Last night I attended a blind tasting, which was the re-run of the so-called Berlin tasting, which pitted Eduardo Chadwick's wines against the top wines from Bordeaux and Italy in 2004. This was the first time it had been done in London, and although we were asked to consider quality as opposed to guessing which wines they were, if you put a room full of winos together, we just can't help ourselves.

The other tasters were a mixture of the the press (Jancis, Oz, Tim and Jamie), Chilean buyers from the supermarkets and independents, sommeliers, general MWs and Chile experts.

The Margaux 05 came first. I had it joint 7th, out of 12. I found it a very New World style with a lot of chocolate and coffee on the nose and a lot of brett in the mouth, which I don't mind, per se, but it just didn't do it for me. About £900 to £1000 a bottle.

However, I had more luck with the next three. The room's second, third and fourth wines were my first, second and third.

Lafite 05 was achingly beautiful. It was spicy and oaky on the nose, with some brett. Very definitely French, but ripe as well. I wondered if it was an 03. It had juicy, refreshing acidity and earned 18/20 from me. The price wasn't mentioned.

My second, and the room's third, was Solaia 05 which had wonderful cedary, stalky mint on the nose and more meat and structure than other wines tasted. I thought it was a Pauillac. About £140 a bottle. 18/20 for me.

My third, and the room's fourth, was Errazuriz Don Maximiano 06, which was very obviously Chilean with ripe blackcurrant, mint, eucalyptus and something syrupy that I usually find on Chilean Syrah, which I think was involved in the Cabernet dominated blend. About £30. 17.5/20.

Sena 05, perhaps £35, came 5th for me and the room and had a deep, concentrated, minty blackcurrant aroma. A lot of everything. Peter Richards, who was helping to lead the tasting, found bay leaf and then of course all I could smell was bay leaf. Full flavoured with chocolate, oak and eucalyptus. Lovely. 17/20

Vinedo Chadwick 06 was 6th, but I wasn't all that keen and gave it one of my lowest marks. Eucalyptus, cedar and blackcurrants on the nose, spicy and rather warn in the mouth with a lot of chocolate. £40 and only 16/20 from me.

Sena 06 was 7th and got an even lower 15.5/20 from me. It was very sweet and Ribena-like on the nose and the alcohol seemed a little bitter on the finish.

The real surprise was that Latour 05 came 8th. I had it joint 4th and at £950 to £990 thought it rather lovely. Prices were divulged right at the end. It was weak on the nose initially but did open up to be rather floral later. It was dry and cedary - very French and savoury, with some furniture polish on the finish.

Sassicaia 05 was 9th, at £75 to £100 - my least favourite - it had little smell, and just some juicy acidity in the mouth, with little depth.

Don Maximiano 05 was 10th, at £30. I had it joint 4th. There was a lot of new oak. Very ripe and clearly Chilean. I'd have guessed some Syrah. It was pretty sweet.

Bringing up the rear were Vinedo Chadwick 05, which I guessed as Italian and lastly Opus I 2005, which is around £120 a bottle. I found some tropical fruit on the nose and it was pretty sweet in the mouth.

Supper afterwards, at the Landmark, was beautifully executed and I had a good group of neighbours, so time flew and when I looked up the room was almost empty - at only 8.50pm. This wine tasting lark is pretty tiring.

_________________
mel

Thanks Mel, keep up the good 'work'.

BRETT,
First, a dull but necessary paragraph to clear up a potential confusion. The name Dekkera is often used interchangeably with Brettanomyces. They are actually the same genus (this is the taxonomic group just above ‘species’), with Dekkera being used for the ascospore-forming (sporogenous) form of this yeast, and Brettanomyces used for the non-spore forming type. There are currently five recognized species of Brettanomyces/Dekkera: B. nanus, B. bruxellensis, B. custersianus and B. naardenensis, with a range of synonyms in common use. Of these, research indicates that B. bruxellensis is the most relevant to wine.

