The Lemon Fool

Looking at the menu for the 'Trump' State banquet, it would appear that they paired:
- halibut with an English sparkler
- lamb with Chassagne-Montrachet [white Burgundy chardonnay]
- strawberry pudding with Lafite Rothschild [red Paullac]
- fruit with another English sparkler

I had some mental gymnastics with the middle two: both wonderful wines (I have had the Chassagne-Montrachet but not for poverty reasons the Lafite) but why in this order? As a philistine, I would have paired the lamb with a pinot noir red burgundy such as Meursault or Gevrey Chambertin, and the pudding with ... perhaps the white Chassagne-Montrachet.
Or am I up a old-fashioned culinary gum tree?

stewamax wrote:Looking at the menu for the 'Trump' State banquet, it would appear that they paired:
- halibut with an English sparkler
- lamb with Chassagne-Montrachet [white Burgundy chardonnay]
- strawberry pudding with Lafite Rothschild [red Paullac]
- fruit with another English sparkler

I had some mental gymnastics with the middle two: both wonderful wines (I have had the Chassagne-Montrachet but not for poverty reasons the Lafite) but why in this order? As a philistine, I would have paired the lamb with a pinot noir red burgundy such as Meursault or Gevrey Chambertin, and the pudding with ... perhaps the white Chassagne-Montrachet.
Or am I up a old-fashioned culinary gum tree?

I think you have it out of step. It would make more sense that the fizz was with some sort of amuse bouche, or straight aperitif. Then you have the white burgundy with the fish, claret with the lamb and the Rose with the strawberry sable .

It would indeed. I took the menu from the one printed in Times where food course and wine are listed together.
However, I would still prefer a Pinot Noir burgundy to a Pauillac/Medoc red when pairing with lamb.

stewamax wrote:However, I would still prefer a Pinot Noir burgundy to a Pauillac/Medoc red when pairing with lamb.

It was a 1990, so I think it would have been a softer match than most.

Trump is, or course, famously teetotal, but the thought of having to refuse Lafite Rothschild 1990 makes Lucifer's red-hot poker in the fundament seem positively benign.

stewamax wrote:Trump is, or course, famously teetotal, but the thought of having to refuse Lafite Rothschild 1990 makes Lucifer's red-hot poker in the fundament seem positively benign.

Or even Piers Morgan's nose.

Scott.

stewamax wrote:Trump is, or course, famously teetotal, but the thought of having to refuse Lafite Rothschild 1990 makes Lucifer's red-hot poker in the fundament seem positively benign.

Never heard that. Teetotal like Hitler, or more in the manner of Tartuffe?

But the label will mean even less to a teetotaller than to a regular drinker of cheap plonk. You don't miss what you've never had: hence my lack of any desire to get a telly.

Trump has a family reason: his older brother was ravaged by unremitting alcoholism and died young.

stewamax wrote:Looking at the menu for the 'Trump' State banquet, it would appear that they paired:
- halibut with an English sparkler
- lamb with Chassagne-Montrachet [white Burgundy chardonnay]
- strawberry pudding with Lafite Rothschild [red Paullac]
- fruit with another English sparkler

I had some mental gymnastics with the middle two: both wonderful wines (I have had the Chassagne-Montrachet but not for poverty reasons the Lafite) but why in this order? As a philistine, I would have paired the lamb with a pinot noir red burgundy such as Meursault or Gevrey Chambertin, and the pudding with ... perhaps the white Chassagne-Montrachet.
Or am I up a old-fashioned culinary gum tree?

I love red wine but I also know that a really good piece of lamb is to die for, so perhaps their choice was correct. I wouldn't want a wine competing too strongly with the taste of the lamb. I've also moved on a long way since the old 'red with meat, white with fish' adage.

I normally wouldn't serve a sparkling wine with halibut but maybe it was served as part of an elaborate starter?

Steve

PS No mention of Special Brew?