Clos de L'Olive - Chinon - 1989 - Couly-Dutheil

My first for a couple of years and a welcome return to form.

At first, not very inspiring - the colour was definitely veering towards brown, the aromas were full of leather and autumn leaves, and the first sip was acidic and dry. I didn’t decant, which was probably a mistake, because I would have got to the good part quicker. The problem was, I think, that I had left it standing for a couple of days and the wine in the neck was a little tired.

By the time I got down to the middle of the bottle, the wine was transformed:

Suddenly, rich aromas of sweet black cherry began to pierce the autumn leaves and in the mouth, red cherry and blackberry took over, quite full-bodied and powerful, although very silky and elegant, with a really persistent finish, full of wild strawberry. Over time, there was more blackcurrant in the mix, with a slight minty touch to the finish which gave it some crisp freshness.

Delicious stuff, the best bottle I’ve had since confinement began. 94 points

I’ve had this wine six times over the last five years and this was the best since the first one in 2015. They all came straight from the producer so there is obviously bottle variation, but when it’s on form the Olive 89 is a splendid wine. For wines like this, 30 years old, price is almost immaterial, but remarkably, just like it did in 2015, it still only cost 25 euros. Que demande le peuple?

I did muse about our discussion concerning an imaginary classification of Loire reds while sipping this: Couly-Dutheil is a difficult one to judge. Wines like this are first growth standard, unquestionably. Echo, Olive and Crescendo are all regularly of second growth standard. But I had an Olive 2005 a couple of weeks ago which was absolutely horrible and an Echo 2011 scarcely any better - both were 14.5°. Anything before 2003 is a safe bet, anything after seems to be a lottery: Crescendo 04 is delicious, Echo 04 is not, for example.

I once did a tasting of these wines with someone from the winery at K&L in SF. I also found them really variable. The best bottles we’re lovely and classic. Some seemed very tired, some overly lean and green, and some deep, ripe, and extracted.

As always, Julian, your posts are great, so informative.

I’ve had such variable experience with this estate that I avoid it. I cannot even say that I have had more than one “wow” moment with it. To bad as I see posts from time to time from others that have had bottles that are singing.

Robert - thanks, that’s very kind of you. There are some vintages which would be just up your street - this one and anything from 95 to 2002. I got into the Couly wines after buying some 01 and 02 in 2015, which were an important part of my Loire apprenticeship. I loved them then and still do. The 01 in particular is the best I’ve had from any producer so far. The problem is I bought lots more recent vintages not knowing that they were completely different. Some have been disappointing, some, such as 2010, are coming on well.

Chris - that’s very interesting about the style differences. I think the change was gradual but really became affirmed after the family split in 2005, leaving Arnaud Couly to do what he wanted. He picks late, which can be good in challenging vintages but not so good in ripe ones. It’s infuriating, because 2010 is modern but with good acidity to balance the fruit and 14°, whereas the 2011, which I expected to be leaner, is like a Right Bank fruit bomb.

Thanks for the note Julian. I should tend to my one bottle of this soon.

Thanks for the note. This bottle is the best of the wines I’ve had from this estate. I also bought one of these and one of the '90 Echo that were sold a few years back. I had the 90 Echo twice and found it passable but probably better a while ago. This '89 L’Olive was quite lovely. Though I would recommend they be drank soon. Well worth the $50 I was able to get it for.

The other wine I’ve had from this estate was the '05 Cuvée Crescendo Clos de l’Echo. That was a bizarre Chinon. Showed 15% ABV right on the label. It drank somewhere between a Chinon and a maturing Napa Cab from a non-traditional producer. ‘Burly’ was the best word I could think of for it. I got two bottles at auction out of curiosity and drank them before these '89 and '90’s came around. Even for '05’s I’m not sure I would age them any longer but then again there’s a lot in those bottles. Crazy wines but outside of what I want for Cab Franc from the region.

Greg - I agree with Cris that the 89 needs drinking, but I’ve no doubt yours has been well stored so it could be fine for a bit longer. I’ll have my last one next year. It’s hard to tell with these wines - the 97 Crescendo actually needs another five years, maybe more.

