You may have heard on the radio this morning that the great California versus Bordeaux wine tasting  Chateau Montelena, A 1976 Winner held in Paris by Stephen Spurrier in 1976, was re- run last night with exactly the same wines, thirty years on, and with equally qualified expert tasters (see www.decanter.com). In 1976 the best wine in both red and white categories was Californian, which caused a hell of a stir amongst the French who incidentally were the majority of tasters, tasting "blind" of course. The comments at the time were that Californian wines often taste better young, but "they wouldn't last the way the French wines would". In the re-run last night everyone including the Californians predicted that the French would win. Well to complete astonishment the top three wines were Californian, lead by one of my favourites Paul Draper's Ridge Montebello! What is even more extraordinary is the panel consisted of the most Bordeaux loving people I know- Hugh Johnson, Jancis Robinson, Michel Bettane, and Michael Broadbent! They voted against their prejudices - good for them in being so objective - but I gather the wines were difficult to tell apart! {mosgoogle}
So what do we make of all this apart from the obvious simple conclusion that Californian wines are better? My own conclusions are threefold. First the two vintages tasted, 1970 and 1971, were pretty uniform in California, whereas whilst the 70 was good in Bordeaux, it doesnt appear to be one of the great long livers like for instance 1928, 29, 45. And the 1971 was a very poor vintage in Bordeaux.
Secondly, I don't know the conditions for the tasting, but I get the impression that the European team was tasting in the evening, and even may have done so over dinner? The US team was tasting in the morning so that the time differences could be accounted for and it could happen simultaneously. For my own part, I am absolutely convinced that tasting is better in the morning. The palate is fresher and more alert, and later in the day it is much harder to pick up detailed nuances. Perhaps over dinner the probably more generous fruit and alchohol of the US wines gave a more pleasing result? Lastly, for me there is not such great surprise. Two of the best bottles I have ever drunk were from Napa Valley, both in awful Bordeaux vintages, the 1941 Inglenook (now the Niebaum Coppola vineyard mainly), and the BV Georges de Latour 1951, the only wine from my birth year worth drinking - the Petrus and Latour 1951 are not bad, but BV would win hands down in comparative tasting. On balance though, Bordeaux I guess makes more great wine than California. After all they have had since the Roman occupation to get it right and produce a good quantity, whereas the best Californian wines are tiny productions, and they have only had since the Spanish missionaries of the 17th century to discover the way to make something exceptional. What I do love though is a good debate, and a good controversy, that's why great wine is such a magnificent subject.
|