Then we looked at some wines. There were two flights of Pinot Noir, and one of Merlot. Each flight consisted of barrel samples from the same wine which Thomson and his team felt were showing signs of brett. He outlined the sorts of effects of brett on Pinot Noir as the bloom developed:

Progression of effects in Pinot Noir

1. Loss of primary fruit, particularly lifted violet and sweet cherry characters.

2. Loss of new oak characters.

3. Hints of smoke and spice appear (4-ethylguaiacol)

4. The wine begins to smell and taste medicinal (4-ethylphenol)

5. Any silky characters disappear as the wines lose flesh

6. The bones of the wine are exposed, leaving acidity and rustic, drying tannins

7. Aromas of horse and bandaid appear (4-ethylphenol)

Tasting the wines was instructive. They varied from being pretty bright and expressive to rather muted and earthy. But if I’m honest, it was only because this was a brett seminar that I was able to say with any degree of certainty that I was discerning brett in these wines: the effects at this early stage were relatively subtle. ‘These wines still have a lot to lose’, says Thomson, although he reckons that as the brett bloom develops, they will become quite unpleasant.

I can only really comment on the effect of this fungus on wines I know, and have in stock.

Vintage 2004 Cote d'Or is prone, I have one 2004 Nuits St Georges left, it was cheap ! That 2004 nsg needs food, and a couple of 2004 Beaune Teurons 1er that must be drunk soon, but they were much better wines that the NSG. I'd rather have the fruit than the farmyard, but wet dog notes are quite ok and rather interesting in moderation.

I'd like Mel to say more about the 2005 Margeaux that was brett in the mouth - but she is very busy.

As for the 2005 Lafite, I feel that this wine would have wiped-out all others.........had the wine been drunk when it was just ready, yeah ! From at least 2014 onwards.

It seems absolutely mental to serve the 2005 1st growths of Latour and Lafite before they are ready.....More money than Sense ! 2005 is a vintage that compares with the greatest.

_________________
Duncan

You are absolutely right and this is something that we discussed amongst ourselves. However the exercise was to judge the wines against each other ON THE DAY.

The Judgement of Paris, you'll remember, was re-done recently both with the original vintages, 30 years on, and with new wines, and that is a real test.

It is quite a difficult job to divorce yourself from the potential in wines, or what you think they are, and judge that, on that day, wine A is better than wine B and I agree that it isn't a sensible test.

We only had 45 minutes to taste the 12 wines, so my notes aren't terribly full.

Margaux 05 - toasty oak, very new world style, choc/coffee, quite rich colour. over time, cedar nose. Very dry and quite hard, some brett, furry tannins. 2/3 for complexity, 1/3 for balance because the alcohol seemed warm and 2/3 for length. I gave it 16.5 out of 20 and I'm ashamed to say I thought it was Italian.

I wasn't the only person who commented on the Brett. Conal Gregory MP and MW said something like "this is just a really badly made wine" which he will no doubt be teased about for some time.

_________________
mel

Many thanks Mel for the 2005 Margaux assessment.

Margauxs' are generally earlier drinking - but you describe the Grand Vin to be made for Far East palates rather than for European customers. Hmmnn - this is not welcome news for those who could afford, or have tried and have memories of the 82's, 89's 1990 and 95 and 2000 vintages. Furry as in flavour, rather than texture per se' can be a fault from over extraction or late picked fruit with some "dare I say it" - mildew. Well, I've not had the pleasure of trying these wonderful vintages of the Grand Vin, but, I have had wines from land around the circumference of the great Chateau's vineyards. They were never Furry in mouth feel or texture to my mind, or dry'ish even, Ok, they were a bit cloudy. affordable Margaux is never as vivid in the glass like the classed growths - How disappointing for you - Opulent Margaux, appellation margaux's are normally recognisable ?

The 1996 Carruades de Lafite, that I was treated to on 14th April was truely acheingly beautiful to my taste buds (to coin your perfect expression) and NO BRETT AT ALL, as fresh as a daisy, superb acidity and depth. Wonderful to view in the glass - the colour so clear and bright and clean and vivid. No cloudy rubbish in suspension.

But of your session:

For an hour, you did have the best job on the planet - but to be given only an hour to assess and enjoy these fabulous wines is a tall order indeed.

Talking Brett, I realise now, after further research, that the muddy merlot note in that 2002 Bessan Segur CB that prevented me from awarding it an outright "good" was too much brett. Having said that, there is a load of over oaked tat claret out there for £8 a bottle.

I will report on Brett when I finally get round to sampling the better ones in my 2003 left bank collection , I'm believing that there is so much fruit there, that it will be masked anyway, so far so good . The Saint Emilion GC's have been lush - despite what these MW's say of 2003 and it's lack of acidity.

Thanks Mel, you've prompted me to do some brett learning as it relates to claret - in Cote D'Or PN, recognition is straight forward.

_________________
Duncan