It's always a privilege to taste with the Chevaliers. This is a grand dinner, formal and well organized. The whole atmosphere was fun-filled and full of camarederie. Lots of singing, generous food and good wine. A very merry bunch indeed!
As far as the wines go, there were quite a number of less than stellar appearances, but the whole experience was very educational nonetheless. I also question the fact that in such a dinner where almost a whole case of wines are presented each round, whether the luck factor of having a less-than-pristine bottle is the main factor for the lesser experience. It might well have been...
We started with two whites, both Chassagne 1er crus. The 2001 Bachelet-Ramonet Chassagne-Montrachet Morgeot has a deep golden hue to it. Ripe nose with figs and pears. On the palate it's straightforward and finishes with rather honeyed taste and texture. Too advanced for its age in my opinion. The 1999 Vincent Girardin Chassagne-Montrachet la Romanee has a distinctly flinty nose. Nicely structured, enters sweet and light at its feet. Over time, the acidity carries the finish nicely long and focussed. Good. Both wines work quite nicely with the Guinea fowl and truffle dish, particularly the Girardin as it had more cut and length.
The next course of Oeufs Meurette (which was very tasty and heartily creamy) was paired with Bachelet-Ramonet Batard-Montrachet 1985, a wine which -- at least per what I had -- sounded a lot more promising that it did deliver. Rather tired and cheesy nose (too young to be cheesy?!) with a plain and nondescript palate. Very little fruits left, although on the nose it still had that honeyed hint, just a hint, typical of a more mature white burgundy. Disappointing, coming from such a famed grand cru and vintage.
(A fourth unofficial white was added later -- 1999 Vincent Girardin Puligny-Montrachet les Truffieres. This wine has plenty of volume and punch in the mouth. Ripe, forward yet balanced. From a technical standpoint, this was actually the best wine, although I did enjoy the la Romanee's penetrating finish more...)
The veal-cheek with Sarawk pepper and sweet potato mash dish (the veal was overdone and too tough) was paired with a duo of 1981 Lamarche Clos de Vougeot and 1985 Raphet Charmes-Chambertin. The Clos Vougeot was rather stinky and disturbed, giving off a hefty stale meat nuance in the nose at first. With some aeration, the wine turned sweeter and the frame nicely held its own for the next half-hour or so. By the end of the dinner, the wine was astringent and green. A sign of the weaker vintage if not anything else. Quite well made... The Charmes was immediately cleaner and more lush on the nose. Rather plush and brightly coloured when compared to the preceding wine too. Very ripe dark cherries I could find here, but the structure somewhat just did not highlight the fruits. Finishes rather dusty and stalky.
At this juncture, I was almost jaded, hoping against hopes that the last two wines would somewhat save the night. Indeed, a nice turnaround! The cheese platter was served with two vintages of Clos des Lambrays: 1988 and 2002. The 1988 had such deep red hue so typical of hardcore vintages. Nicely perfumed with damp earth, sweet mushrooms, intense black fruits and a very nice pitch. This wine was very nicely balanced -- not showy, not hugely concentrated, with just an adequate intensity. What it lacked in sweetness and volume (in typical grand cru wines) it made up for in terms of elegance and penetrating structure (oh-so-important in aged wines!) This wine in fact survived the night so well it hardly changed a bit two hours later... The 2002 was in contrast very much more berry-scented. Very red fruited, with a ripe sappiness not uncharacteristic of the vintage. It comes across as quite modern too, with a fruit-forward simplicity -- which I personally think was very deceptive. The finish has a sleek yet discreet minerally lift and, despite the candied raspberries sweetness, is actually quite light on its feet. I sense an upside in this wine. It's just too simple at this point, and well, no, it did not displace the 1988 as my wine of the night...
Oh yes, before I forget, this was the night that I was inducted into the confrerie too along with five other distinguished members. The whole proceedings were fun and meaningful. And the wine of the induction ceremony? A certain vintage's Potel Romanee-St.-Vivant... Nice, but would be even better if we've had it in a glass!
19 December, 2005
27 November, 2005
BurgFest 2005 Vol.III -- 2001 Gevrey-Chambertin Grand Crus
The lineup as we knew it prior:
There were fabulous whites too. We had two as aperitifs: 2002 Chandon de Briailles Corton Blanc and 1998 Rapet Corton-Charlemagne. I'm beginning to sense that coincidentally or not, we're beginning to skew towards Corton whites as aperitifs for our formal burg tasting events. Hmmm... Hey, I have no issues with that.
The Corton blanc was fat and textured, with an almost oily viscosity. I noticed that although it was round and full in the mouth, the finish was sort of clipped, and lacked the acid lift I would expect from a 2002. Fortunately this was temporary. A few minutes of airing and the wine put on length and a green apple like acid finish later on. Nice and quite delicious. Reminded me a bit of 2000 whites.
The Corton charlie smelled evolved on the outset. In the palate it was noticeably sweeter and more lacy than the preceding wine. However, the palate was certainly more youthful than the nose. The nose developed later and put on more freshness. Interesting. Again, apple skins and lime oils are featured here. Accessible and ready.
And now the reds.
#1 - Reticent in the nose at first, but in the palate all-cherry explosion with charming floral expression. With aeration, soy and earthy flavours emerged. Sweetness due to wood was detected but the wine was very well-pitched. The nose turned flinty afterwards. Lots of delicious fruits. I thought it was a Latricieres, but it was Magnien's Clos de Beze.
#2 - Explosive crunchy sweet red fruits on the nose. In the palate, no different. The fruits were almost raspberry, but with a coolness that only Gevrey could do. It was all soft and sexy. Unfortunately the fruits receded later on and some traces of wood began to show later. I thought this was very Griotte because of its rather flamboyant, all-charming character and the lack of apparent structure. Shoots! No, it's Clair's Clos de Beze.
#3 - Nothing but reticent woodspice at first. Very closed, very structured, unyielding. Promises solid materials though... Later on, classic Gevrey aromas and unmistakable minerality. Almost salty, soil-taste with metallic sheen and lengthy palate stanining finish. Impressive. Could it be the Ruchottes? No. Jadot's Chapelle-Chambertin.
#4 - Slightly floral stemmy nose. Rather simple in the mouth, and an obvious dusty finish. Sweet but rather soupy in texture. Some lightness and lift, and a sweet-tea-like aromas came on subsequent visits. Roumier's Ruchottes-Chambertin.
#5 - Very dark red, almost purplish. Decidedly modern, very ripe and very big. Toasty and curranty. I am not sure I like it. Some Gevrey tell-tale in the nose but other than that very hard to place the origin of this wine. Dugat-Py Mazis-Chambertin.
#6 - Immediately shouts "Gevrey!" on the nose. Slightly stewey, but high-pitched. Very sweet, bright with persistent black cherries on the palate. Smoky and flinty aromas with deep and pungent minerality. The breed is apparent here. Superb. I was quite convinced this was Clair's Clos de Beze because of the pungent minerality. Nope... Trapet's Latricieres-Chambertin. Very good show.
#7 - High-toned, fleshy crushed dark raspberries nose but with solid Gevrey minerality nuances. Very sweet and rather extracted. Viscous and decidedly very ripe. Sweet and long finish, sappy but rather cloying. Impressively built and a bit over-the-top to my taste. Roty's Charmes-Chambertin.
#8 - This is hard to miss: bacon-fat. This fatty, oily Gevrey nose is quite special. Delicious on the palate, yet rather simple at this juncture. A lush wine but lacking in apparent lift and grip. Somewhat the sweetness is shy and not quite as expressively long as the others...? Rousseau's Chambertin.
#9 - Very creamy and powerful nose of black cherries. Rather sappy and quite massive in the mouth. Spherically textured, no angle whatsoever. Sweet and nicely pitched, and not cloying at all. Very nice and a showstopper. I thought this was the Roty as the built was almost unmistakable. Wrong! Dugat's Griotte-Chambertin.
#10 - This is a very deceptive wine. It appears rather modern and straightforward. But beneath there's plenty of layers and it constantly evolved. Very ripe yet still Gevrey nose. Rather oaky but sheds this quickly to reveal lots of minerality. The fruits unfold slowly but surely to a very nicely pitched, if not rather monolithic but classy wine dominated by red fruits. I thought this was Rousseau's Chambertin. Half-right only -- Charlopin-Parizot's Chambertin.
#11 - Luscious red fruits with a certain sauvage character. This was what we thought we're looking for in a Mazis...? Wood is still rather obvious at this point but salvaged by a solid delineating acid-lift. A Mazis? No. Perrot-Minot Mazoyeres-Chambertin.
The wines were all excellent in my opinion, showing grand cru breed and the commune it came from. What was not easy to tell was the nuances that separate, say, the Charmes from the Latricieres from the Mazis -- not that this was ever easy to begin with. But it was particularly tricky tonight. I had none of my guess correct. Except for 1/2, that is, wine #10 was indeed a Chambertin, but wrong producer.
So what could have gone 'wrong'? Well, let's not worry about the scores of how many wines each person got correct for a moment. The fact is that there's nothing wrong with any of the wines. The key question to ask is this: is there a distinction between one wine to the next and can the distinction be related to the specific terroir? Recall now that we hold the vintage factor constant this time, and the commune too. Since Gevrey has relatively pronounced characteristic features, the overall flavour factor is also held somewhat constant. But this is a very large commune, and with 9 plots of grand crus. Being a burgundy, each must therefore be different, and represent something peculiar about its terroir. So the answer to the above question is yes, there are differences as noted in the tasting, and quite obvious in most cases too. Whether or not we could map these differences to just plain terroir is another completely different question altogether.
Again, as we fast forward to the results, and as I try to reconcile the outcome from the analyses from the semi-blind tasting, I can't help but make these observations:
Let's plan for the next Burgfest early next year!
- Chambertin, Armand Rousseau
- Chambertin, Philippe Charlopin-Parizot
- Chambertin-Clos de Bèze, Bruno Clair
- Chambertin-Clos de Bèze, Frédéric Magnien
- Ruchottes-Chambertin, Georges Roumier
- Mazis-Chambertin, Dugat-Py
- Chapelle-Chambertin, Louis Jadot
- Griotte-Chambertin, Claude Dugat
- Latricières-Chambertin, Jean et Jean-Louis Trapet
- Charmes-Chambertin, Joseph Roty
- Mazoyères-Chambertin, Perrot-Minot
There were fabulous whites too. We had two as aperitifs: 2002 Chandon de Briailles Corton Blanc and 1998 Rapet Corton-Charlemagne. I'm beginning to sense that coincidentally or not, we're beginning to skew towards Corton whites as aperitifs for our formal burg tasting events. Hmmm... Hey, I have no issues with that.
The Corton blanc was fat and textured, with an almost oily viscosity. I noticed that although it was round and full in the mouth, the finish was sort of clipped, and lacked the acid lift I would expect from a 2002. Fortunately this was temporary. A few minutes of airing and the wine put on length and a green apple like acid finish later on. Nice and quite delicious. Reminded me a bit of 2000 whites.
The Corton charlie smelled evolved on the outset. In the palate it was noticeably sweeter and more lacy than the preceding wine. However, the palate was certainly more youthful than the nose. The nose developed later and put on more freshness. Interesting. Again, apple skins and lime oils are featured here. Accessible and ready.
And now the reds.
#1 - Reticent in the nose at first, but in the palate all-cherry explosion with charming floral expression. With aeration, soy and earthy flavours emerged. Sweetness due to wood was detected but the wine was very well-pitched. The nose turned flinty afterwards. Lots of delicious fruits. I thought it was a Latricieres, but it was Magnien's Clos de Beze.
#2 - Explosive crunchy sweet red fruits on the nose. In the palate, no different. The fruits were almost raspberry, but with a coolness that only Gevrey could do. It was all soft and sexy. Unfortunately the fruits receded later on and some traces of wood began to show later. I thought this was very Griotte because of its rather flamboyant, all-charming character and the lack of apparent structure. Shoots! No, it's Clair's Clos de Beze.
#3 - Nothing but reticent woodspice at first. Very closed, very structured, unyielding. Promises solid materials though... Later on, classic Gevrey aromas and unmistakable minerality. Almost salty, soil-taste with metallic sheen and lengthy palate stanining finish. Impressive. Could it be the Ruchottes? No. Jadot's Chapelle-Chambertin.
#4 - Slightly floral stemmy nose. Rather simple in the mouth, and an obvious dusty finish. Sweet but rather soupy in texture. Some lightness and lift, and a sweet-tea-like aromas came on subsequent visits. Roumier's Ruchottes-Chambertin.
