We met at Golden Palace again. This time a very small group of five, with Andy, Alan and wife, James and myself. The theme? J.F. Mugnier. What were featured were 2000 Les Fuees, Les Amoureuses, Le Musigny plus 2001 Les Fuees and a 2002 Chambolle-Musigny AC. Alan also generously donated a bottle of Mugnier's Musigny 1992. Small group, big appetite!
The Fuees 2000 bottle sported a telltale candied raspberries nose. It entered very sweet, quite velvety, plush in the mouth yet has a touch of firmness which highlighted the lurking minerality. This was utterly delicious, and in spite of the bright and latent minerality this had the cosiness and caramel-infused fruits of a true Chambolle -- in a softer year. Very sappy. Interestingly I actually thought this was a 2001 Fuees...
The Fuees 2001 hit the nose with oily and minerally nose that far exceeded the portion of the preceding wine. This was somewhat more black fruited but there's still these raspberries taste that so typifies all Chambolle. This is more profound and larger sized than the 2000 but also came across as more simple and compact, lacking in midpalate. Very different from the most recent bottle I had at Oso just two weeks back or so (no pun intended). There's some mocha detected too. If Fuees is a mini-Bonnes-Mares, this certainly came closest to that theory.
The next bottle again jumped in the nose with candied, sappy raspberries. Also oily, but to a lesser extent than the previous one, this came across as very linear and held its own in the midpalate too. For a villages Chambolle this was quite a killer. Very impressive, and a proof that Mugnier did exceedingly well in this vintage. Chambolle-Musigny 2002.
Moving up the price level now we're hitting on the Amoureuses 2000. A more regal nose, but with a mixture of black and red raspberries as well as dark cherries and a certain hint of minerality. This had a more classy nose than the preceding three wines and although I'd have preferred a brighter red fruits spectrum, there's no doubting this was both more concentrated and had more breeding. Still quite backward and a deep buried creamy fruits could be found. Still this is still short of a grand cru in terms of volume and overall mouthfeel and finish.
At this point we revisited the Musigny 1992. While initially there was some graininess and skinniness to the wines which I could attribute to the use of stems, this blew off to give a spicier, dustier, lower-toned Musigny palate profile. The sweetness picked up tremendously and the wine turned more juicy as it aerated. While the stemmy edginess was still there (and some dustiness as a result), this was turning out well and for sure the best bottle I've had to-date. Quite savoury and delicious, if not quite as cleansing on the palate.
The 2000 Musigny sang a different tune. While I always mused that 1992 is like 2000 vintage (from taste alone), the fact that Mugnier moved toward destemming made these wines completely different from each other. This was a larger sized Chambolle with definitive grand cru volume (which the Amoureuses lacked) and class. The tannins were fine and plush but the deep fruits were still brooding. There's a sense of effortlessness in this wine that reeks of class and nothing but class, and finished irreproachably cool.
19 March, 2006
Comte Armard Pommard 1er Cru "Clos des Epeneaux" mini vertical @ Wine Garage
For some reasons there's just been a tremendous number of burgundy 'occasions' recently and most of the more illuminating lessons I've had came from these recent recollections. Over time I suppose as the interests of the group become more focussed on burgundy (I don't know why but certainly within my nearby circles everyone seems to be burg-ified all of a sudden) the occurence of structured or theme-specific tastings abound aplenty nowadays.
One of the highlights of our recent wine discovery must be Domaine Comte Armand of Pommard. To be quite fair, the domaine had made its mark in history for a long time, and any true burgundy diehard must know of this famous estate. The resurrection of this domaine seems inextricably connected to the finding and founding of two young "superstar" winemakers responsible for turning around the overall quality and within a short spate of time, reestablishing and once again justifying the fame of this historical estate. Pascal Marchand and his one-time assistant, Benjamin Leroux, had both achieved in the burgundy geek-speak context, nothing short of a winemaking superstardom. Benjamin particularly is extremely young, but is very well-travelled, and is a hardworking, deliberate and philosophical winemaker. Based on what I've been told by Andy through his personal encounter with Leroux, he struck me as a good wine taster too.
This estate is also synonymous with its most prized parcel of land, the monopole "Clos des Epeneaux", thought by many as possibly the most gifted and distinctive plot of Pommard. Such attribution, of course, often tends to be more romantic than it is quantifiable, but as far as my personal experience goes, this plot of land has indeed produced quite consistently many Pommards of distinction, not just with respect to its appellation, but also in the greater Burgundy in general.
(For a concise yet informative introduction to this domaine, its current winemaker and the "Clos des Epeneaux", pls refer to Auric Pacific's newsletter here.)
The tasting tonight at Wine Garage showcased several vintages of Clos des Epeneaux -- 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998, 1995 and 1990. The first three wines were made by Benjamin Leroux while the last three were the works of Pascal Marchand. It promised to be exciting as we could experience the difference the winemaking practices of these two guys made to the wines, as well as taste the development profile of the terroir. Quite specifically I wanted to explore what is "Clos des Epeneaux"?
Besides the aperitif, two other red wines were also served as a precursor to the vertical tasting: Domaine de la Vougeraie's Pommard "les Petit Noizons" 2002 (Marchand produced this wine) and Comte Armand Volnay 2002 (Leroux's Volnay interpretation).
