Frédéric Engerer, general manager of Châtour Latour, was in town last weekend. An amazing-sounding dinner at The Greenhouse on the Friday night, then a tasting, mainly for sommeliers, on Saturday morning. And not a bottle of Château Latour to be had at either occasion. Why? It was a celebration of Les Forts de Latour, Latour’s second wine.
But, as Engerer outlined, not so much a second wine as a wine from its own vineyards, made to the level of a Second Growth Bordeaux. If it was virtually a different property, why keep the name? ‘I rather like the name,’ he admitted. (And, of course, it comes with the Latour brand attached. That can’t be bad for sales.) ‘Now I want someone else to represent Forts de Latour, because we’re killing ourselves by presenting Latour and Les Forts together,’ Engerer said. (Applications on a Mouton postcard to Latour will not necessarily secure the job.)
He explained how almost all Les Forts comes from two parcels, Petit Batailley and Pinada, to the west of l’Enclos (nearest the river Gironde, and the home of the vines that go into the Grand Vin). How Les Forts always shows the character of the vintage much more clearly than Latour (whose wonderful terroir enables it to make great wines every year!). And how Les Forts always has more Merlot than Latour, usually about 30%. (If the Cabernet Sauvignon from l’Enclos is ripe, very little Merlot gets into Latour.)
We tasted 10 vintages of Les Forts, preceded by the current release of Latour’s third wine, the Pauillac de Latour. This is always intended to be the early bird from the stable, released purely to restaurant trade (that’s the idea, anyway). And when it’s gone, it’s gone. It’s ripe, smooth and red fruited. Bright and fresh, with soft, silky tannins, a stylish but easy-drinking Pauillac.
Then came the run of Les Forts wines, 2006 back to 2000, then 1996, 1995 and 1990. As Engerer had said, vintage showed. 2006 was first out, a real contrast to the Pauillac before. It’s darker, sweeter-fruited and denser, with firmer tannins, good intensity and bright, red and black fruit. It’s very young as yet (Engerer said Les Forts usually takes 10 to 20 years to show its true character). Then came the 2005, true to the excellent year, a wine that definitely needs the ageing, dark, inky, quite treacley on the nose, with rich, soft, velvety tannins, dense and delicious in the mouth. Fabulous wine, that developed more and more muscle in the glass.
The 2004 Forts de Latour is less opulent than the 2005, with a dark, ripe centre, very much in the black fruit spectrum, with a hint of black olives. The palate has very rich tannins, with mulberry and blackberry fruit flavours. The 2003 was a shade disappointing. It’s certainly true to the year, with baked, soft, sweet fruit through nose and palate. Tannins are quite firm, and it finished a little shorter than others. It’s light, easy and very ripe, but I wouldn’t keep it for long! The 2002 was also contentious, from a less ripe vintage, and showing a grassier aspect than others. But on the palate it has freshness and balance, with leafy blackcurrant length. Everyone liked the 2001, sweet-fruited and elegant. It’s a vintage that was neglected after the hype of the 2000s, but has re-emerged as a delightfully poised, traditionally Bordeaux year. This Forts has lovely, sweet, blackcurrant and cedar aromas, with rich, soft, bright flavours. It has beautiful balance, real sweetness to the fruit and savoury balance. Then came the 2000, Engerer’s favourite wine. It’s very big, opulent and flamboyant, very ripe. Engerer said it needed another couple of years. It’s obviously super-ripe, with firm tannins, but seemed to me to lack density. I went back twice, but remained unconvinced. Good but not great.
The gap between 2000 and 1996 was enormous, the difference between unrealised potential and actual drinkability (it’s served its 10 years plus in bottle). Aromas are sweet and candied, and the palate echoes these, with fresh acidity, firm tannins and lovely, candied fruit. Fresh acidity keeps the whole balanced and elegant. The 1995 is the other vintage (with 2003) that suffered from too much heat. And the team at Latour didn’t have the know-how they do now. Sweet, ripe aromas are followed by quite leafy flavours, with slightly dry tannins. This lacks a central richness and finishes firm, with a leafy finish. The last wine was the 1990, very voluptuous and figgy. It’s very seductive, fleshy and smooth, but seemed rather out of line, inviting but lacking the backbone that the other vintage showed. Lovely today, but maybe fading tomorrow.
A fascinating tasting, as you don’t often get the chance to taste ten vintages of a First Growth’s second wine. Thanks to Frédéric Engerer of Latour and Ronan Sayburn of The Greenhouse for organising it. And Engerer made his point. Maybe not the ‘super-seconds’, but Les Forts is certainly up at the level of some Second Growths.