Bernard Roth Wine Tasting Notes Archives (Beaulieu Vineyards Georges de Latour Private Reserve Cabernet (1960-1997), Apriil 21, 2001)

The Bernard Roth Archives

The Los Olivos Wine & Spirits Emporium presents notes of Bernard Roth who always has something to say, particularly about wine and food.

We happy that Bernard, who has sampled so many wines, has shared his notes with us. We do have, or have had for sale a few of the wines Bernard writes about, and we include a link to our stock page whenever it is a producer we carry (but since the stock page is kept up-to-date and the wines are sold, don't expect any but the newest of wines to show up in our stock!). Mostly though, since we specialize in County of Santa Barbara Wine and Central Coast Wine, we don't carry a lot of the wines Bernard writes about. But we think it is important that you be able to have an idea what they're like in case you are planning to buy some somewhere, or have them in your own collection. Enjoy.

Here are Bernard's notes from April 21, 2001:

Beaulieu Vineyards Georges de Latour Private Reserve Cabernet (1960-1997)

This Sunday, 22 April 2001, I had the good fortune to participate in an exceedingly rare, comprehensive tasting of 38 vintages of Beaulieu Vineyards Georges de Latour Private Reserve Cabernet (1960-1997). Our host, Joel Framson, did a great job organizing the event. The majority of bottles were bought at a Cystic Fibrosis charity auction. A few missing vintages were provided by other attendees, including BV’s Joel Butler, a Master of Wine. The tasting was held at Celestino Drago’s eponymous restaurant in Santa Monica and was accompanied by a five-course menu.

The wines were in exceptional condition. Only one cork crumbled apart (the 1960). None of the wines were decanted before pouring. Wines were poured from bottle just prior to each flight. The glasses had vintage labels affixed to keep everything organized. Glasses were cleared between flights, replaced by clean glasses for each new wine. Each flight represented the wines of one decade, with certain notable vintages held back until the fourth food course. So, for example, the first flight consisted of all vintages 1960-1969 with the 68 held back for the later flight.

Joel Butler provided excellent historical background and commentary on the wines, and offered some insights into how these bottles showed compared to others he’d had. In several instances (particularly some of the off vintages), certain of these wines proved to have shown better than any other time in his experience.

This was a special treat for me because I basically stopped drinking the BV Reserve in the mid-80s as quality went down. Except for a chance to try the 96 last month, the 84 was the last vintage I had until this tasting. This was worthy for both the intellectual and sensual experiences, and I met some very nice and knowledgeable wine lovers (and especially BV lovers) at the tasting.

A delicious menu was executed nearly flawlessly:

Hors d’Oeuvres: Porcini and Walnut Profiteroles, Smoked Salmon Crepes with Caviar, Arancini
Risotto parmigiana with roasted quai
Maccheroncini Lattini with Pheasant and Morel
Moscovy Duck Breast, au jus, polenta and chanterelle
Piedmontese Beef, roasted garlic and chive sabaione sauce, and truffled puree of potat
Assorted Italian cheeses

Two food comments. I did not put 2 and 2 together at the time, but Lattini in the pasta course refers to the famous Italian pasta company. The Piedmontese beef is indeed from an indigenous Piedmontese breed that Celestino prefers. I forget whether the beef itself is imported or raised domestically. The filet was wonderful, more flavorful than American filet steak tends to be.

To go with the hors d’oeuvres, the 95 Vincent Girardin Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru “Morgeot” was poured. It had a honeyed color, crisp bouquet, nice acid, and clean finish. Still young. 91 points.

I’ll present my tasting notes in vintage order and then add a few words of commentary at the end. With noted exceptions, almost all wines had very good color, ranging from light medium ruby to dark red. Color was mostly determined by vintage variation than age, except where noted. Typical fruit flavors were red cherry, maybe some pomegranate, except as noted. I score out of 100 points, 50 indicating a dead wine. Some wines have two scores, the first based on the initial taste, the second after significant time in the glass (15-30 minutes).

1960—Very forward complex nose. Still in fine balance. Good complexity, but fruit fading in the mid-palate. Subtly long finish. Still in good shape. Very good length with some menthol in finish. 86.

61—Very light brownish orange color. Treackly aromas. Very thin, but not awful. 63.

62—Closed aromatically. Balance OK. Stewed tomato, burnt orange finish. Drinkable, but just. 60.

63—Very light faded color. Totally over the hill. No redeeming value. 50.

64—Stinky oxidized nose. Lost balance. OTH. Shot. No redeeming value. Flat, but not off-putting. 55.

65—Actually quite dark! Closed with some blueberry, fecal elements. Still in good balance, good fruit, black cherry. Some tannins, bit flat finish. 81

66—Medicinal, aged woody, bit fecal aromas. Good acids, tannins. Delicious. Still holding, but pretty light weight. Black cherry. Some tannin in finish. 85

67—Closed, musty. Old faded fruit. OTH, but acceptable. Thin, rather pinot noir-like, finish. 80.

68—Beautiful bouquet, classy, maybe a touch of TCA or mustiness at first, but didn’t seem to persist. Near perfect balance. Delicious. Very deep, layered, long. Cedar. Bit chunky, tannins could be better resolved. Classic with slight medicinal character. 93.