Cris - the Echo 89 is also wonderful if you come across any. Thanks for the info on the Crescendo 05 - which I shall avoid! Actually I got a couple of normal Echos in 05 which sadly also have 15° on the label. I didn’t realise at the time that any Chinon could “achieve” that sort of level. I’m keeping them for a while longer in hope that something good will emerge but I’m not over-optimistic.

I had the same reaction when I read the label. I guess 2005 was hotter in France than I thought.

None of my other Loire reds are over 14° and Breton’s Perrières is a mere 12°! I think they just got a bit carried away that year.

Wine in the neck of the bottle can get tired?

2005 Joguet Dioterie is all of 14.5% and is a big rich wine, definitely ripe but also with big structure.

Nothing seems comparable to 2018. Two Bourgueil from Nau Fréres (whose wine I sell) that were 13.1% and 13.7% respectively in 2017, jumped to 14.9 in 2018. A traditional producer falling prey to global warming. Amazingly, when I tasted them from barrel last year, they retained balance and the alcohol was not overt (and I do not suffer high alcohol well). Time will tell…

I really enjoyed this wine about a year ago:

1989 Couly-Dutheil Chinon Clos de l’Olive Cabernet Franc
3/20/2019 - I like this wine: NR (Edit)

Decanted for sediment. In great shape. Highly aromatic nose of strawberries and rhubarb along with earth tones. On the palate the fruit is complemented by mild anise; with air a vanilla note (not oak) emerges. Clearly not young but not at all tired; the fruit is still the main character. Light, but expansive and silky with a surprisingly long finish. Fun.

On the other hand, I’ve also had some more recent vintages that were awful. A 2005 (Magdelaine cuvee, possibly) stands out as particularly atrocious. I generally avoid the producer except for these older bottles, which pop up from time to time.

Gosh, that wine is highly disappointing, given how well 2009 and 2010 turned out. Calling it a “Right Bank fruit bomb” is very diplomatic of you.

Thank you for the backstory, btw! I hadn’t known of that.

Julian Marshall wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:51 am
The problem was, I think, that I had left it standing for a couple of days and the wine in the neck was a little tired.
Wine in the neck of the bottle can get tired?

The wine had to climb all of the way up from the bottom of the bottle. It must be exhausted!

Had a bottle of this double blind last year, and while it couldn’t quite keep up with a 1982 Canon next to it, I was really taken by this.

Thanks to all for chiming in.

Greg - I’m wary of 2018 but so far, none of the wines I have bought have unusually high alcohol levels and most are between 13 and 13.5° so fingers crossed for the others!

Elliot - sounds excellent - I think I shall decant mine next time.

Hal and Chris - well, yes, that’s what it tasted like anyway! I should have added that I had opened the bottle several hours before trying it. It’s not the first time that I’ve noticed this but I’ve never included it before in a post - because I agree that it sounds really stupid! I did so this time because the difference was so flagrant. Anyway it seems logical - the top is in contact with air.

Markus - well, you know us Brits, always diplomatic (AKA pussy-footing)! I had a half of 2011 a couple of weeks ago which was a syrupy mess. Glad to read that 09 is good since I haven’t tried mine yet.

Pat - if it didn’t look ridiculous next to a Canon 82 that’s praise indeed!

Robert - I suspect you meant 2005 because the 2015 is 13.5°, FWIW! I think some 05s taste big and rich anyway - the Chevalerie Busardières 05 I tried last year was ostensibly 13° but to me it tasted more like 14.5°.

Yes 2005, that was a typo above that I just corrected.

Interesting, we had the '89 and '97 Clos Echo a few weeks ago, and thought they were marvelous. We had the 90 about a year ago, and really liked it as well.

The 89 and 97 are indeed great Echos, Eric. I’ve never tried the 90, though.

As a footnote, I tasted the rest of the Olive 89 alongside the rest of a Boyd-Cantenac 2000 last night - admittedly, the Boyd was a slight disappointment (plenty of upfront, sweet fruit but not as complex as I hoped), but the Olive wiped the floor with it. Literally no comparison, and if anything the Boyd just served to highlight how good the Olive was.
It’s funny how one’s perceptions can change. If someone had told me a few years ago that a Chinon 89 would be still drinkable now, let alone shoot down in flames a Margaux CC 2000, I would have smiled politely.