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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment