This sort of tasting seldom comes by. The wines, all twenty bottles of them, featuring vintages between 1972-1993 (well, save for the aperitif, which is a 2004 Macon villages), are compliments of Andy and his wine merchant, Peter Thustrup, represented by Benoit Trouve.
Tasting was done over dinner which was one of the most memorable western dinners I've had in a long time. The food at Harbour Grill was simply marvellous. The new chef sure knows his stuff. The menu was imaginative and executed with a lot of pride and care. Yummy!
The first flight was a presentation of Robert Ampeau's red wines from Volnay-Santenots.
The 1992 was delicious and ready for the table, so to speak. Redcurrants, soil, a touch of smoke dominate the nose and palate. The vintage's limitation showed at the front and back -- it entered rather abrasively and showed green notes in the finish with aeration later on.
Many people liked the 1976 possibly because it exceeded expectations for what had come from a seemingly lacklustre vintage. Now I don't have any idea about what 1976 wines are supposed to be like. This one showed decidedly an aged aroma of meat and minty nuance. While this lacks the immediate sweetness of the 92, it hits the palate with more volume and wider array of secondary nuances. A gentle, sweet (not taste-wise) little burgundy. Delicious now.
The 1993 is the most different wine within this group. Visually it's darker and on the nose, an immediately more authoritative ("serious" my notes says) dark fruits aromas and flavours. Definitely more concentrated and voluminous, this was let down with a sticky sweetness and slight warmth at the finish.
The 1994 is the most disappointing of these foursome. There wasn't enough sweetness and complexity -- in fact it was rather watery with raspy disjointed acids. It didn't help that the wine showed mustiness, but otherwise the underlying fruits (whatever there was) were quite red.
I was quite eager to taste Joseph Voillot's wines which were featured in the next flight. Reportedly this is one of the least known quality-driven producers of Volnays and Pommards but the reviews of his wines had been nothing short of complimentary.
We started out with the 1982 Volnay Fremiets 1er. Mid garnet in colour with bright hue and transluscent to near the centre. This tasted rather jammy with strong profile of raspberry jam and is rather 'sticky' textured. The 1983 version displayed sous-bois mushroomy character -- far more aged comparatively speaking. Straightforward with no obvious differentiating characteristics besides its rather deep colour.
The next duo are Pommards. The 1983 Pommard Rugiens 1er sported a deep hue with reticent nose of earth and tar. (For a moment I was reminded of the wines of Piedmont...) This clearly showed more structure, depth and refinement despite a rather burly shape. Unmistakably Pommard and a very decent one at that. The 1983 Pommard Epenots 1er was immediately sweeter on the entrance, very approachable (in fact too approachable?) and simple. From a terroir standpoint I question: where is the earth and structure?
Louis Remy's mini vertical of Clos de la Roche was next. Featured are vintages '81, '82, '85, '86 and '88. Starting out with 1981, the shift from Cote de Beaune to Cote de Nuits and from premier to grand cru was obvious. Despite a very pale appearance the '81 CdlR showcased more refinement and a step up in pitch and midpalate sweetness. Lots of cherries and redcurrants with pleasant gentle texture. The '82 was brighter though similarly light in colour. There's a hint of decayed meat on the nose, and disappointingly musty and flat in flavours. Both these wines did not have the cut and volume I would expect the better examples of grand crus should possess.
Hardly exciting so far, we moved on to the famed '85 vintage. Yet another major disappointment, especially in the context of the fabled reputation of this vintage. Mushroomy nose with sweet and easy-going character on the palate. Hardly complex and certainly lacking spine. The 1988 marked a turnaround in this series. Immediately blacker in colour, with serious dark nose. On the palate it's structured, solid and persistent with brightness and midcore sweetness enlivened by a healthy dose of acid. I like this very much. With airing some tobaccoey earthy nuances showed up. The '86 is a sleeper. Mild jackfruits complicated the nose. On the palate it was sweet, tasty and gentle -- with a certain reserved elegance not found in the previous wines. A burgundy drinker's burgundy perhaps?