#5 - Very dark red, almost purplish. Decidedly modern, very ripe and very big. Toasty and curranty. I am not sure I like it. Some Gevrey tell-tale in the nose but other than that very hard to place the origin of this wine. Dugat-Py Mazis-Chambertin.
#6 - Immediately shouts "Gevrey!" on the nose. Slightly stewey, but high-pitched. Very sweet, bright with persistent black cherries on the palate. Smoky and flinty aromas with deep and pungent minerality. The breed is apparent here. Superb. I was quite convinced this was Clair's Clos de Beze because of the pungent minerality. Nope... Trapet's Latricieres-Chambertin. Very good show.
#7 - High-toned, fleshy crushed dark raspberries nose but with solid Gevrey minerality nuances. Very sweet and rather extracted. Viscous and decidedly very ripe. Sweet and long finish, sappy but rather cloying. Impressively built and a bit over-the-top to my taste. Roty's Charmes-Chambertin.
#8 - This is hard to miss: bacon-fat. This fatty, oily Gevrey nose is quite special. Delicious on the palate, yet rather simple at this juncture. A lush wine but lacking in apparent lift and grip. Somewhat the sweetness is shy and not quite as expressively long as the others...? Rousseau's Chambertin.
#9 - Very creamy and powerful nose of black cherries. Rather sappy and quite massive in the mouth. Spherically textured, no angle whatsoever. Sweet and nicely pitched, and not cloying at all. Very nice and a showstopper. I thought this was the Roty as the built was almost unmistakable. Wrong! Dugat's Griotte-Chambertin.
#10 - This is a very deceptive wine. It appears rather modern and straightforward. But beneath there's plenty of layers and it constantly evolved. Very ripe yet still Gevrey nose. Rather oaky but sheds this quickly to reveal lots of minerality. The fruits unfold slowly but surely to a very nicely pitched, if not rather monolithic but classy wine dominated by red fruits. I thought this was Rousseau's Chambertin. Half-right only -- Charlopin-Parizot's Chambertin.
#11 - Luscious red fruits with a certain sauvage character. This was what we thought we're looking for in a Mazis...? Wood is still rather obvious at this point but salvaged by a solid delineating acid-lift. A Mazis? No. Perrot-Minot Mazoyeres-Chambertin.
The wines were all excellent in my opinion, showing grand cru breed and the commune it came from. What was not easy to tell was the nuances that separate, say, the Charmes from the Latricieres from the Mazis -- not that this was ever easy to begin with. But it was particularly tricky tonight. I had none of my guess correct. Except for 1/2, that is, wine #10 was indeed a Chambertin, but wrong producer.
So what could have gone 'wrong'? Well, let's not worry about the scores of how many wines each person got correct for a moment. The fact is that there's nothing wrong with any of the wines. The key question to ask is this: is there a distinction between one wine to the next and can the distinction be related to the specific terroir? Recall now that we hold the vintage factor constant this time, and the commune too. Since Gevrey has relatively pronounced characteristic features, the overall flavour factor is also held somewhat constant. But this is a very large commune, and with 9 plots of grand crus. Being a burgundy, each must therefore be different, and represent something peculiar about its terroir. So the answer to the above question is yes, there are differences as noted in the tasting, and quite obvious in most cases too. Whether or not we could map these differences to just plain terroir is another completely different question altogether.
Again, as we fast forward to the results, and as I try to reconcile the outcome from the analyses from the semi-blind tasting, I can't help but make these observations:
- One thing I note about Gevrey wines in particular is that as one moves up the cru hierarchy, the wines tend to become more sleek and understated. The measure of richness of a Gevrey grand cru is not found in concentration and opulence of the fruits, but instead one must work hard to look out for texture in the midpalate, depth and unique inner-mouth perfume -- not at all an easy task. And these are the very qualities the wines are very shy to show in its youth. A Chambertin is a good example. When one expects that Chambertin is a masculine and powerful wine, this statement should not to be taken at 'face' value. There is nothing in-your-face about a Chambertin and its masculinity is not about structure and grip. Rather it's about the shape of the wine in the mouth -- a Chambertin almost always tastes square in the mouth (whereas Clos de Beze tends to be sexier and more briary). In its youth it tends to appear simple, but the evolving fruits have an immense reserve and depth. But these are all very inward qualities that need to be searched hard.
- I often wonder about the effect of decanting on burgundies. In the past I have always resisted the idea of decanting red burgundies to open up the wine. However, recently, I am experimenting more. Some young wines are just impossibly massive and tight-fisted without extended aeration (Roty's Charmes and Comte Armand's Clos des Epeneaux as an example) and my experiences tasting them out of decanter after one or two hours had been quite positive as the wines thereafter showed more layers than just straight out of the bottle. I do notice too, however, that the sweetness of decanted burgundies tend to have a slightly waxy sappiness to it at the finish. However, this flaw, if you will, taken against the prospect of a clammed monolith seems rather forgivable in comparison. Tonight, almost all the wines were double decanted -- though for only less than an hour -- except for two, Clair's Clos de Beze and Perrot-Minot's Mazoyeres. It would remain difficult to judge if the decanting had irreversibly altered the wines' palate profiles -- it certainly had an impact -- but for certain wines which I thought I knew quite well, e.g., Roty's Charmes and Rousseau's Chambertin, my memory of the past bottles had just been aerated in-bottle certainly was better pitched and its nuances were more clear and obvious.
- The winemaking style of the domaine almost always adds a significant effect to the wines. Some, in my opinion, were detrimental, such as the case with Dugat-Py. While the wine was not bad, the winemaking choices had made the wine lose its sense of origin -- wood, overripeness, extraction... Some others were quite a revelation. For example, I had always been skeptical with Charlopin's winemaking style in the past -- in my opinion, decidedly new world. Several examples, such as his Charmes and Echezeaux left me with disappointing conclusions. Tonight, his Chambertin was one of my picks for the night. There are several possibilities. Either he had moderated his winemaking style, or for this particular cuvee he's just done a significantly different piece of work. Whichever is the case, I have now learnt to never ever write off a producer and be ever ready to taste objectively and as widely as possible.
Let's plan for the next Burgfest early next year!
18 October, 2005
Redefinition
Tonight I'm taking time to recall wines which redefined my understanding of the terroir it came from. These are the wines that expressed the most individualistic and uncharted heights of the vineyards... They have typicity yet atypical in the aspects of greatness they've achieved... They are an uncommon blend of extreme intelligence of the winemaker and the deep soul of the vineyards... They are straightforward delicious yet mind-bogglingly complex... Here are some of those which I can remember vividly:
- Comte Armand Pommard Clos des Epeneaux 02 redefined Pommard to me
- Henri Jayer redefined Echezeaux to me
- Marquis d'Angerville Volnay Clos des Ducs 90 redefined Volnay to me
- Joseph Roty Charmes-Chambertin TVV 97 redefined Charmes-Chambertin to me
- Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres 96 redefined Meursault to me
- Didier Dagueneau Silex 02 redefined Pouilly-Fume to me
- Henri Bonneau Chateauneuf du Pape Reserve des Celestins (any vintage) redefined CDP and grenache-based wines to me
- Radio-Coteau Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast "Hellenthal" 02 redefined new world pinot noir to me
- Trimbach Clos Ste Hune 90 Riesling redefined dry Riesling to me
25 September, 2005
Salvation Army charity dinner @ Ming San's (Red Burgundy 1998 Grand Crus)
Most hospitable hosts Ming San and his wife are. The proceeds of this tasting are strictly for charity to the children's funds of Salvation Army -- which, I was told, would be very significant for them. God bless them all... Anyway, both the food and the wines were fantastic! A very satisfying dinner on all counts. I went home a very happy man, and let me tell you one of the reasons: the wines.
We started the night with two Corton Charlies. Before I proceed, let me admit that I have a certain fondness for Corton Charlemagne. For most people, they are four-square, impressive but rather charmless whites. But to me they combine the structural austerity of the best Chablis with the voluminous density of a Cote-de-Beaune grand cru. Make no mistake, they not very expressive, friendly wines, hence not so easily appreciated. Nonetheless, the Bonneau du Martray 1996 we had was fabulous. It had a mixed reticence of lime skin and slightly cheesy aromas (at first) but gave way to a rather generous, fruit-front, almost oily-textured palate framed with energetic lemony acids. It was at once voluminous and penetrating, and had an almost spherical texture in the mouth. Deliciously good.
The Rollin 1996 Corton Charlie however was quite different. Andy said there was an aroma of 'rubber' -- which I understood. To me there was a rather chemical-solvent like aromas interspersed with pear. Minerally oyster shells were discerned on the palate. The wine entered very linearly in the mouth, promising a good cut but seriously lacked both volume and penetration for a wine of such calibre. Although the acid angle was there, it ended short with a bitter tinge on the finish. Now, on to the reds...
1998 Drouhin-Laroze Bonnes-Mares had a lightish, very translucent colour. On the nose, green grape stems and cooked cherries. It was equally green on the palate. Besides, this wine lacked depth, sweetness and volume. Over time it gave off slightly cheesy aromas and the stemminess became slightly floral. Too bad the palate and finish were both hollow, grainy and short.
Potel's 1998 Bonnes-Mares was a big contrast to the previous wine. Although it also had that stemmy edge on the nose, this wine had a full-on dark fruits approach to it. There was, however, a certain stink that I found in a lot of southern Rhone wines -- something slightly brett-like (I tend to mistake this for reductive-ness, but this one is also present in the palate, hence can't be reduction). This wine is quite sweet, rich and voluminous. It's no doubt a well-made, albeit rather full-on wine. Finishes rather dry-edged and powdery.
Taking a more sedate turn, I appreciate the next wine: Clos de Lambrays 1998. On the nose it already showed the regal expansiveness and depth befitting its cru -- at once refined and sweet. Deep, bright red, it showed dark cherries and raspberries in a very elegant frame. Dense, plush, sweet entry that gently persisted to the finish, this is a delicious mouthcoating wine that was gripping from start to finish. I liked the slightly saline tastiness that developed over extended aeration. It's got the 'dirt' factor! Turned firmer at the very end. Excellent.
Talking about full-on, take-no-prisoners wine, the next wine is close to it. The 1998 Clos de Tart came immediately as a massive, wooded-style burgundy. The wine is powerful and the fruits came across as almost roasted. The wealth of fruits was at this point still overshadowed by a chocolatey and fine-grained oaky sweetness. Too frontal for my taste although the overall showmanship was quite impressive. I'd have appreciated more depth and cooler fruits in my burgundies.
Bruno Clair's wine is not easy to appreciate. Clair's wines are contemplative in nature and, especially in a comparative tasting, tend to be underwhelming compared to its peers. This might explain why some of our table-mates had a preference on Groffier's interpretation of the Chambertin Clos de Beze 1998 flight. Unmistakably Gevrey metallic red-fruits nose, Clair's Chambertin Clos de Beze had crushed cherries and ripe strawberries. In the mouth it too was shyly sweet but had a certain inner-mouth minerally pungency which I associate with Clair's wines -- an attribute which is not easily discernible, but an important one that gives it its uniqueness. Subtle saline minerality is found in the palate framed with a backward tannic spine. Still, I had hoped for more cut and angle at the finish. Otherwise this is a serious, understated and pure wine. Very good.
In contrast, Groffier's Chambertin Clos de Beze was a more lush and expressive version. Ripe raspberries and hints of caramels on the nose and similar profile on the palate. This wine is generous and sappy, and technically very competent, albeit rather oak-driven. However, the overall impression is that of breadth and waxy sweetness, not depth and layered complexity. A crowd-pleaser, actually my basic issue with this wine is its lack of typicity. Blind me and I'd guess Chambolle-Musigny -- and should it be such, I question, especially when this is supposed to have hailed from one of the two most renowned grand cru plots in Gevrey-Chambertin?
The next flight was Vosne-Romanee's grand crus. Robert Arnoux's Romanee St. Vivant 1998 had that tell-tale Arnoux meatstock aromas with a very Vosne-like spicy black fruits supporting it. This wine reminds me of a classier version of his Suchots -- every bit as complex and completely stuffed with black and red fruits, but with more elegance and depth, and one which is texturally silkier. This had an almost confectionery like sweetness in the mouth kept lively without undue palate weight. Excellent.
Domaine de la Romanee Conti's Romanee St. Vivant 1998 is a very different interpretation. Immediately classier and cooler right from the nose, it had an almost minty lift with sweet cherries and beetroot hints (stems?) What hit me was its transparency and nonchalant elegance. Although at this point the Arnoux is more stuffed and complete, I liked DRC's cool complexity. Holding its own in the glass, it put on even more sweetness over time but remain weightless in the mouth. There are layers here, again, just waiting to unfold. Classy juice. Excellent.
I recalled being taken aback by Domaine Dujac's Echezeaux 1998 when it was first released. I had always enjoyed Dujac's wines for its flirtatious femininity and aromatic seductiveness. But he seemed to be marching to a different beat in 1998. Even tonight, I noted the same tomato, roast coffee and chocolates in the palate as I had years ago. Its fruit profile hints at sur-maturite, and with a saline impression of extract (not to be confused with saline minerality here...) Alcohol impression was not shy either. This is again a very frontal wine: unabashedly luscious but devoid of midpalate sweetness which I seek in a good burgundy. New-worldish and shallow. Disappointing.
The good thing tonight is that for every less favourable turn, the next wine always came up refreshingly and genuinely good. And so was George et Henri Jayer's Echezeaux 1998 which followed on Dujac's out-of-whack showing. This wine was compact and massive -- perhaps too youthful tonight -- but no doubt had tremendous upside ahead of it. While the Dujac could have come from everywhere (new world included), one sniff of this and this could only be a Vosne-Romanee. Warmly enveloping, cosy nose of black cherries and redcurrants jump amidst hints of creme brulee backdrop. Implosive in the mouth with pungent smoky minerality of the best of Gevrey and the candied sappy sweetness of a charming Chambolle on the midpalate. This is one of the rare occassion where you could taste the shape of the wine: it was utterly spherical in the mouth. Despite the size, it's thoroughly balanced. I wonder when this baby is ready what the layers expression would become... Special.
The last wine was served blind. It had a seductively cool, candied, creamy, caramelly redcurrants and raspberries with violet hints on the nose. Gosh, this was complex... At once I thought of a Chambolle a la de Vogue. The otherwise deep, penetrating, bright and luscious red fruits interestingly had a very steely nervous backbone of uncommon minerality especially for a Chambolle. There were complication nuances of dark chocolates, but the core remained bracingly structured and minerally fresh. A complete wine. It can only be a Le Musigny. No wonder they call it one of the most profound piece of 'dirt' in Cote d'Or -- Comte de Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes 1998. Special.
Before we called it the night we took some time to plot possible future events. A riesling dim sum luncheon? A 1996 white burgundy comparative? A vertical of Comte de Vogue's Musigny? Well, all sounds good to me! You can't blame me if I already look forward to the next occasion(s)...
We started the night with two Corton Charlies. Before I proceed, let me admit that I have a certain fondness for Corton Charlemagne. For most people, they are four-square, impressive but rather charmless whites. But to me they combine the structural austerity of the best Chablis with the voluminous density of a Cote-de-Beaune grand cru. Make no mistake, they not very expressive, friendly wines, hence not so easily appreciated. Nonetheless, the Bonneau du Martray 1996 we had was fabulous. It had a mixed reticence of lime skin and slightly cheesy aromas (at first) but gave way to a rather generous, fruit-front, almost oily-textured palate framed with energetic lemony acids. It was at once voluminous and penetrating, and had an almost spherical texture in the mouth. Deliciously good.
The Rollin 1996 Corton Charlie however was quite different. Andy said there was an aroma of 'rubber' -- which I understood. To me there was a rather chemical-solvent like aromas interspersed with pear. Minerally oyster shells were discerned on the palate. The wine entered very linearly in the mouth, promising a good cut but seriously lacked both volume and penetration for a wine of such calibre. Although the acid angle was there, it ended short with a bitter tinge on the finish. Now, on to the reds...
1998 Drouhin-Laroze Bonnes-Mares had a lightish, very translucent colour. On the nose, green grape stems and cooked cherries. It was equally green on the palate. Besides, this wine lacked depth, sweetness and volume. Over time it gave off slightly cheesy aromas and the stemminess became slightly floral. Too bad the palate and finish were both hollow, grainy and short.
Potel's 1998 Bonnes-Mares was a big contrast to the previous wine. Although it also had that stemmy edge on the nose, this wine had a full-on dark fruits approach to it. There was, however, a certain stink that I found in a lot of southern Rhone wines -- something slightly brett-like (I tend to mistake this for reductive-ness, but this one is also present in the palate, hence can't be reduction). This wine is quite sweet, rich and voluminous. It's no doubt a well-made, albeit rather full-on wine. Finishes rather dry-edged and powdery.
Taking a more sedate turn, I appreciate the next wine: Clos de Lambrays 1998. On the nose it already showed the regal expansiveness and depth befitting its cru -- at once refined and sweet. Deep, bright red, it showed dark cherries and raspberries in a very elegant frame. Dense, plush, sweet entry that gently persisted to the finish, this is a delicious mouthcoating wine that was gripping from start to finish. I liked the slightly saline tastiness that developed over extended aeration. It's got the 'dirt' factor! Turned firmer at the very end. Excellent.
Talking about full-on, take-no-prisoners wine, the next wine is close to it. The 1998 Clos de Tart came immediately as a massive, wooded-style burgundy. The wine is powerful and the fruits came across as almost roasted. The wealth of fruits was at this point still overshadowed by a chocolatey and fine-grained oaky sweetness. Too frontal for my taste although the overall showmanship was quite impressive. I'd have appreciated more depth and cooler fruits in my burgundies.
Bruno Clair's wine is not easy to appreciate. Clair's wines are contemplative in nature and, especially in a comparative tasting, tend to be underwhelming compared to its peers. This might explain why some of our table-mates had a preference on Groffier's interpretation of the Chambertin Clos de Beze 1998 flight. Unmistakably Gevrey metallic red-fruits nose, Clair's Chambertin Clos de Beze had crushed cherries and ripe strawberries. In the mouth it too was shyly sweet but had a certain inner-mouth minerally pungency which I associate with Clair's wines -- an attribute which is not easily discernible, but an important one that gives it its uniqueness. Subtle saline minerality is found in the palate framed with a backward tannic spine. Still, I had hoped for more cut and angle at the finish. Otherwise this is a serious, understated and pure wine. Very good.
In contrast, Groffier's Chambertin Clos de Beze was a more lush and expressive version. Ripe raspberries and hints of caramels on the nose and similar profile on the palate. This wine is generous and sappy, and technically very competent, albeit rather oak-driven. However, the overall impression is that of breadth and waxy sweetness, not depth and layered complexity. A crowd-pleaser, actually my basic issue with this wine is its lack of typicity. Blind me and I'd guess Chambolle-Musigny -- and should it be such, I question, especially when this is supposed to have hailed from one of the two most renowned grand cru plots in Gevrey-Chambertin?
The next flight was Vosne-Romanee's grand crus. Robert Arnoux's Romanee St. Vivant 1998 had that tell-tale Arnoux meatstock aromas with a very Vosne-like spicy black fruits supporting it. This wine reminds me of a classier version of his Suchots -- every bit as complex and completely stuffed with black and red fruits, but with more elegance and depth, and one which is texturally silkier. This had an almost confectionery like sweetness in the mouth kept lively without undue palate weight. Excellent.
Domaine de la Romanee Conti's Romanee St. Vivant 1998 is a very different interpretation. Immediately classier and cooler right from the nose, it had an almost minty lift with sweet cherries and beetroot hints (stems?) What hit me was its transparency and nonchalant elegance. Although at this point the Arnoux is more stuffed and complete, I liked DRC's cool complexity. Holding its own in the glass, it put on even more sweetness over time but remain weightless in the mouth. There are layers here, again, just waiting to unfold. Classy juice. Excellent.
I recalled being taken aback by Domaine Dujac's Echezeaux 1998 when it was first released. I had always enjoyed Dujac's wines for its flirtatious femininity and aromatic seductiveness. But he seemed to be marching to a different beat in 1998. Even tonight, I noted the same tomato, roast coffee and chocolates in the palate as I had years ago. Its fruit profile hints at sur-maturite, and with a saline impression of extract (not to be confused with saline minerality here...) Alcohol impression was not shy either. This is again a very frontal wine: unabashedly luscious but devoid of midpalate sweetness which I seek in a good burgundy. New-worldish and shallow. Disappointing.
The good thing tonight is that for every less favourable turn, the next wine always came up refreshingly and genuinely good. And so was George et Henri Jayer's Echezeaux 1998 which followed on Dujac's out-of-whack showing. This wine was compact and massive -- perhaps too youthful tonight -- but no doubt had tremendous upside ahead of it. While the Dujac could have come from everywhere (new world included), one sniff of this and this could only be a Vosne-Romanee. Warmly enveloping, cosy nose of black cherries and redcurrants jump amidst hints of creme brulee backdrop. Implosive in the mouth with pungent smoky minerality of the best of Gevrey and the candied sappy sweetness of a charming Chambolle on the midpalate. This is one of the rare occassion where you could taste the shape of the wine: it was utterly spherical in the mouth. Despite the size, it's thoroughly balanced. I wonder when this baby is ready what the layers expression would become... Special.
The last wine was served blind. It had a seductively cool, candied, creamy, caramelly redcurrants and raspberries with violet hints on the nose. Gosh, this was complex... At once I thought of a Chambolle a la de Vogue. The otherwise deep, penetrating, bright and luscious red fruits interestingly had a very steely nervous backbone of uncommon minerality especially for a Chambolle. There were complication nuances of dark chocolates, but the core remained bracingly structured and minerally fresh. A complete wine. It can only be a Le Musigny. No wonder they call it one of the most profound piece of 'dirt' in Cote d'Or -- Comte de Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes 1998. Special.
Before we called it the night we took some time to plot possible future events. A riesling dim sum luncheon? A 1996 white burgundy comparative? A vertical of Comte de Vogue's Musigny? Well, all sounds good to me! You can't blame me if I already look forward to the next occasion(s)...
11 September, 2005
BurgFest 2005 Vol.II -- Le Clos Vougeot
Tasting at Ember restaurant, Sept-9 2005. Wonderful people, wonderful food, great wine lineup! Here are my ramblings of the tasting...
The lineup is:
2002 Louis Jadot, Puligny-Montrachet,“ Clos de la Garenne” Domaine du Duc de Magenta
1999 Colin-Deleger, Puligny-Montrachet “ Les Demoiselles”
2002 Gros Frère et Soeur, Clos de Vougeot “Musigni”
2002 Méo-Camuzet, Clos de Vougeot
2002 Lucien le Moine, Clos de Vougeot
2001 René Engel, Clos-Vougeot
2000 Hudelot-Noëllat, Clos de Vougeot
1999 Jean Grivot, Clos de Vougeot
1998 Anne Gros, Clos Vougeot “Le Grand Maupertui”
1997 Faiveley, Clos de Vougeot
1995 Robert Arnoux, Clos de Vougeot
1991 Leroy, Clos de Vougeot
1990 Louis Jadot, Clos Vougeot
Ringers -- Domaine Drouhin Pinot Noir Oregon 1998 and Bannockburn Serre Pinot Noir Geelong 1999
Evening began with Jadot's Domaine du Duc de Magenta 2002. This wine reminded me once more why I love white burgundies. Discreet oak aromas (like pencil shavings), butter and green apples on the nose. Fruits of steel with lots of purity and slight nutty tinge. Although it's closed, the wine is textured and long, with very bright penetrating cut on the finish so typical of the vintage. Still, it came across as round and generous. Excellent.
Red #1 looked aged - with medium red and moderate bricking. Meaty aromas and black cherries. On the palate it is delicate, and showing some stemminess. Frankly this was rather warm in the mouth and carried the warmth through the back. Finishes with sour-cherries and rather hollow. Lacks true sweetness. With aeration, it put on a medicinal hint. I honestly thought this was one of the ringers (prematurely aged with alcohol to boot). Wrong. Faiveley 1987. Sometimes the most obvious answers are the right ones...
Red #2 is a different animal altogether. Sporting a much darker red hue, it had a very striking minerally, earthy and horsey stink -- almost Gevrey-like, except that it's not as high-pitched? Compared to #1, this was a lot more structured with gripping tannic and acid spine. Black cherries turning curranty on the palate and it got sweeter with air. Still, it was all closed up and many years await this wine to unfold its best. Robust wine. Louis Jadot 1990. Very good.
We broke for white. Colin-Deleger PM Les Demoiselles 1999 had a oxidative, madeira-tinged nose. On the palate, it was lush and round, but lacked definition and cut. Came across rather flabby thought the fruits are still alive with interesting hints of ginko nuts.
Red #3 had a nose I always find special - bacon fat. Dark cherries predominate, and the wine was steely and quite minerally. The fruits are all dark. Sweet and sappy, it gave a slight stemmy back notes. Quite extracted with generous amount of creamy oak, applied skillfully not to throw the wine off-balance, this is quite impressive on the midpalate as the sweetness builds persistently. Domaine Drouhin (Oregon) 1998. Quite impressive.
Red #4's nose was distinctive -- wet earth, beetroot and very stemmy. It was at once sweet and spicy on the entry, with rather stew-like texture in the mouth. Quite soupy but delicious nonetheless, interestingly it held out very cool in the mouth without pronounced alcohol. Delicious but outclassed. All of the table guessed it right -- Bannockburn Serre 1999. (I maintain that all should try the 2000 version, which in my opinion has more class and cut on the palate.)
Red #5 is a brooding monster. Right from the colour, which was deep crimson with purplish tinge, to the nose which was reductive at first but blew off to give a meaty curranty profile. On the palate, it was again very unyielding, with plenty of materials completely imploded unto itself. It could only be a 1999, I thought. With coaxing, the reticent flavours gave off a spicy edge with slight mint aftertaste. Very steely, very huge, very impenetratable and quite impressive. I was right - Jean Grivot 1999.
Red #6 had a euphoric confectionery nose with plenty of black cherries. The palate was consistent too with a black cherry liqueur hint but was exceptionally fresh and delineated. On the finish hints of creme brulees emerged but the impression of crunchy fruits remained. It had a Vosne-like aspect to it and I thought it had to be a Meo. Indeed -- Meo-Camuzet 2002. Very delicious, impressive, if atypical (for a Clos Vougeot, that is...)
Red #7 was full of redcurrants and quite spicy. It was quite pure with fruity yet minerally flavours. It had a good mix of both red and black fruits and the texture was quite delicate. Despite gentle tannins, the wine was still quite structured. Also delicious, if not a tad shy of attention. Hudelot-Noellat 2000.
Red #8 gave off classy oak scents with rich generous flavous of cherries and redcurrants. Plush and sweet, it also had a slightly oily mouthfeel to it. Finished with caramelly hints, and again, if this was not a Clos Vougeot tasting, I would have picked it as a Vosne. Still has plenty of life ahead of it as the midpalate was still quite unyielding. Quite classy. Robert Arnoux 1995.
A nice mix of caramel and fresh raspberries on the nose, red #9, is again slightly atypical for the appellation. It was quite delicate and richly red-fruited on the palate, with a generous, plush mouthfeel. Still very youthful, again this has a vibrancy that can only be 2002. It was soft and round, and with extended aeration showed its un-shy oakiness. Can only be GF&S I thought... Right this time - Gros Frere et Soeur 2002.
After a string of plush wines, red #10 struck a totally different note. This wine is almost severe in its structure. Impressively built, this wine is stuffed to the brim with black cherries and raspberries, which turned curranty later. At once structured but entered and persisted in the midpalate with plenty of fresh sweetness. Velvety tannins hinted at the texture of dark chocolates. It's closed and steely today, but there is no doubt the sheer raw materials and balance will transform it into something more profound later. Excellent. Rene Engel 2001.
Red #11 is deeply coloured with an oily decidedly oaky aromas. Some steely elements can be detected. The wine is massive at the mouth and is quite tight-fisted. Sadly, it was all bells and whistles so far -- there was no sweetness in the midpalate. This wine is about apparent size, not depth. Quite disappointing. Lucien le Moine 2002.
Red #12 is sadly corked. I wanted quite badly to see how this wine would perform today. Anne Gros 1998.
Red #13 has a slightly evolved colour. Aromas of meats and aged beef, it was quite packed with spices, mint, stemmy aromas and meatstock. It was sweet, generous but the midpalate is still quite closed. Some tea leaves hint gave off toward the back. Leroy 1991.
The lineup is:
2002 Louis Jadot, Puligny-Montrachet,“ Clos de la Garenne” Domaine du Duc de Magenta
1999 Colin-Deleger, Puligny-Montrachet “ Les Demoiselles”
2002 Gros Frère et Soeur, Clos de Vougeot “Musigni”
2002 Méo-Camuzet, Clos de Vougeot
2002 Lucien le Moine, Clos de Vougeot
2001 René Engel, Clos-Vougeot
2000 Hudelot-Noëllat, Clos de Vougeot
1999 Jean Grivot, Clos de Vougeot
1998 Anne Gros, Clos Vougeot “Le Grand Maupertui”
1997 Faiveley, Clos de Vougeot
1995 Robert Arnoux, Clos de Vougeot
1991 Leroy, Clos de Vougeot
1990 Louis Jadot, Clos Vougeot
Ringers -- Domaine Drouhin Pinot Noir Oregon 1998 and Bannockburn Serre Pinot Noir Geelong 1999
Evening began with Jadot's Domaine du Duc de Magenta 2002. This wine reminded me once more why I love white burgundies. Discreet oak aromas (like pencil shavings), butter and green apples on the nose. Fruits of steel with lots of purity and slight nutty tinge. Although it's closed, the wine is textured and long, with very bright penetrating cut on the finish so typical of the vintage. Still, it came across as round and generous. Excellent.
Red #1 looked aged - with medium red and moderate bricking. Meaty aromas and black cherries. On the palate it is delicate, and showing some stemminess. Frankly this was rather warm in the mouth and carried the warmth through the back. Finishes with sour-cherries and rather hollow. Lacks true sweetness. With aeration, it put on a medicinal hint. I honestly thought this was one of the ringers (prematurely aged with alcohol to boot). Wrong. Faiveley 1987. Sometimes the most obvious answers are the right ones...
Red #2 is a different animal altogether. Sporting a much darker red hue, it had a very striking minerally, earthy and horsey stink -- almost Gevrey-like, except that it's not as high-pitched? Compared to #1, this was a lot more structured with gripping tannic and acid spine. Black cherries turning curranty on the palate and it got sweeter with air. Still, it was all closed up and many years await this wine to unfold its best. Robust wine. Louis Jadot 1990. Very good.
We broke for white. Colin-Deleger PM Les Demoiselles 1999 had a oxidative, madeira-tinged nose. On the palate, it was lush and round, but lacked definition and cut. Came across rather flabby thought the fruits are still alive with interesting hints of ginko nuts.
Red #3 had a nose I always find special - bacon fat. Dark cherries predominate, and the wine was steely and quite minerally. The fruits are all dark. Sweet and sappy, it gave a slight stemmy back notes. Quite extracted with generous amount of creamy oak, applied skillfully not to throw the wine off-balance, this is quite impressive on the midpalate as the sweetness builds persistently. Domaine Drouhin (Oregon) 1998. Quite impressive.
Red #4's nose was distinctive -- wet earth, beetroot and very stemmy. It was at once sweet and spicy on the entry, with rather stew-like texture in the mouth. Quite soupy but delicious nonetheless, interestingly it held out very cool in the mouth without pronounced alcohol. Delicious but outclassed. All of the table guessed it right -- Bannockburn Serre 1999. (I maintain that all should try the 2000 version, which in my opinion has more class and cut on the palate.)
Red #5 is a brooding monster. Right from the colour, which was deep crimson with purplish tinge, to the nose which was reductive at first but blew off to give a meaty curranty profile. On the palate, it was again very unyielding, with plenty of materials completely imploded unto itself. It could only be a 1999, I thought. With coaxing, the reticent flavours gave off a spicy edge with slight mint aftertaste. Very steely, very huge, very impenetratable and quite impressive. I was right - Jean Grivot 1999.
Red #6 had a euphoric confectionery nose with plenty of black cherries. The palate was consistent too with a black cherry liqueur hint but was exceptionally fresh and delineated. On the finish hints of creme brulees emerged but the impression of crunchy fruits remained. It had a Vosne-like aspect to it and I thought it had to be a Meo. Indeed -- Meo-Camuzet 2002. Very delicious, impressive, if atypical (for a Clos Vougeot, that is...)
Red #7 was full of redcurrants and quite spicy. It was quite pure with fruity yet minerally flavours. It had a good mix of both red and black fruits and the texture was quite delicate. Despite gentle tannins, the wine was still quite structured. Also delicious, if not a tad shy of attention. Hudelot-Noellat 2000.
Red #8 gave off classy oak scents with rich generous flavous of cherries and redcurrants. Plush and sweet, it also had a slightly oily mouthfeel to it. Finished with caramelly hints, and again, if this was not a Clos Vougeot tasting, I would have picked it as a Vosne. Still has plenty of life ahead of it as the midpalate was still quite unyielding. Quite classy. Robert Arnoux 1995.
A nice mix of caramel and fresh raspberries on the nose, red #9, is again slightly atypical for the appellation. It was quite delicate and richly red-fruited on the palate, with a generous, plush mouthfeel. Still very youthful, again this has a vibrancy that can only be 2002. It was soft and round, and with extended aeration showed its un-shy oakiness. Can only be GF&S I thought... Right this time - Gros Frere et Soeur 2002.
After a string of plush wines, red #10 struck a totally different note. This wine is almost severe in its structure. Impressively built, this wine is stuffed to the brim with black cherries and raspberries, which turned curranty later. At once structured but entered and persisted in the midpalate with plenty of fresh sweetness. Velvety tannins hinted at the texture of dark chocolates. It's closed and steely today, but there is no doubt the sheer raw materials and balance will transform it into something more profound later. Excellent. Rene Engel 2001.
Red #11 is deeply coloured with an oily decidedly oaky aromas. Some steely elements can be detected. The wine is massive at the mouth and is quite tight-fisted. Sadly, it was all bells and whistles so far -- there was no sweetness in the midpalate. This wine is about apparent size, not depth. Quite disappointing. Lucien le Moine 2002.
Red #12 is sadly corked. I wanted quite badly to see how this wine would perform today. Anne Gros 1998.
Red #13 has a slightly evolved colour. Aromas of meats and aged beef, it was quite packed with spices, mint, stemmy aromas and meatstock. It was sweet, generous but the midpalate is still quite closed. Some tea leaves hint gave off toward the back. Leroy 1991.
31 August, 2005
Some older Bottles (and some interesting new ones)
First of all, for the trainspotters, you might be wondering whatever happened to the Vosne-Romanee 1er cru tasting I was writing about many a month back. Well, the truth is it did happen. And we had wonderful bottles. No surprises, even in the blind format, the Arnoux les Suchots 1995 was superbly outstanding. This is a grand cru calibre -- jam packed with flavours of black and red fruits and spices, it has the texture of spirited meat stew and central spine of refreshing minerality. The other outstanding one was the Potel's les Malconsorts 2002. Fresh, complex, with tangy spicy black cherries, it had a plush and pliant mouthfeel with a cool finish. Quite delightful.
Okay... Now on to the 'meat' of the blog tonight.
What was supposed to be just a casual takeaway-dinner gathering this Monday turned out quite a number of very interesting bottles indeed.
Roty's Marsannay les Boivin 2002 was steely and very structured. Its finish was almost citric (aren't all Marsannays?), the body structured, and plenty of fresh cherries and metallic twang found in the innermouth perfume. Not really sweet, but impressive on the count of purity alone. Great food wine.
Hubert Lignier's Bourgogne 2001 was very impressive. I was thinking along the line of Vosne 1er on this one. The acid structure was impressive -- just sufficiently ripe and full of bright cushy fruits. Darkly coloured for Bourgogne too. This would have been tough to decide vis-a-vis Arnoux's 2002 Bourgogne 'Pinot Fin'. The Arnoux is more lush and this one more structured. And both are great!
Bruno Clair's Savigny-les-Beaune la Dominode 1990 had me wondering if this was a Pommard or a Corton. Texture-wise it appeared like a lightweight Pommard, with the same tobacco-ey nuance at the finish (which later I decided could simply be called 'earth'). And if it was Corton, it just didn't have enough midpalate weight and was too 'heavy' on the palate (yet not heavy enough for a Pommard). I was dead sure it was south, but not Volnay, and the possibility of Savigny escaped me. I found the wine very ripe, and given the secondary character, I would have guessed a ripe year in the 80s. Too fleshy for a 1988, I thought it was a 1985. Well, knowing it was 1990 gave me some consolation. It was a hot year too. I reflected on this wine a lot, even tonight (I tasted the remnants back two nights after opening) and I would try to remember its combination of slightly evolved red and black fruits, rather viscous nature and the ashy/tobaccoey tone at the back.
The next wine was very light in colour. Delightfully bright amber in colour, the wine was quite florally scented and elegant in the mouth. It finished with rather penetrating acids which thankfully preserved the less-than-dense fruits of this wine. It's hard to tell other than it must have been a Cote-de-Nuits. It was Maison Leroy's Chambolle-Musigny les Amoureuses 1980. Two nights later, this gained weight and started to put on some evolved raspberries characteristics and is showing far more femininity than before. It must be Chambolle indeed! Quite delicious. Even Fiona liked it a lot.
