regular basis as being a (under the radar) gem. This was a looser, less poised and less precise showing, more savoury than "normal". The 1999 was weightier, more dense, just richer actually. This, may be, doesn't quite have the class of the 1991 (on usual showing) but would be great to try again in 3-5 years or so. May be it just wasn't a DRC day as the pair didn't quite sing as they have done.

The next pair was Clos de Beze from Rousseau. Not a wine I know very well but both were impeccable. The 1991 had staggering purity (in fact the clarity and colour of both Rousseau's was a delight in itself), real focus and a tight red fruit that made this a very exciting glass, there was the early signs of the tiniest bit of maturity but the character was still primary (if that makes sense). The 1999 was cracking, amazing depth and seriousness but at the same time had red fruit and clarity, if you own this you should be delighted.
And so the last Burgundy pair was upon us and with Rousseau and DRC drunk what would be the last name? Leroy and namely Richebourg. The 1991 was in "wine of the day" territory. My notes are contrasting in a way but it just goes to show how multi-faceted the wine was. Both savoury and sweet with depth and opulence also. Blackberry fruit , delicious with a little bite, stunning. Refined and with freshness, in a word "complete". Obviously the 1999 followed and was a little more forceful but also completely "left", cloudy and without any pretence whatsoever. There was menthol but also a herbal deliciousness, soft succulent and also young, a very splendid wine now with lots more to come.

What one now needed was Port! Quinta de Noval Nacional 1967 was the bottle in question and once Jan had used the Port tongs we were "in". It was simply staggering, a wine seven years older than me and still in many ways primary, if mellowing. I thought it was simply brilliant, so poised, so harmonious, a puppy in many respects but as with all great bottles it was showing well now. If I had a bottle when would I drink it? I genuinely have no idea, it has everything so drinking it would always and never be a mistake if that makes any sense.

Our host never lets a lunch go buy with one Sauternes and on this occasion it was two wines that I have had before Chateau Yquem 1976 & Chateau Climens 1971. The former is intense, rancio, rich and not over sweet, hedonistic and like liquid Tarte Tatin and Creme Brûlée combined. The Climens is more elegant, less rich, a lovely glass, they are a perfect foil for each other.
I must list the food as the dishes were glorious, I think we all might have picked different favourites but really there was no weak link.

Venison tartare with beetroot

Seared venison fillet on a Himalayan salt plate with English wasabi and Lapsang Souchong broth

Roast Mallard duck with lavender, honey, fennel and salade Landasise

Pheasant with Albufera sauce and white truffle

Ragout of Hare with pappardelle and chestnut

Roast Loin of Venison with shoulder sausage, polenta and Tasmanian mouton pepper

Vacherin fondue with Krug Champagne and white truffle

Cucumber sorbet, salad burnet, lemon verbena and mint

Lemonade parfait with Honey, bergamot and sheep's milk yoghurt sorbet

So there you have it a simply brilliant lunch with perfect food and exquisite wines. "Memorable" doesn't come close...