The final group represented the finest of the evening. Latricieres-Chambertin is one of my most loved grand crus. At its finest, it's a perfect mesh of the femininity and structure with no one character particularly outdoing each other. It is also frankly and generously an elegant Gevrey. And tonight we started with a bang...
Louis Remy 1972 Latricieres stole the hearts of almost everyone tonight. This is what old burgundies are all about. Very complex, soft, cosy aromas of leather, roast meats and dried flowers mingled in harmony atop a bright, gentle and oily textured palate. The tell-tale bacon-fat and floral hints with almost curranty yet minerally fruits, this wine is indeed about pleasure. Charmed. Totally.
It was followed by a somewhat lacklustre showing of the 1989. Again, meats, decomposed soil on the nose. On the palate this is immediately more massive and larger scaled. This also came across heavier and riper -- quite sun-baked -- and finished a tad alcoholic. Fortunately this maintained a sense of finesse but would be really nice if it sported more depth.
Maybe it's just tonight, but the 1985 appeared jinxed (again). This is simple, somewhat dilute, slightly tired and lacking flavours as well as volume, not to mention sweetness. Not a terrible wine, but again let down by its famed vintage, pedigree and the wines that preceded it. Lacked presence. On the other hand, the 1983 was interesting and a very alive wine. Musty leather and grilled peanut skins preceded a black-fruited flavour profile (despite its rather lightish colour). The fruits are still there. It's a wine made in a lighter vein but is not showing signs of tiredness yet.
The 1986 too provided some interests. Smoke and earthy stink on the nose gave way to a somewhat similar palate. This turned curiously minty later on. Interesting and well made wine that just didn't make any special marks. As we approached the 1988, it's again immediate how this vintage provided a version that is just... different from the rest. The colour is deeper, and the immensity of the intense high-pitched black fruits hit me right from the nose. This is indeed a macho, deep and powerful wine -- offering smoke, tobacco nuances atop of high-pitched fruits enlivened by strong natural acidities. This wine is still too youthful at this stage, and its structure was still over-protruding, but one that held good promise. The most complete of all the Latricieres of this flight and one I'm confident would develop into something truly special. Impressed.
This tasting left me with a number of thoughts which I intend to share in future posts as a way of commentary. Given the breadth of representation of the various vintages, it is certainly tempting for one to try to draw certain vintage opinions. It is however a tendency I am cautious about. As a matter of fact, if there is one takeaway I made from tonight's tasting is this: never write off an old burg; never write off a 'mediocre' vintage and never write off a less-known producer. Burgundy, despite its size, is so fragmented and so difficult to understand (and represent) that there are gems left to be discovered. And tonight's tasting has made an impression to me to this effect. That there are great, totally pleasurable wines, wines that are totally and can only be Burgundy, to be had outside the ordinary extraordinaries. It is sometimes the humble and the nondescript that may illumine and astonish -- and all it takes is an attitude of understanding.
More to come on these thoughts... For now, some sleep!
08 January, 2006
Ponsot tasting @ Jan-7 2006
This was conducted over dinner with the Chevaliers at Summer Pavilion Chinese restaurant at Ritz-Carlton. The food was fantastic. There were 2 tables at this dinner. Laurent Ponsot was present to preside over the tasting. The wines were served in pairs with the exception of wine #1 (the white, Clos de Monts Luisants 2000) and wine #10 (Chapelle-Chambertin 2001).
The aperitif was quite delicious. It was a Simonnet Chablis 1er cru Mont de Milieu 2000. Very ripe and honeyed at first, but gave way to firm and razor-like acidity later on at the finish. Quite nice.
The (only) Ponsot white, the Clos de Monts Luisants 2000 showed a very ripe and toasty nose. In the palate it showed almost an overt oiliness with melons and toast (again) and spices. It was in a way rather monolithic and square in the mouth. It needed food. The finish initially was warm and reticent of acids. Later on, it showed better integration and in spite of the cooked aromas, put on more freshnesh at the back. Andy was right, rather Pinot-Blanc-ish this one is.
The next pair was Gevrey-Chambertin Cuvee l'Abeille 1999 and 2000. Hands down these are very different wines, even by the looks of it. At one glance the 2000 had a more advanced, browning, orangey colour. The 1999 still had a deep ruby to a point of purple hue. Both didn't show the Gevrey tell-tale nose. But in the palate, upon coaxing, the 2000 showed a rather stewey, soupy raspberry fruits with hints of stems. The 1999 however was a different animal. While the 2000 had a frontal sweetness which fell flat at the finish, the 1999 was immediately clearer, brighter and more concentrated. The freshness lends a more detailed expression of fruits, but both wines came across rather round and lacked the definitive Gevrey-iron cut. (That said, the 1999 was showing a reticent hints of the iron elements...)
This was followed by a pair of 1er cru of Chambolle-Musigny les Charmes 2000 and 2001. Now both wines showed a more typical nose of the appellation -- combining ripe candied raspberries with cream (more obvious with the 2001). The 2000 seemed to suffer from latent corked-syndrome -- not apparent in the nose but in the finish it was discernible. Otherwise, the wines showed bright and polished palate of dense red-fruits. The case was particularly magnified with the 2001 sample, which showed higher pitched, more midpalate sweetness as well as density and brightness. Both wines came across as round and gentle -- a tell-tale Ponsot style perhaps? Nonetheless, clearly showing 1er cru class as compared to the simpler precedence.
Griotte-Chambertin 1997 and 1999 pair followed next. My experience with Ponsot's 1997s were positively positive (pardon the redundant statement). Its Clos de la Roche VV 1997 was perhaps my best 1997 grand cru tasted besides Roty's Charmes-Chambertin (a different -- but nonetheless excellent -- animal altogether). And so with great anticipation I awaited the 1997 Griotte... and it did not disappoint. This was at once a lot more voluminous and full of energy as one should expect out of any grand cru. Roasted raspberries and other red-fruits tinge dominate the cushy and cosy palate. Delicious. And clearly a grand cru class. The 1999 bettered this with its brighter, more intense and sappier expression of the same core of fruits. Sadly, after tasting the 1999 the 1997 clearly lacked the midpalate sweetness and earthy, oily untuosity that the best of the 1999 always seemed to offer, like this one....
The last duo of the 'best' wines of the domaine, the Clos de la Roche cuvee Vieilles Vignes, came from vintages 2003 and 1999 respectively. True to form, the 2003 was very dark and showed candied dark raspberries which turned curranty later on interspersed with milk chocolates and hints of violets and licorice. It was so ripe and dark-fruited yet managed to steer away from being downright new-worldish. For what it was, it was delicious and quite balanced, although the roundness of the wines of this domaine somewhat made it less 'bearable' than the other very ripe vintages, say, 2000 . The 1999 was therefore a breath of fresh air, with its very complex aromas of vitamin (B), bacon fats and dark raspberries. It possessed the quintessential grand cru attributes of volume, intensity, earthy complexity and texture. It was bright yet oily, meaty yet fruity and other weird juxtapositions one can think of. Methinks this was the wine of the night. Period.
The last wine was Chapelle-Chambertin 2001 and was excellent. This showed the pointed accuracy of flavours the best wines of this vintage could bring. Of all the Gevrey wines tonight, this one showed immediate typicity right from the start -- the nose showed the minerality, iron-tinged red berries fruits so typical of the commune. This wine possessed an excellent high pitch and minerality details -- but is still round somewhat in shape -- and unfortunately overshadowed by the CdlR VV 1999 in terms of complexity and breed. It is an admirable effort -- fully typical and very convincing.
The aperitif was quite delicious. It was a Simonnet Chablis 1er cru Mont de Milieu 2000. Very ripe and honeyed at first, but gave way to firm and razor-like acidity later on at the finish. Quite nice.
The (only) Ponsot white, the Clos de Monts Luisants 2000 showed a very ripe and toasty nose. In the palate it showed almost an overt oiliness with melons and toast (again) and spices. It was in a way rather monolithic and square in the mouth. It needed food. The finish initially was warm and reticent of acids. Later on, it showed better integration and in spite of the cooked aromas, put on more freshnesh at the back. Andy was right, rather Pinot-Blanc-ish this one is.
The next pair was Gevrey-Chambertin Cuvee l'Abeille 1999 and 2000. Hands down these are very different wines, even by the looks of it. At one glance the 2000 had a more advanced, browning, orangey colour. The 1999 still had a deep ruby to a point of purple hue. Both didn't show the Gevrey tell-tale nose. But in the palate, upon coaxing, the 2000 showed a rather stewey, soupy raspberry fruits with hints of stems. The 1999 however was a different animal. While the 2000 had a frontal sweetness which fell flat at the finish, the 1999 was immediately clearer, brighter and more concentrated. The freshness lends a more detailed expression of fruits, but both wines came across rather round and lacked the definitive Gevrey-iron cut. (That said, the 1999 was showing a reticent hints of the iron elements...)
This was followed by a pair of 1er cru of Chambolle-Musigny les Charmes 2000 and 2001. Now both wines showed a more typical nose of the appellation -- combining ripe candied raspberries with cream (more obvious with the 2001). The 2000 seemed to suffer from latent corked-syndrome -- not apparent in the nose but in the finish it was discernible. Otherwise, the wines showed bright and polished palate of dense red-fruits. The case was particularly magnified with the 2001 sample, which showed higher pitched, more midpalate sweetness as well as density and brightness. Both wines came across as round and gentle -- a tell-tale Ponsot style perhaps? Nonetheless, clearly showing 1er cru class as compared to the simpler precedence.
Griotte-Chambertin 1997 and 1999 pair followed next. My experience with Ponsot's 1997s were positively positive (pardon the redundant statement). Its Clos de la Roche VV 1997 was perhaps my best 1997 grand cru tasted besides Roty's Charmes-Chambertin (a different -- but nonetheless excellent -- animal altogether). And so with great anticipation I awaited the 1997 Griotte... and it did not disappoint. This was at once a lot more voluminous and full of energy as one should expect out of any grand cru. Roasted raspberries and other red-fruits tinge dominate the cushy and cosy palate. Delicious. And clearly a grand cru class. The 1999 bettered this with its brighter, more intense and sappier expression of the same core of fruits. Sadly, after tasting the 1999 the 1997 clearly lacked the midpalate sweetness and earthy, oily untuosity that the best of the 1999 always seemed to offer, like this one....
The last duo of the 'best' wines of the domaine, the Clos de la Roche cuvee Vieilles Vignes, came from vintages 2003 and 1999 respectively. True to form, the 2003 was very dark and showed candied dark raspberries which turned curranty later on interspersed with milk chocolates and hints of violets and licorice. It was so ripe and dark-fruited yet managed to steer away from being downright new-worldish. For what it was, it was delicious and quite balanced, although the roundness of the wines of this domaine somewhat made it less 'bearable' than the other very ripe vintages, say, 2000 . The 1999 was therefore a breath of fresh air, with its very complex aromas of vitamin (B), bacon fats and dark raspberries. It possessed the quintessential grand cru attributes of volume, intensity, earthy complexity and texture. It was bright yet oily, meaty yet fruity and other weird juxtapositions one can think of. Methinks this was the wine of the night. Period.
The last wine was Chapelle-Chambertin 2001 and was excellent. This showed the pointed accuracy of flavours the best wines of this vintage could bring. Of all the Gevrey wines tonight, this one showed immediate typicity right from the start -- the nose showed the minerality, iron-tinged red berries fruits so typical of the commune. This wine possessed an excellent high pitch and minerality details -- but is still round somewhat in shape -- and unfortunately overshadowed by the CdlR VV 1999 in terms of complexity and breed. It is an admirable effort -- fully typical and very convincing.