The next one was similarly hued. The nose was bigger and fleshier, with alcohol evidence. But still sous-bois and sweet-mushroomy. On the palate this too had a weightier impression than the Leroy, but fell short in terms of elegance. The acid too just didn't come across polished enough with a shrill streak at the back. Potinet-Ampeau's Volnay Santenots 1978.
Now back to a younger one. This wine had a slight reductive stink on it. Muted but quite large scaled, it was not just shy of being sweet. Quite steely with a familiar earthy tone. Gevrey! I was toying around with 1er or grand cru. It was quite in-between. Sweet enough to be a grand cru but can also be a solid 1er. Vintage wise -- hard to tell. I guessed a damned good 1998. Nope. It was a 1999 -- Louis Jadot Chapelle-Chambertin, thanks to Julian.
The last bottle was an afterthought. Royce and friend didn't bring a bottle so decided to buy this off Andy's. Roty's Charmes-Chambertin 1997 TVV. This wine was singing. Totally grand cru calibre, it was full of Gevrey funk on the nose and lots of old-viney sappiness too. Black cherries, redcurrants, smoke and meat whiff gave plenty of complexity. The midpalate was generous -- too generous to be a 1997 (thank goodness this was not a blind!) Tasting this was enough to tell everyone this was a work of a maestro. Sappy, delicious, nuanced and minerally. Most impressive.
Okay... Now on to the 'meat' of the blog tonight.
What was supposed to be just a casual takeaway-dinner gathering this Monday turned out quite a number of very interesting bottles indeed.
Roty's Marsannay les Boivin 2002 was steely and very structured. Its finish was almost citric (aren't all Marsannays?), the body structured, and plenty of fresh cherries and metallic twang found in the innermouth perfume. Not really sweet, but impressive on the count of purity alone. Great food wine.
Hubert Lignier's Bourgogne 2001 was very impressive. I was thinking along the line of Vosne 1er on this one. The acid structure was impressive -- just sufficiently ripe and full of bright cushy fruits. Darkly coloured for Bourgogne too. This would have been tough to decide vis-a-vis Arnoux's 2002 Bourgogne 'Pinot Fin'. The Arnoux is more lush and this one more structured. And both are great!
Bruno Clair's Savigny-les-Beaune la Dominode 1990 had me wondering if this was a Pommard or a Corton. Texture-wise it appeared like a lightweight Pommard, with the same tobacco-ey nuance at the finish (which later I decided could simply be called 'earth'). And if it was Corton, it just didn't have enough midpalate weight and was too 'heavy' on the palate (yet not heavy enough for a Pommard). I was dead sure it was south, but not Volnay, and the possibility of Savigny escaped me. I found the wine very ripe, and given the secondary character, I would have guessed a ripe year in the 80s. Too fleshy for a 1988, I thought it was a 1985. Well, knowing it was 1990 gave me some consolation. It was a hot year too. I reflected on this wine a lot, even tonight (I tasted the remnants back two nights after opening) and I would try to remember its combination of slightly evolved red and black fruits, rather viscous nature and the ashy/tobaccoey tone at the back.
The next wine was very light in colour. Delightfully bright amber in colour, the wine was quite florally scented and elegant in the mouth. It finished with rather penetrating acids which thankfully preserved the less-than-dense fruits of this wine. It's hard to tell other than it must have been a Cote-de-Nuits. It was Maison Leroy's Chambolle-Musigny les Amoureuses 1980. Two nights later, this gained weight and started to put on some evolved raspberries characteristics and is showing far more femininity than before. It must be Chambolle indeed! Quite delicious. Even Fiona liked it a lot.
The next one was similarly hued. The nose was bigger and fleshier, with alcohol evidence. But still sous-bois and sweet-mushroomy. On the palate this too had a weightier impression than the Leroy, but fell short in terms of elegance. The acid too just didn't come across polished enough with a shrill streak at the back. Potinet-Ampeau's Volnay Santenots 1978.
Now back to a younger one. This wine had a slight reductive stink on it. Muted but quite large scaled, it was not just shy of being sweet. Quite steely with a familiar earthy tone. Gevrey! I was toying around with 1er or grand cru. It was quite in-between. Sweet enough to be a grand cru but can also be a solid 1er. Vintage wise -- hard to tell. I guessed a damned good 1998. Nope. It was a 1999 -- Louis Jadot Chapelle-Chambertin, thanks to Julian.
The last bottle was an afterthought. Royce and friend didn't bring a bottle so decided to buy this off Andy's. Roty's Charmes-Chambertin 1997 TVV. This wine was singing. Totally grand cru calibre, it was full of Gevrey funk on the nose and lots of old-viney sappiness too. Black cherries, redcurrants, smoke and meat whiff gave plenty of complexity. The midpalate was generous -- too generous to be a 1997 (thank goodness this was not a blind!) Tasting this was enough to tell everyone this was a work of a maestro. Sappy, delicious, nuanced and minerally. Most impressive.
28 August, 2005
Palate presence revisited III
First of all, let me own up. I cracked open the Arnoux Bourgogne "Pinot Fin" 2002 bottle just this Tuesday -- exactly the next day after my last writeup where I nobly proclaimed I wasn't going to do just that. Such weakness...
So much had been written on the more regular (nonetheless interesting) bottles in the past two posts, it now begs the question: what about the grand crus?
Before I talk about the various grand cru encounters I had recently, I realised something about the way I tend to assess grand crus -- somewhat I use a slightly different angle when it comes to these very special bottlings which represent only 1% of the total produce of Cote d'Or.
In a world where people are interested in comparatives and superlatives, it's hard not to hold one's breath when encountering such revered bottlings. Why? Well, if the highest expression of pinot noir can only be found in burgundy, then, the its highest classification must surely be the most special. Split that across 34 distinct sections, and after which into hundreds of producers, I think the hair-raising factor of the idea of just drinking one of these bottles are certainly very present.
There tends to be only two ways of judging what seems to be the 'best' of the best: either find reasons to justify why it's so good or find faults with it.
As a discerning consumer, and one with very limited financial resources just to add, I tend to falter into the second category. Looking back to the various grand cru tasting notes, I notice that I often wrote about what the wine lacked rather than possessed, especially in reference to its exalted potential. This tendency can easily be explained via human psychology (the "sour grapes" syndrome), but now I question if this is at all helpful.
I am not going to write an apologetics of the grand crus of burgundy. Suffice it to say that centuries of diligent record keeping, research and corporate tasting (read: tradition) can hardly be wrong. So yes, the very fact that a plot of land is now classified as a Grand Cru must totally reflect its exalted potential to produce the top crops of the region. Period.
So how do I reconcile the fact that most grand crus tend to disappoint more than they satisfy? Let me suggest a few possibilities:
(a) the wine is not well prepared for the tasting (after all, we're talking about a most fragile varietal)
(b) the wine has not reached the peak drinking window (seasoned burgundy drinkers must recognize the nature of a burgundy lifespan which is vertically more convoluted than the most exciting rollercoaster ride you've ever taken)
(c) there are many styles in winemaking, some of which fall short of what is romanticized as the 'burgundy way' and hence the result is compared with a fictitious 'reference-standard grand cru' which we may never taste anyway
(c) most of us don't really understand burgundy wines to begin with
(d) there are truly bad grand crus around
In view of my recent experiences, I must say that none of the grand crus I've tasted really stood out as a very special wines no matter how good and unique they may be in the context of pinot noir wines. That does not mean that all of them suck. The most profound pinot noir I had were all grand crus. I was just lucky to taste them when they showed best. Let me recap some recent tastings...
Fougeray de Beauclair's Bonnes-Mares 2000 was tasty, and candied-smelling in the nose. There's lots of raspberries and cherries going on here, but the palate, although pristine, just lacked the cut, austerity and depth expected of both the cru and the appellation. I honestly thought it was a Chambolle-Musigny, although ironically this is the only Bonnes-Mares plot that resides in Morey-St-Denis. In short, it was clean and sweet, technically very good, but no extra edge to make the wine a standout.
Lamarche's La Grande Rue 1997 was mind-boggling for a simple reason: it was muted. It is actually beyond me that a 1997 can be this closed today but here's one. Very reticent aromas that won't let up despite minutes of coaxing in the glass, although the palate was both layered, sweet and very cool for the vintage. What it lacked however was the midpalate -- perhaps a testimony of the vintage? Otherwise, a fine wine, but shortchanged by its lack of readiness and certainly quite inexpressive today. I have long realized that lack of vivacity in burgundy should not be conveniently interpreted as mediocrity, but this one was honestly difficult to assess. Still I'm hopeful that it would one day be delicious.
A tasting of an Echezeaux from 1988 (the producer's name, an obscure one, eludes me) showed me two things: (1) just how long grand crus take to come around, and (2) just how underappreciated the 1988s are. This wine was delicious. Still vibrant in the core with bright black cherry fruits, it was complicated with smoke, meat and underbrush. Structured, this wine was not at all dry. A restrained sappiness stick around in the midpalate. Sweet!
I had always wanted to try a Roty grand cru. And so I really looked forward to trying the Charmes Chambertin TVV 2001. The wine was quite dramatic. Huge, dark, broodingly sweet and viscous in the centre yet quite light in weight. I almost had to search for that Gevrey earth and minerals, but yes, it was there too. This wine was implosive and if it ever unfolds over time to reveal its layers, there is no doubt it'd be great. And so I look forward to anyone with older bottles. Anyone?
Arnoux's Romanee St. Vivant 1998 is always an anomaly in Arnoux's family of wines. While other Arnoux wines almost always has a edgy and angular take on their finish, this RSV is always very round. Tonight, it tasted somewhat less vibrant than the last time I tasted it, some three years back (I think). What was still there was the roundness, almost-candied sweetness, and some spicy hint a la Vosne-Romanee. Again, a wine that I really wonder about its future.
There was a Leroy 1969 Echezeaux too. Although the wine was still alive, it was getting thin and a tad too metallic for a Vosne. I thought it was a lesser-year-in-the-late-60s Chambertin Clos de Beze. I suppose the rusticity, a hallmark I always find in Echezeaux (except at chez Jayer) should have been a giveaway. But this was hardly inspiring.
There was a Faiveley Latricieres-Chambertin 1995, as well as a Geantet-Pansiot Charmes-Chambertin 2002. I like Faiveley, but this one was just off-form, not to mention not-ready. The Charmes by Pansiot, was again sticky-sweet. The 2001 version was much better, with interesting bacon-fat and cut than the 2002 which tasted ripe and a tad roasted.
I look forward to tasting fully ready grand crus. The kind of experience like tasting Jayer's 1992 Echezeaux (religious) I hope to replicate soon. There would be a 1998 grand cru tasting next month. I truly hope there'd be some that would show beautifully. (For a start there'd be a Jayer.) And the BurgFest next month, some of the older Clos Vougeot I hope too would show up well. Given all the potentials, it would be a shame to keep discovering the unreadiness of these bottles. After all, they really ought to be the greatest wines on this planet!
So much had been written on the more regular (nonetheless interesting) bottles in the past two posts, it now begs the question: what about the grand crus?
Before I talk about the various grand cru encounters I had recently, I realised something about the way I tend to assess grand crus -- somewhat I use a slightly different angle when it comes to these very special bottlings which represent only 1% of the total produce of Cote d'Or.
In a world where people are interested in comparatives and superlatives, it's hard not to hold one's breath when encountering such revered bottlings. Why? Well, if the highest expression of pinot noir can only be found in burgundy, then, the its highest classification must surely be the most special. Split that across 34 distinct sections, and after which into hundreds of producers, I think the hair-raising factor of the idea of just drinking one of these bottles are certainly very present.
There tends to be only two ways of judging what seems to be the 'best' of the best: either find reasons to justify why it's so good or find faults with it.
As a discerning consumer, and one with very limited financial resources just to add, I tend to falter into the second category. Looking back to the various grand cru tasting notes, I notice that I often wrote about what the wine lacked rather than possessed, especially in reference to its exalted potential. This tendency can easily be explained via human psychology (the "sour grapes" syndrome), but now I question if this is at all helpful.
I am not going to write an apologetics of the grand crus of burgundy. Suffice it to say that centuries of diligent record keeping, research and corporate tasting (read: tradition) can hardly be wrong. So yes, the very fact that a plot of land is now classified as a Grand Cru must totally reflect its exalted potential to produce the top crops of the region. Period.
