Dinner Monday night at the Shangri La Hotel's continental restaurant "RED" was organized by Bacchus International, Inc. (the importer of the finest Bordeaux in my country, owned and run by the Lichaytoo family - I have no connection with the company), featuring several vintages from Chateau Latour, both the grand vin and Les Forts de Latour. The special guest of the evening was Chateau Latour's president, M. Frederic Engerer.

The evening began with all attendees gathered in the kitchen, served generously with various hors d’oeuvres and glasses of Billecart-Salmon 1985. Over 50 people attended. We eventually made our way through to the restaurant proper and were finally seated. At our table were my wife, the Doc, the Stockbroker, Monty Papa, Vince and Zelie Tan, and, of course, myself.

As I had to be more sociable than usual that evening, my notes were telegraphic at best, virtually bereft of visual descriptions of the wines served; so please bear with me.

In the order they were served:

Les Forts 2003 – Dense, dark purple core, dark ruby blush and highlights. Very ripe, well-rounded dark fruit, blackcurrants, sweetish cedar, touch of dried herbs and a whisper of eucalyptus in the nose; mirrored on the palate with added gentle tobacco notes and unsweetened dark chocolate undertones mid-mouth and to the back. Very primary, very young, more weight and body than other Les Forts I’ve tried; nice and smooth on the tongue, a bit “chunky” – chewy. It reminded me of the 2000 vintage. It tastes like a wine Robert Parker would like.

Latour 2001 – Lighter ruby blush than the 2003 Les Forts. Initial “band-aid” scent (“iodine” said the Doc) that lifted after a few minutes, revealing a sweet cedar and blackcurrant nose. Cassis, cedar and slight leather suggestions in the mouth. The fruit seemed comparatively thinner than the 2003 Les Forts at this point – not very interesting, though pleasantly smooth and with good weight. Needless to state, it is much too young to fairly judge now.

Les Forts 1996 – Pronounced earthy, dusty, musty vegetal scents and some bell pepper over discreet dark fruit and cedar I mused; “mushroom” Monty pointed out. Drinking quite nicely, it was also noticeably more masculine than the other Les Forts served that night. Earthy cassis and leather. Whisper of truffle.

Les Forts 1995 - Sweeter smelling and much less earthy than the 1996. On the palate, it had comparatively less weight and body as well, the matte black fruit/cedar comparatively thinner, not quite full-bodied. Notes of tobacco mid-mouth and drying wood to the back. Decent enough, but I’d drink up now.

Latour 1988 – Subtle, more refined bouquet of mushroom and earth (vis-à-vis the 1996 Les Forts) intricately intertwined with cassis and just a touch of cedar. Thicker, rounder fruit, more weight and less severe than the 1994. I enjoyed this much more, but the ’94 wasn’t a difficult act to follow.

Latour 1994 – Crushed dried bugs in the nose initially. I set it aside for around 20 minutes in hope it would blow off, which most of it eventually did – but I could still detect faint traces of it. In the mouth, fading dark fruit took the backseat to cedar and wood. There were notes of violets, tobacco and a touch of iodine mid-mouth and to the back. Tannic. A noticeably drying, astringent finish.


Latour 1989 – Easily the most fragrant and complex bouquet of the evening with scents of blue roses, vanilla/oak, ripe black fruit, light cassis, undertones of violets, earthy whispers and sweet cedar trailing. The bouquet didn’t last very long though and its promise wasn’t fulfilled in the mouth. Medium weight, cassis, leather, cedar with espresso notes underneath. Well-knit, virtually seamless. More than decent, fine enough drinking; but anti-climactic after the bouquet.

Latour 1990 – The Stockbroker and my wife thought this to have the best bouquet of the evening. I coaxed and cajoled the wine, even sniffed my wife’s glass to compare, but could not agree with them. Smelled like a rich Latour, no doubt - from a well-ripened vintage –to be sure, but I couldn’t find the complexity and layers of the ‘89’s bouquet (admittedly short-lived as it was). In the mouth, however, the ’90 was clearly superior. Ripe, rounded, generous, yet not wantonly so; much better weight and fuller body. Texture was luxurious. Beside the ‘89, it was superb.

That said, for whatever little it’s worth, I found the 1982 clearly superior all around.