06 January, 2006
Dry (but not high) and a mini-vert of Geantet-Pansiot Charmes
The past Christmas break was uncharacteristically domesticated for me. I found myself manning many-a-household duty from which I learned that operating a household is indeed a task for no mere mortals...
And so despite the one-and-a-half-week or so of no office work, I was quite untainted vinously speaking. There were however some bottles shared over a few lunches which provided some entertainment and education.
As my friend Arif was in town we did a mini-vertical of Geantet-Pansiot's Charmes-Chambertin. 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2002 were featured. Incidentally, I also consumed my last bottle of 2001 just two nights prior to this lunch -- a task I regretted, for its addition to this impromptu tasting would have made it a more complete vertical -- and it was, as always with Pansiot's wines, delicious.
The Charmes from Pansiot are always accessible, striking a nice balance between the senses and intellectual interest, although I must add it's more about pleasure. Short of writing a whole bunch of tasting notes, suffice it to say, the 1999 did the trick for me. It is also after this tasting that reminded me of the greatness the greater wines of this vintage could achieve and I pondered subsequently whether the wines of this vintage are finally awakening from their deep slumber these past few years. The 99 Charmes in my opinion showed the most typicity (alongside with the 96 and 01 version, which I had earlier). It was a perfect combination -- at least in the context of Pansiot's style -- of power, minerality, elegance and ripeness. To me, the appearance of oily fatness in very bright red fruits and penetrating gentle sweetness -- features I prize so much in the best Burgundies -- made the wine almost complete. Frankly, I am seriously revisiting 1999 reds now which IMHO is the most complete vintage of the 1990s...
A few more highlights included the Arnaud Ente's Meursault Clos des Ambres 2002 (ultra high-pitched, bright and intense for a villages), Deux Montilles' Corton-Renardes 03 (very atypically elegant and not-overripe for a 03) and the Bruno Clair's Cazetiers 96 (not particularly the wine per se, but more so the Clair's style, which clearly shows its brooding, serious, introspective strides only close to 10 years after the vintage).
Come to think of it, not too dry a break after all. Hmmm...
And so despite the one-and-a-half-week or so of no office work, I was quite untainted vinously speaking. There were however some bottles shared over a few lunches which provided some entertainment and education.
As my friend Arif was in town we did a mini-vertical of Geantet-Pansiot's Charmes-Chambertin. 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2002 were featured. Incidentally, I also consumed my last bottle of 2001 just two nights prior to this lunch -- a task I regretted, for its addition to this impromptu tasting would have made it a more complete vertical -- and it was, as always with Pansiot's wines, delicious.
The Charmes from Pansiot are always accessible, striking a nice balance between the senses and intellectual interest, although I must add it's more about pleasure. Short of writing a whole bunch of tasting notes, suffice it to say, the 1999 did the trick for me. It is also after this tasting that reminded me of the greatness the greater wines of this vintage could achieve and I pondered subsequently whether the wines of this vintage are finally awakening from their deep slumber these past few years. The 99 Charmes in my opinion showed the most typicity (alongside with the 96 and 01 version, which I had earlier). It was a perfect combination -- at least in the context of Pansiot's style -- of power, minerality, elegance and ripeness. To me, the appearance of oily fatness in very bright red fruits and penetrating gentle sweetness -- features I prize so much in the best Burgundies -- made the wine almost complete. Frankly, I am seriously revisiting 1999 reds now which IMHO is the most complete vintage of the 1990s...
A few more highlights included the Arnaud Ente's Meursault Clos des Ambres 2002 (ultra high-pitched, bright and intense for a villages), Deux Montilles' Corton-Renardes 03 (very atypically elegant and not-overripe for a 03) and the Bruno Clair's Cazetiers 96 (not particularly the wine per se, but more so the Clair's style, which clearly shows its brooding, serious, introspective strides only close to 10 years after the vintage).
Come to think of it, not too dry a break after all. Hmmm...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