So how do I reconcile the fact that most grand crus tend to disappoint more than they satisfy? Let me suggest a few possibilities:
(a) the wine is not well prepared for the tasting (after all, we're talking about a most fragile varietal)
(b) the wine has not reached the peak drinking window (seasoned burgundy drinkers must recognize the nature of a burgundy lifespan which is vertically more convoluted than the most exciting rollercoaster ride you've ever taken)
(c) there are many styles in winemaking, some of which fall short of what is romanticized as the 'burgundy way' and hence the result is compared with a fictitious 'reference-standard grand cru' which we may never taste anyway
(c) most of us don't really understand burgundy wines to begin with
(d) there are truly bad grand crus around
In view of my recent experiences, I must say that none of the grand crus I've tasted really stood out as a very special wines no matter how good and unique they may be in the context of pinot noir wines. That does not mean that all of them suck. The most profound pinot noir I had were all grand crus. I was just lucky to taste them when they showed best. Let me recap some recent tastings...
Fougeray de Beauclair's Bonnes-Mares 2000 was tasty, and candied-smelling in the nose. There's lots of raspberries and cherries going on here, but the palate, although pristine, just lacked the cut, austerity and depth expected of both the cru and the appellation. I honestly thought it was a Chambolle-Musigny, although ironically this is the only Bonnes-Mares plot that resides in Morey-St-Denis. In short, it was clean and sweet, technically very good, but no extra edge to make the wine a standout.
Lamarche's La Grande Rue 1997 was mind-boggling for a simple reason: it was muted. It is actually beyond me that a 1997 can be this closed today but here's one. Very reticent aromas that won't let up despite minutes of coaxing in the glass, although the palate was both layered, sweet and very cool for the vintage. What it lacked however was the midpalate -- perhaps a testimony of the vintage? Otherwise, a fine wine, but shortchanged by its lack of readiness and certainly quite inexpressive today. I have long realized that lack of vivacity in burgundy should not be conveniently interpreted as mediocrity, but this one was honestly difficult to assess. Still I'm hopeful that it would one day be delicious.
A tasting of an Echezeaux from 1988 (the producer's name, an obscure one, eludes me) showed me two things: (1) just how long grand crus take to come around, and (2) just how underappreciated the 1988s are. This wine was delicious. Still vibrant in the core with bright black cherry fruits, it was complicated with smoke, meat and underbrush. Structured, this wine was not at all dry. A restrained sappiness stick around in the midpalate. Sweet!
I had always wanted to try a Roty grand cru. And so I really looked forward to trying the Charmes Chambertin TVV 2001. The wine was quite dramatic. Huge, dark, broodingly sweet and viscous in the centre yet quite light in weight. I almost had to search for that Gevrey earth and minerals, but yes, it was there too. This wine was implosive and if it ever unfolds over time to reveal its layers, there is no doubt it'd be great. And so I look forward to anyone with older bottles. Anyone?
Arnoux's Romanee St. Vivant 1998 is always an anomaly in Arnoux's family of wines. While other Arnoux wines almost always has a edgy and angular take on their finish, this RSV is always very round. Tonight, it tasted somewhat less vibrant than the last time I tasted it, some three years back (I think). What was still there was the roundness, almost-candied sweetness, and some spicy hint a la Vosne-Romanee. Again, a wine that I really wonder about its future.
There was a Leroy 1969 Echezeaux too. Although the wine was still alive, it was getting thin and a tad too metallic for a Vosne. I thought it was a lesser-year-in-the-late-60s Chambertin Clos de Beze. I suppose the rusticity, a hallmark I always find in Echezeaux (except at chez Jayer) should have been a giveaway. But this was hardly inspiring.
There was a Faiveley Latricieres-Chambertin 1995, as well as a Geantet-Pansiot Charmes-Chambertin 2002. I like Faiveley, but this one was just off-form, not to mention not-ready. The Charmes by Pansiot, was again sticky-sweet. The 2001 version was much better, with interesting bacon-fat and cut than the 2002 which tasted ripe and a tad roasted.
I look forward to tasting fully ready grand crus. The kind of experience like tasting Jayer's 1992 Echezeaux (religious) I hope to replicate soon. There would be a 1998 grand cru tasting next month. I truly hope there'd be some that would show beautifully. (For a start there'd be a Jayer.) And the BurgFest next month, some of the older Clos Vougeot I hope too would show up well. Given all the potentials, it would be a shame to keep discovering the unreadiness of these bottles. After all, they really ought to be the greatest wines on this planet!
22 August, 2005
Palate presence revisited II
Can I be furiously trying to make amends to the past few months of absence? This is my second post in two days - very accomplished by my personal standard.
I just peeped into my wine fridge a few minutes back tossing around with the idea of cracking the Arnoux Bourgogne "Pinot Fin" 2002 open... I contemplated the state of my palate right at this time and decided against it. You know, it's just one of those moments when I thought that although I could appreciate the wine but the 'thirst' factor isn't there enough to warrant lonesome drinking.
Back to the review of the wines I had these past few months.
There were several stellar pinot noirs I tasted thanks to Andy. Brogan Cellars Russian River Valley 2003s were, by any standard, very accomplished. The owner is Burt Williams' daughter, and apparently this vintage her father made the wines. I had enjoyed some very nice Williams-Selyem pinots in the past. They have a cushy, mildly-extracted, cherry-scented, pliant flavours so unlike most Californian pinot noirs. I've tried three cuvees so far, but the Lone Redwood Ranch stood out. A dead ringer for a Chambolle Musigny (de Vogue comes to mind) not just in terms of aromatics but also palate precision. Despite the candied, sappy texture, this wine has a nice stoniness to it. I actually thought it was a burg, and the mistake was indeed warranted -- this is no simple wine.
Another bottle, Bannockburn Serre 2000, was, in a word, stunning. I wasn't expecting too much out of this vintage, but Gary Farr did an awesome job here. Instead of jamminess, I received freshness, an excellent cut and a very polished spiciness. Beetroot, spices, cherries, black raspberries, with a warm, pliant, rounded texture in the mouth, it had the group fooled way out into thinking that (1) it was a burgundy, (2) from Vosne-Romanee, and (3) it was a Grand Cru(?!) Now, if I were Gary Farr, I would be way proud of this. The Aussies, in my opinion, deserve the kudos. When they get close to Burgundy, they are dangerously close. They understand the 'dirt' factor, in my opinion, much more intimately than the Americans.
Talk about mind-boggling, this is certainly one of them: Marquis d'Angerville Volnay "Clos des Ducs" 1990. Hugely tight-fisted, deep/dark-fruited, bacon fat, and awesome structure, it challenged my perspective of what Volnay wine is. This wine is exceedingly youthful -- I was almost dead certain it was a 1999 (due to its depth and weight), but was shamed to learn it's nine years older than that. This is a master's work. Very enlightening.
Wine epiphanies... Have you had those? Interestingly, despite my unquestionable devotion to all things burgundy, whenever I get asked what are the most memorable burgs I've had, I am always at a loss of what to say. Reason? Simply because none really stood out in a very special way. It's hard to describe the magic, but when I encounter it, I know. It's one of those hair-raising, crotch-blood-circulating experiences. And recently I did it with J. F. Mugnier's Chambolle-Musigny Les Fuees 2002.
Here is what I'd call an exemplary burgundy. It does what every pinot maker in other parts of the world try to do but could never achieve. The key word is: RED FRUITS. 'Huh...?' you might say, but it's this very simple basic of pristine red cherries flavours encased in stony, transparent minerality with no apparent palate weight, neverending, never-overpowering silky sweetness that begin, hit the centre of the palate, and trails off endlessly into the finish in seamless timeless succession that would drive all new-World pinot maker completely bonkers emulating it. But here is a wine that displays all these characteristics, textural pleasure in a humble yet effortless package. The clarity, precision, liveliness, cleanliness of the fruits were beyond reproach, and the fruit colours were all RED. Awesome stuff... And it's not a grand cru, mind you?!
I just peeped into my wine fridge a few minutes back tossing around with the idea of cracking the Arnoux Bourgogne "Pinot Fin" 2002 open... I contemplated the state of my palate right at this time and decided against it. You know, it's just one of those moments when I thought that although I could appreciate the wine but the 'thirst' factor isn't there enough to warrant lonesome drinking.
Back to the review of the wines I had these past few months.
There were several stellar pinot noirs I tasted thanks to Andy. Brogan Cellars Russian River Valley 2003s were, by any standard, very accomplished. The owner is Burt Williams' daughter, and apparently this vintage her father made the wines. I had enjoyed some very nice Williams-Selyem pinots in the past. They have a cushy, mildly-extracted, cherry-scented, pliant flavours so unlike most Californian pinot noirs. I've tried three cuvees so far, but the Lone Redwood Ranch stood out. A dead ringer for a Chambolle Musigny (de Vogue comes to mind) not just in terms of aromatics but also palate precision. Despite the candied, sappy texture, this wine has a nice stoniness to it. I actually thought it was a burg, and the mistake was indeed warranted -- this is no simple wine.
Another bottle, Bannockburn Serre 2000, was, in a word, stunning. I wasn't expecting too much out of this vintage, but Gary Farr did an awesome job here. Instead of jamminess, I received freshness, an excellent cut and a very polished spiciness. Beetroot, spices, cherries, black raspberries, with a warm, pliant, rounded texture in the mouth, it had the group fooled way out into thinking that (1) it was a burgundy, (2) from Vosne-Romanee, and (3) it was a Grand Cru(?!) Now, if I were Gary Farr, I would be way proud of this. The Aussies, in my opinion, deserve the kudos. When they get close to Burgundy, they are dangerously close. They understand the 'dirt' factor, in my opinion, much more intimately than the Americans.
Talk about mind-boggling, this is certainly one of them: Marquis d'Angerville Volnay "Clos des Ducs" 1990. Hugely tight-fisted, deep/dark-fruited, bacon fat, and awesome structure, it challenged my perspective of what Volnay wine is. This wine is exceedingly youthful -- I was almost dead certain it was a 1999 (due to its depth and weight), but was shamed to learn it's nine years older than that. This is a master's work. Very enlightening.
Wine epiphanies... Have you had those? Interestingly, despite my unquestionable devotion to all things burgundy, whenever I get asked what are the most memorable burgs I've had, I am always at a loss of what to say. Reason? Simply because none really stood out in a very special way. It's hard to describe the magic, but when I encounter it, I know. It's one of those hair-raising, crotch-blood-circulating experiences. And recently I did it with J. F. Mugnier's Chambolle-Musigny Les Fuees 2002.
Here is what I'd call an exemplary burgundy. It does what every pinot maker in other parts of the world try to do but could never achieve. The key word is: RED FRUITS. 'Huh...?' you might say, but it's this very simple basic of pristine red cherries flavours encased in stony, transparent minerality with no apparent palate weight, neverending, never-overpowering silky sweetness that begin, hit the centre of the palate, and trails off endlessly into the finish in seamless timeless succession that would drive all new-World pinot maker completely bonkers emulating it. But here is a wine that displays all these characteristics, textural pleasure in a humble yet effortless package. The clarity, precision, liveliness, cleanliness of the fruits were beyond reproach, and the fruit colours were all RED. Awesome stuff... And it's not a grand cru, mind you?!
Palate presence revisited
FIVE months... It's been that long since the last time I updated this blog. That was when preparing for my birthday bash at the end of March.
Many changes had taken place since then. Quite obviously I was not burgging as often as I would have liked. My Saturdays are quite filled with my boy's activity, and since late June, my second baby arrived.
I still drink, however. Just more on the non-burg stuff at home. For some reason, it's hard to fork out dough for pinot noirs or burgs for personal consumption. Having said that, now that I look back, these non-pinot bottles had been quite unsatisfying in general, although some merit some mentioned.
At Jason's I picked up some bin end bottles. Fleurie, Chenas, Morgon from Duboeuf circa 1997 vintage were quite interesting. The Chenas was drying up and the Fleurie, although supple and quite perfumed, didn't quite hold up long enough in the glass. The Morgon however, was quite impressive. It's burlier and sturdier. At this stage, it's giving off secondary aromatics, becoming quite nutty and leathery, not dissimilar to aged Crozes-Hermitage. Nice table companions (they're all half-bottles, costing $11).
Also at Jason's I picked up Bourgueil and Chinon 1997 too (an F. Miginiac, I think...) The Bourgueil, which I tried first, was impressive upon uncorking. Already bricked, it gave off an exotic, stemmy, cedary, tobaccoey aroma -- not quite unlike some lighter-bodied Graves. I was quite impressed. However, again, it didn't last long in the glass. And the same bottle tasted the next day had already become flacid. Still I thought it was interesting and was a nice substitute for an aged cheap-o Bordeaux (where can you find one for $30?) I was quite set to buy another. And so I did. But this time I wanted to try the Chinon as well. Although someone on the web said that Bourgueil possessed more depth and longevity than Chinon, my tasting of the Chinon sample proved otherwise. Although showing pretty much the same nose as the Bourgueil, albeit smokier, it's evidently blacker-fruited, more even-bodied, and held more stably in the glass and across the next few days. My retasting of the second bottle of the Bourgueil confirmed that the Chinon was the better wine...