69—Aged, caramel, leather nose. Still vibrant acidity. Vary nice flavors. Showing well. Fairly fine tannin, some alcohol in finish. Lovely for what it is. 86.

70—Wonderful sweet aromatics. Perfect, with perfectly lovely balance. Lush, sweet, classy. Black cherry. Seamless. Still some unresolved tannins. Needs time. 94.

71—Closed, musty. Very good acid, some dusty tannins. Very nice. Excellent, but bit flat in mid-palate. 87/83.

72—Very nice, earthy, funky nose. Still good. Lush, ripe cherry. Some chewy tannins in finish, but fades and oxidizes with time. 85/82.

73—Burnt orange nose. Not showing much balance. Not in good shape, but interesting complexity. Past prime. 71.

74—Oxidized. Clunky. Madeirized, pruny, yet complex. Unpleasant, foul. 66.

75—Closed with some oxidation. Good mix of acid, tannins. Cooked, stewed flavors, but zingy acid, some dry cherry flavor. Not good. 72.

76—Very nice nose with some barnyard aromas. Perfect balance. Luscious fruit, but clunky tannins. Flavor has awkward oak, stewed cherry. Not a bad wine, though! 90.

77—Nice cab nose. Very good balance. Deep, rich, long. Black cherry. Still vibrant. Shows well. Really wonderful and will last. 88.

78—Classic maturing cab bouquet. Super, elegant balance. Showing depth, oak, tannic finish with some astringency. Yummy, but thin on palate. More tannins than the 79. 86.

79—Bit closed. Delicate and silky. Elegant, delicious. High acid, dry cherry. Thin mid-palate. Some oxidation. 85.

80—Bit smelly, fecal. Very good balance, but chunky. Super concentration, dark fruit, tannic, long menthol finish. Super! 91.

81—Weird bouquet with cedar. Good balance. Sweet fruit, but starting to madeirize. Still, surprisingly good. 83.

82—Closed up. Perfect balance, still tannic. Astringent. Lots of rich fruit, raw oak. Some off, fecal flavors. Tasted later, losing clarity, muddled. 92/88.

83—No nose. Not pleasant. OTH. 66.

84—Lovely black cherry bouquet. Excellent balance, black cherry, big oak. Lovely. Exceptional wine. Super. 91.

85—No nose. High acid, puckery tannins. Madeirized, but complex. Hot finish. Not awful. 76.

86—Lovely sweet cherry oak bouquet. Wonderful balance. Lush, sweet fruit. Complete. Showing well. Lovely. Some medicinal character. 88.

87—Wonderful cherry bouquet caressed by oak. Perfect balance. Nice flavor, but overoaked. Some raw woodiness. Needs time, perhaps. But thinning fruit dominated by oak. 87.

88—Beautiful cherry cola, vanilla nose. Balance is way off. Tart and astringent. Unpleasant, and concentrated. Awful. 68.

89—Maturing, smelly nose. Very good balance. Elegant. Soft texture. Very complex, aged, woody, cedar. Bit of acid in mid-palate. Hanging in, but drink up. 89.

90—Black fruit and oaky bouquet. Very good balance. Supple, bit overoaked. Drying tannins, somewhat astringent finish. 87(+?)

91—Corked. No rating.

92—Higher toned, menthol, cherry aromas. Wonderful balance, bit medicinal, charred oak, black fruit, Dry, astringent tannins. Needs time. 88-92.

93—Bit closed, cherry, woody bouquet. Awkward imbalance. Softish, but very chalky. Very drying. 82(+)

94—Closed with black fruit nose. Lovely balance. Very rich, strong, intense, but very tannic. Sweet black cherry fruit. Tough to tell. Needs 10-12 years. 91(+?)

95—Brilliant cassis, French oak bouquet. Lush, layered, sweet oak, vanilla. Good balance. Very tannic. Black licorice, blueberry. Very long, big, chewy tannins. 93+

96—Very open aromatically. Expansive plum, lovely oak. Perfect balance. Sweet cherry cola, French oak, delicious. Chewy tannins. Oak a bit astringent in finish. Impressive. 93+

97—Suave, classy bouquet. Perfect balance. Plush, tannic. Astringent. Good rich fruit. Needs 10-15 years. Very woody. 94+.

BV had a lot of hit or miss vintages in the 60s, 70s and 80s. But even some lesser vintages (like 69, 72, 77) showed remarkably well. A potentially great vintage like 74, though, was ruined by a corporate mentality that pushed excessive production beyond the capacity of the winery. I understand that there are some very good bottles of 74 from a different production run than we must have sampled. But there’s no way to tell from the label. Despite corporate interference, the winemakers managed to produce a few exceptional wines along the way. Although 68 is a legendary vintage, 70 is I think a better wine.

With the change in business philosophy in the 90s, I can see quality going back up. Although BV does not yet rank among the CA elite (IMO), they have a string of a few successes to build on. I suspect maybe the raw materials (fruit) could still be improved.

	Return to the Bernard Roth Archive Index