To be fair, my dinner table wasn't quite as Pinot-less as I had just portrayed. I encountered what I dare say is the best Bourgogne bottle I've ever had -- Domaine Arnoux's Bourgogne "Pinot Fin" 2002. Terrifically scented, with cherry and raspberry nose, it was light, lively yet dense in the mid-palate. Blind this to a Burgophile and I'd be most interested what he/she would say.
I had also been experimenting with lesser appellations such as Marsannay and Fixin. Bruno Clair's Marsannay "Les Grasses Tetes" 2002, Philippe Roty's Marsannay "Les Quartiers" 2002 as well as the plain Meo-Camuzet Marsannay 2002 were all delicious. These wines showcase just how good the 2002s can be. Instead of producing skinny, acid-driven wines, the northerly Marsannay turned out luscious, elegantly scented, red-fruited juice worthy of not just for the dinner table, but for more serious tasting as well. No real preference amongst these three. Suffice to say, they are all different and good enough for different occassions.
Gelin's Fixin "les Arvelets" and "Clos Napoleon" both 2002 were tried too. Here is a Fixin specialist and both wines are impressive. The Arvelets is deeply fruited, layered and full of earthy funk. The 'dirt' factor is certainly present here. With some two hours of aeration, this wine gave what my dear friend called the scent of skunk. My preference has to go to the "Clos Napoleon" though. This is a monopole of Gelin's family. Sporting a much lower alcohol level than the Arvelets (in spite of coming from the same Domaine and from the same vintage), this wine is pure silk in the mouth. If Fixin has to show some rustic edginess, I certainly could not find it here. Blind me and I'd have thought this might have been some Gevrey 1er. It's delicate, minerally and transparently red-fruited. Very sleek and worth more than twice the price it asked for.
It's getting late. I would post more of my recollection in coming catch-up posts, as well as the 'state of my palate'.
Many changes had taken place since then. Quite obviously I was not burgging as often as I would have liked. My Saturdays are quite filled with my boy's activity, and since late June, my second baby arrived.
I still drink, however. Just more on the non-burg stuff at home. For some reason, it's hard to fork out dough for pinot noirs or burgs for personal consumption. Having said that, now that I look back, these non-pinot bottles had been quite unsatisfying in general, although some merit some mentioned.
At Jason's I picked up some bin end bottles. Fleurie, Chenas, Morgon from Duboeuf circa 1997 vintage were quite interesting. The Chenas was drying up and the Fleurie, although supple and quite perfumed, didn't quite hold up long enough in the glass. The Morgon however, was quite impressive. It's burlier and sturdier. At this stage, it's giving off secondary aromatics, becoming quite nutty and leathery, not dissimilar to aged Crozes-Hermitage. Nice table companions (they're all half-bottles, costing $11).
Also at Jason's I picked up Bourgueil and Chinon 1997 too (an F. Miginiac, I think...) The Bourgueil, which I tried first, was impressive upon uncorking. Already bricked, it gave off an exotic, stemmy, cedary, tobaccoey aroma -- not quite unlike some lighter-bodied Graves. I was quite impressed. However, again, it didn't last long in the glass. And the same bottle tasted the next day had already become flacid. Still I thought it was interesting and was a nice substitute for an aged cheap-o Bordeaux (where can you find one for $30?) I was quite set to buy another. And so I did. But this time I wanted to try the Chinon as well. Although someone on the web said that Bourgueil possessed more depth and longevity than Chinon, my tasting of the Chinon sample proved otherwise. Although showing pretty much the same nose as the Bourgueil, albeit smokier, it's evidently blacker-fruited, more even-bodied, and held more stably in the glass and across the next few days. My retasting of the second bottle of the Bourgueil confirmed that the Chinon was the better wine...
To be fair, my dinner table wasn't quite as Pinot-less as I had just portrayed. I encountered what I dare say is the best Bourgogne bottle I've ever had -- Domaine Arnoux's Bourgogne "Pinot Fin" 2002. Terrifically scented, with cherry and raspberry nose, it was light, lively yet dense in the mid-palate. Blind this to a Burgophile and I'd be most interested what he/she would say.
I had also been experimenting with lesser appellations such as Marsannay and Fixin. Bruno Clair's Marsannay "Les Grasses Tetes" 2002, Philippe Roty's Marsannay "Les Quartiers" 2002 as well as the plain Meo-Camuzet Marsannay 2002 were all delicious. These wines showcase just how good the 2002s can be. Instead of producing skinny, acid-driven wines, the northerly Marsannay turned out luscious, elegantly scented, red-fruited juice worthy of not just for the dinner table, but for more serious tasting as well. No real preference amongst these three. Suffice to say, they are all different and good enough for different occassions.
Gelin's Fixin "les Arvelets" and "Clos Napoleon" both 2002 were tried too. Here is a Fixin specialist and both wines are impressive. The Arvelets is deeply fruited, layered and full of earthy funk. The 'dirt' factor is certainly present here. With some two hours of aeration, this wine gave what my dear friend called the scent of skunk. My preference has to go to the "Clos Napoleon" though. This is a monopole of Gelin's family. Sporting a much lower alcohol level than the Arvelets (in spite of coming from the same Domaine and from the same vintage), this wine is pure silk in the mouth. If Fixin has to show some rustic edginess, I certainly could not find it here. Blind me and I'd have thought this might have been some Gevrey 1er. It's delicate, minerally and transparently red-fruited. Very sleek and worth more than twice the price it asked for.
It's getting late. I would post more of my recollection in coming catch-up posts, as well as the 'state of my palate'.
25 March, 2005
Whitewashed on the 30th March 2005
The weather is getting warm and sticky here in Singapore. Whenever that happens, food we're accustomed to somewhat tastes richer and fatter. And so a perfect time to indulge in cold beverages with cut and verve. Marry that with the desire to do a terroir-comparative and we have this. The excuse: my birthday. (Lame, but what the heck!)
The dinner would be Chinese - Teochew-Cantonese to be precise. Flavours should be delicate, plainer, and simpler but with certain pointed extremeties - savoury it may be, but spicy it shouldn't be. Well-made chardonnays should do just fine. When the dish is lean-ish, the fat and nutty tinge should complement it. And when the dish is more robust, the acid should cut through just fine. And what chardonnays? Burgundies, of course!
And so the birthday boy requests a 4/5-flight game format (depending on turn-out and what everyone could bring). I'm making it focussed but still should give everyone a chance to participate -- this is not a cellar-extortion.
The flight composition I'd suggest would be such:
The dinner would be Chinese - Teochew-Cantonese to be precise. Flavours should be delicate, plainer, and simpler but with certain pointed extremeties - savoury it may be, but spicy it shouldn't be. Well-made chardonnays should do just fine. When the dish is lean-ish, the fat and nutty tinge should complement it. And when the dish is more robust, the acid should cut through just fine. And what chardonnays? Burgundies, of course!
And so the birthday boy requests a 4/5-flight game format (depending on turn-out and what everyone could bring). I'm making it focussed but still should give everyone a chance to participate -- this is not a cellar-extortion.
The flight composition I'd suggest would be such:
- Chassagne-Montrachet flight (3 wines)
- Meursault flight (3 wines)
- Puligny-Montrachet flight (3 wines)
- Free-play white burgundy flight (3-5 wines, which may comprise of the above three appellations, plus Corton, Chablis, Maconnais, Cote-Chalonnaise, even Cotes de Nuits whites...)
- Red-wine flight (Burgundy or Bordeaux)
- The burgundies should at least be a 1er Cru and up. So naturally Grand Crus automatically qualifies.
- There's no vintage limitation, but generally I would be expecting vintage 1995 and younger. Of course, if anyone is generous enough to contribute matured, older wines, I am more than game for it! (Thanks in advance.)
- All contributions are to be reported to Andy Tan (email or SMS). Contributors need only to mention which flight he/she is contributing to. (Example: "I'm bringing a Chassagne...", or "I'm bringing a 'red'...", or "I have a freeplayer...") This ensures that there's still excitement for guessing what wines, etc.
- Packaging. All capsules must be removed. Aluminium foil (less-glossy side out) to be used to wrap bottles all the way to the mouth.
- Order of the flight may be determined on the evening itself.
27 February, 2005
Vosne Super 1ers Tasting: Final Take...?
Weeks of one-off discussions and this must come to a close. Here's what I've been thinking and asking Andy, Arif and Chee Wee...
Date:
April Fools' 2005 (Friday evening)
Venue:
To-be-determined
Wines (so far, subject to further modifications):
Les Brulees 1995, Meo-Camuzet (Ming San), or
Les Suchots 1995, Robert Arnoux (Ming San), or
Les Chaumes 1995, Meo-Camuzet (Ming San)
Les Beaux Monts 1992, Leroy (Chee Wee)
Les Brulees 2001, Rene Engel (Henry)
Cros Parantoux 1998, Emmanuel Rouget (Arif)
Les Brulees 1998, Meo-Camuzet (Andy - to be confirmed)
Okay, I know it's beginning to sound like some Les Brulees tasting instead of a Vosne 1er. So perhaps we have to opt out some stuff here. Some sites are missing too, e.g., Reignots, Gaudichots (that would be nice...), Malconsorts...
I have Grivot's Chaumes but it's 1999, a vintage I strongly discourage from trying out at this point, and Cacheux's Suchots but it's a 1996, and several months back it's just a piece of rock. Would be most pleased to offer these up but I think they're nowhere near approachable right now.
Hope to make this happen real soon...
Date:
April Fools' 2005 (Friday evening)
Venue:
To-be-determined
Wines (so far, subject to further modifications):
Les Brulees 1995, Meo-Camuzet (Ming San), or
Les Suchots 1995, Robert Arnoux (Ming San), or
Les Chaumes 1995, Meo-Camuzet (Ming San)
Les Beaux Monts 1992, Leroy (Chee Wee)
Les Brulees 2001, Rene Engel (Henry)
Cros Parantoux 1998, Emmanuel Rouget (Arif)
Les Brulees 1998, Meo-Camuzet (Andy - to be confirmed)
Okay, I know it's beginning to sound like some Les Brulees tasting instead of a Vosne 1er. So perhaps we have to opt out some stuff here. Some sites are missing too, e.g., Reignots, Gaudichots (that would be nice...), Malconsorts...
I have Grivot's Chaumes but it's 1999, a vintage I strongly discourage from trying out at this point, and Cacheux's Suchots but it's a 1996, and several months back it's just a piece of rock. Would be most pleased to offer these up but I think they're nowhere near approachable right now.
Hope to make this happen real soon...
25 February, 2005
A damned good read
http://www.princeofpinot.com/pinotfile/04_26.pdf
This particular issue is a fantastic, fun and rapid educational material for anyone who wishes to appreciate their Bourgognes better. I don't normally have high praises for people who try to explain any burgundy wines or tradition, but Rusty did it here!
There's also a great section on the recent quality releases of Cali Pinots where Wes Mar, Radio-Coteau, Littorai, and Dehlinger were all mentioned. It seems quite clear that the 2003 vintage for the Sonoma county will be a good one. Specifically for Coteau and Littorai, I am looking forward to taste them when Andy returns from his San Francisco trip. The man will have a major pinotfest with the Prince himself. Lots of good Aussies and he's going to be tasting Littorai and whatever else Rusty is bringing. I'm most jealous...
This particular issue is a fantastic, fun and rapid educational material for anyone who wishes to appreciate their Bourgognes better. I don't normally have high praises for people who try to explain any burgundy wines or tradition, but Rusty did it here!
There's also a great section on the recent quality releases of Cali Pinots where Wes Mar, Radio-Coteau, Littorai, and Dehlinger were all mentioned. It seems quite clear that the 2003 vintage for the Sonoma county will be a good one. Specifically for Coteau and Littorai, I am looking forward to taste them when Andy returns from his San Francisco trip. The man will have a major pinotfest with the Prince himself. Lots of good Aussies and he's going to be tasting Littorai and whatever else Rusty is bringing. I'm most jealous...
18 February, 2005
Bordeaux at David's...
Another vino session with my wino group at David's house tonight. Theme? Bordeaux, or anything that is drinking.
The wino group has been -- inadvertently or wilfully -- gravitated towards burgundy lately. These past year, for every meeting that we have, there has been no less than several burgundy bottles. Some years back, the table tends to be dominated by bordeaux. I was always the odd one out because I always brought a burgundy or pinot noir. Okay, occasionally I did Rhone and Italians too...
So tonight marks an intentional departure from the recent norm. David declares "Bordeaux!" This should be interesting. I never tire of burgundies, but this would be a refreshing change. Of course it's also fun simply because this is our wino gathering during the Chinese New Year period at David's house. Truly looking forward to it.
Still I own no bordeaux. No prize for guessing what I'd be bringing... Clue: it should be "drinking" ;-)
The wino group has been -- inadvertently or wilfully -- gravitated towards burgundy lately. These past year, for every meeting that we have, there has been no less than several burgundy bottles. Some years back, the table tends to be dominated by bordeaux. I was always the odd one out because I always brought a burgundy or pinot noir. Okay, occasionally I did Rhone and Italians too...
So tonight marks an intentional departure from the recent norm. David declares "Bordeaux!" This should be interesting. I never tire of burgundies, but this would be a refreshing change. Of course it's also fun simply because this is our wino gathering during the Chinese New Year period at David's house. Truly looking forward to it.
Still I own no bordeaux. No prize for guessing what I'd be bringing... Clue: it should be "drinking" ;-)
15 February, 2005
Radio Coteau 2003 are coming!
If I have to rate the winery with the highest excitement factor to me for 2o04, Radio Coteau must be it.
I just saw that the new vintage are releasing in the next month. And despite the fact that 2003 carried a killer heatwave in Europe, the weather pattern for western coastal US seemed different. The yield in Radio Coteau's vineyards were lower, and the fruits were hanging longer.
Every wine featured is mouthwatering. Even the Zin, which has a 70-yr old vine age... Really waiting for Andy to bring in the goods. And I really hope to be able to taste the entire collection this time.
I just saw that the new vintage are releasing in the next month. And despite the fact that 2003 carried a killer heatwave in Europe, the weather pattern for western coastal US seemed different. The yield in Radio Coteau's vineyards were lower, and the fruits were hanging longer.
Every wine featured is mouthwatering. Even the Zin, which has a 70-yr old vine age... Really waiting for Andy to bring in the goods. And I really hope to be able to taste the entire collection this time.
07 February, 2005
Vosne Super 1er Tasting: Take 2
It appears inevitable therefore that we would hold this tasting without fixing the vintage. The vintages to be considered to be included really ought to be the drinking vintages of the past decade - e.g., 1998, 2000, 1997, some 1995 even... or 2001s too if they're well rested?
Shall we poll the wines then? So far I hear:
1998 Meo-Camuzet VR Aux Brulees
1998 Rouget VR Cros Parantoux
1995 Arnoux VR Les Suchots
1995 Meo-Camuzet VR Aux Chaumes
Any others?
The next question then is: when? The ideal time would be March or April. Let's pick a date!
Shall we poll the wines then? So far I hear:
1998 Meo-Camuzet VR Aux Brulees
1998 Rouget VR Cros Parantoux
1995 Arnoux VR Les Suchots
1995 Meo-Camuzet VR Aux Chaumes
Any others?
The next question then is: when? The ideal time would be March or April. Let's pick a date!
Sideways
Finally a movie that is built on wines as a stage. Quite inspiring vinously and a great soundtrack. The focus, as I've rightly read, really was on pinot noir and failures. (Coincidental? Perhaps, but poetic no less.)
While I'm not a big Californian pinot noir fan, this movie had me pick up the recent notes I jotted down from the Californian cult pinot noir dinner held some two weeks back at Summer Pavilion Ritz-Carlton. Dehlinger's Octagon and Au Bon Climat's Mt. Carmel came to mind. Delicious wines, sappy, sweet and quite delicate.
It is a guy's movie. Pretty much typifies man's weakness and susceptibility to certain stupidities. Nice take on the wines too. Well written, well acted, understated and funny.
While I'm not a big Californian pinot noir fan, this movie had me pick up the recent notes I jotted down from the Californian cult pinot noir dinner held some two weeks back at Summer Pavilion Ritz-Carlton. Dehlinger's Octagon and Au Bon Climat's Mt. Carmel came to mind. Delicious wines, sappy, sweet and quite delicate.
It is a guy's movie. Pretty much typifies man's weakness and susceptibility to certain stupidities. Nice take on the wines too. Well written, well acted, understated and funny.
05 February, 2005
A simple dinner with family
We were at the Imperial Treasure Nan Bei Restaurant last night to celebrate my mum's birthday. I wanted my mum to try the Dan Dan Mian there -- hoping that it would evoke some memory of her days in Beijing where such noodles were one of the basic food she had. I can't comment if this objective was met, but I know she enjoyed it and that was the more important thing. (She only said that the nostalgic version was less oily and less refined.)
We had only one wine, Robert Groffier's Chambolle-Musigny Les Sentiers 2001. I had wanted to try what this domaine recently produced since some of the 1998 and most of the 1999 wines were bordering on the new-world style to my liking. I had been reading and was told that they cut back somewhat on doing sur-maturite oaked style recently and so with some anticipation I tasted this wine. What's more this is a 2001 -- a vintage that had captivated me since its release for its purity, elegance, and, at least more recently, beginning to display a high-class sweetness.
Like other 2001, the colour was brilliant. Dazzlingly rich and bright ruby red. On the nose this was quite muted. But perhaps it was just because of either the glass (we had a large burgundy-spherical type of glass, not the usual Riedels I am accustomed to) or the wine was overcome by stronger aromas of the accompanying food -- which was very good, by the way. I did not take notes -- it was such a casual outing -- but the ripe cherries flavour were prominent. It was very ripe, but not overripe, and there's a nice restrained transparency of flavours around it. A more minerally styled Chambolle in my opinion. While it's not outstanding, it was enough to reassert the fact that Groffier has come back down to earth for the better. An outstanding Pinot Noir, but only a very good Chambolle 1er. Texturally this was great, but taste-wise it could do with more intensity, cut and hopefully a burgundy-dirt funk -- something which this wine did not show.
We had only one wine, Robert Groffier's Chambolle-Musigny Les Sentiers 2001. I had wanted to try what this domaine recently produced since some of the 1998 and most of the 1999 wines were bordering on the new-world style to my liking. I had been reading and was told that they cut back somewhat on doing sur-maturite oaked style recently and so with some anticipation I tasted this wine. What's more this is a 2001 -- a vintage that had captivated me since its release for its purity, elegance, and, at least more recently, beginning to display a high-class sweetness.
Like other 2001, the colour was brilliant. Dazzlingly rich and bright ruby red. On the nose this was quite muted. But perhaps it was just because of either the glass (we had a large burgundy-spherical type of glass, not the usual Riedels I am accustomed to) or the wine was overcome by stronger aromas of the accompanying food -- which was very good, by the way. I did not take notes -- it was such a casual outing -- but the ripe cherries flavour were prominent. It was very ripe, but not overripe, and there's a nice restrained transparency of flavours around it. A more minerally styled Chambolle in my opinion. While it's not outstanding, it was enough to reassert the fact that Groffier has come back down to earth for the better. An outstanding Pinot Noir, but only a very good Chambolle 1er. Texturally this was great, but taste-wise it could do with more intensity, cut and hopefully a burgundy-dirt funk -- something which this wine did not show.
31 January, 2005
Next: Ubiquitous Grand Crus comparatives
How do Clos Vougeot and Echezeaux sound to you? How many of us know how to spot one when we taste one? Or are these fairly vast and 'common' grand crus not deserving of their elevated status...?
And so it's probably apt that we try to do a comparative for these some time down the road. I'd suggest that we don't have to stick to a single vintage and let's do either or both sittings of Clos Vougeot and/or Echezeaux. By that I don't mean to mix the two, but if we want we can do a session for each. There might be some advantages to do this free-and-easy tasting. One is that we can see how the vintage and producer variation affect the wines. Secondly we can, in a fuzzy way, capture the wines at the different stage of their evolution.
What say you all?
And so it's probably apt that we try to do a comparative for these some time down the road. I'd suggest that we don't have to stick to a single vintage and let's do either or both sittings of Clos Vougeot and/or Echezeaux. By that I don't mean to mix the two, but if we want we can do a session for each. There might be some advantages to do this free-and-easy tasting. One is that we can see how the vintage and producer variation affect the wines. Secondly we can, in a fuzzy way, capture the wines at the different stage of their evolution.
What say you all?
30 January, 2005
Vosne Super 1ers Tasting: Take 1
This is part of the series of serious terroir studies of burgundy. The whole idea is really to appreciate the promises each famed Vosne 1er cru communes brings. This is also to take a break from the more easily conceivable concept of grand cru comparison. Of course, it would be very special to muse over Richebourg, La Romanee, St. Vivant, La Tache, etc, but I believe Vosne-Romanee as a villages contain many gems even at the next level. There should also be some distinctiveness between each of them. Famed vineyards such as Cros Parantoux, Brulees, Reignots, Malconsorts, Gaudichots, Suchots... are all respected names. In the hands of good producers, they should be special and show individuality and class.
Of course we cannot provide each example from one single producer, but we should certainly try taste them within a single vintage -- if possible. Again, while this is supposed to be academic, my personal wish is that none of us breaks our backs and/or banks just to compile the lineup. The key is, I suggest, to stick to 1998. As we all know this vintage is more or less drinking now (exceptions of course apply), is logistically possible to obtain and feature, and particularly for Vosne, is a tricky vintage -- according to Tanzer, many Vosne wines (including those from Flagey-Echezeaux) of this year suffer from dry tannins. So my theory is that in the hands of the better producers, the wines should not display these flaws. A true test, if you may...
To rehash what I've already stated above, let's try to amass these:
VR Les Suchots (e.g., Arnoux's, Cacheux's, Grivot's, Girardin's...)
VR Les Gaudichots (e.g., Forey's, Potel's...)
VR Les Petit Monts (e.g., Drouhin's, Forey's...)
VR Cros Parantoux (e.g., Rouget's, Meo-Camuzet's, Jayer's...)
VR Les Brulees (e.g., Meo-Camuzet's, Leroy's, Grivot's, Engel's...)
VR Aux Reignots (e.g., Bouchard's, Arnoux's...)
VR Malconsorts (e.g., Cathiard's, Girardin's, Noellat's...)
VR Les Chaumes (e.g., Grivot's, Arnoux's, Rion's...)
The tasting doesn't have to be big -- a few good bottles shd be good enough -- and they don't have to squarely fall into those I had suggested. I am sure there are many other worthy Vosne 1ers I have missed out. Also, I expect the attending group would be smallish -- much like the recent time -- but it should be good enough. The key is interest and passion and observance. In the absence of 1998 version of the wines, I'd suggest vintage 1995 or 2000 counterparts.
ps: much as I suggest these, I'm quite ashamed I don't have any of these -- at least not in the vintage(s) suggested...
Of course we cannot provide each example from one single producer, but we should certainly try taste them within a single vintage -- if possible. Again, while this is supposed to be academic, my personal wish is that none of us breaks our backs and/or banks just to compile the lineup. The key is, I suggest, to stick to 1998. As we all know this vintage is more or less drinking now (exceptions of course apply), is logistically possible to obtain and feature, and particularly for Vosne, is a tricky vintage -- according to Tanzer, many Vosne wines (including those from Flagey-Echezeaux) of this year suffer from dry tannins. So my theory is that in the hands of the better producers, the wines should not display these flaws. A true test, if you may...
To rehash what I've already stated above, let's try to amass these:
VR Les Suchots (e.g., Arnoux's, Cacheux's, Grivot's, Girardin's...)
VR Les Gaudichots (e.g., Forey's, Potel's...)
VR Les Petit Monts (e.g., Drouhin's, Forey's...)
VR Cros Parantoux (e.g., Rouget's, Meo-Camuzet's, Jayer's...)
VR Les Brulees (e.g., Meo-Camuzet's, Leroy's, Grivot's, Engel's...)
VR Aux Reignots (e.g., Bouchard's, Arnoux's...)
VR Malconsorts (e.g., Cathiard's, Girardin's, Noellat's...)
VR Les Chaumes (e.g., Grivot's, Arnoux's, Rion's...)
The tasting doesn't have to be big -- a few good bottles shd be good enough -- and they don't have to squarely fall into those I had suggested. I am sure there are many other worthy Vosne 1ers I have missed out. Also, I expect the attending group would be smallish -- much like the recent time -- but it should be good enough. The key is interest and passion and observance. In the absence of 1998 version of the wines, I'd suggest vintage 1995 or 2000 counterparts.
ps: much as I suggest these, I'm quite ashamed I don't have any of these -- at least not in the vintage(s) suggested...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