Aperitif came in the form of Domaine Guy Roulot Bourgogne Blanc 2004. Still as malic as the last time I tasted it, the glass tonight seemed more cohesive. Nonetheless, green apple skins and limes still dominate the fruit profile of this wine. There was healthy acidity and extreme liveliness but being what it really was, this was still very thin in the mouth. What it made up for was length at the end, which was not so much fruit laden, but more due to the persistent acids. Bright wine but ultimately very light weight. Delicious, just not serious.
Comte Armand's Volnay 2002 was quite serious in the nose, with high-toned aromas of dark raspberries. Sweet and pliant in the mouth, if somewhat lacking midpalate, this had redcurrants aplenty and suggestions of golden sultanas in the innermouth perfume. Even textured and gentle wine ultimately. Finished with a subtle but sufficient suggestion of sappiness and some structure (for a Volnay AC particularly). Reasonable finish. Good, even handed, but not quite special. (This was put in so that the context of Benjamin's approach to winemaking would be better understood when we later assess the Clos des Epeneaux.)
Vougeraie's Pommard "les Petit Noizons" 2002's nose was distinctly different from the Volnay -- and it should be, by typicity alone. A serious Pommard nose which was visibly more massive, with slightly oily and almost roasted aromas. Lots of black fruits and very tannic in the mouth. This has impressive extract for a villages level wine. The use of stems was detected -- quite deftly done (I don't think the stems were green at all). Not transcedental for the cru but a classy Pommard nonetheless complete with its honest-to-goodness rusticity.
The vertical of six wines were served in the following flight of pairs: 2001 & 2003, 1998 & 2002, and 1995 & 1990. My personal order of tasting (which I deliberately did) was to taste: 2003 & 1998, 2002 & 2001, 1995 & 1990. This worked out better for me, though I must say that the 2003 was unlike any other wines, as expected and so pairing it with anything wouldn't have provided a better context other than, on hindsight, perhaps with the 2002. Nonetheless...
The 2003 sported a vitamin-B nuance on the nose with an almost liqueur like aromas and cassis. Very ripe, almost plummy, yet managed to stand up straight on its structure. Decidedly creamier than all the others with vanillin-scented oak influence, this did not have the sappy cleanliness in the finish which this wine tends to have but other Pommards don't. Nonetheless, generously textured and voluminous in the mouth still, if not quite lacking a certain freshness. Quite impressive in the context of the vintage.
The 1998 (under Marchand's hands) was a complete contrast. There was aloofness and edginess in the wine -- something I'd rather attribute to the vintage more than the winemaking style. However, the winemaking did impart certain characteristics too. The nose, for example, showed evidence of stems. This was quite ripe and extracted, but the extraction went a little off-balance IMHO -- as it turned slightly green in the finish. Nonetheless the natural sweetness was quite impressive for what had been a challenging vintage. The note of greeness persisted later on and the finish had a marked rusticity on it. This is unlikely to become better, but should still last for a while.
I once remarked that Comte Armand's Clos des Epeneaux 2002 redefined my perception of Pommard. At least my first bottle of it did for sure. My second experience was less impressive with the wine coming across as very ripe, generously styled burgundy. And tonight, my third bottle was certainly more typical compared to my previous experience, sporting ripe fruits, almost candied, and almost roasted but just did not cross the line. Bright red fruits predominate here, in fact also blue-fruits streak. At some point, due to the size, concentration, foursquare elegance and blue-fruit tendencies of this wine I was reminded of Bonnes-Mares, a mini version if you will. Sweet, persistent, plush and quite sappy, yet not quite as cleansing as the 2001 and less angular too. Textured, but not a fruit-bomb like the 2003 and very ripe but not as dehydrated as the 2003. Delicious and one day would be great.
The 2001 took my breath away after letting it sit in my glass for more than half-an-hour. Lighter hued than the densely red 2002, the '01 immediately struck the nose with crushed red fruits and a heightened expression of minerals quite hard to imagine to ever come out of Pommard. Bright raspberries and cherries fruits, with lots of minerals again on the palate complicated by nuances of wet soil, this wine possessed the linearity of flavours which is unsurpassed by even the 2002 example. Deeply penetrating, awesomely structured but not hard, in fact, rather gentle, this has the backbone of minerally fruits I associate only with truly great burgundies. Very impressive with great future but already a great wine of impeccable stature and balance. Spellbinding.
The last two wines set the stage and truly define what Marchand could and had done with this precious land. The 1995 seemed to be cut out of the same mould as the 1998 except that I suspect it had a better raw materials to start with. There was tell-tale stemmy whiff on the nose but more gentle, perhaps due to riper stems? The aromas were more pristine, combining fruits of black cherries and flinty minerals. Sweet and persistent in the mouth with an assertive tartness at the finish which further lenghtened the flavours. A very good showing regardless of what I've read about this wine. The origin of this wine is showing well.
The 1990 can be summed up in one word: monstrous. Huge, thick, meaty and finished off with a somewhat spirit-like nuance in the nose. In the mouth, none too different the typical Pommard outfit of ash, soil and tobacco were all there. So this was probably the most typically Pommard wine of the night with a hugely tannic structure to boot even at this age. A one of a kind Pommard (or even burgundy) of massive extract, the youthfulness of this wine is mind-bending. That said, everything, despite being upsized, was still in balance. This is a relentless monument of a wine which is unlikely to soften for another 15-20 years. Incomparable, to say the least.
Suffice it to say, as I contemplate on the wines tonight, Clos des Epeneaux is indeed quite special. There is an understated quality to its wines, the fruits bright and relatively gentle (especially in the context of Pommard). This is also the only Pommard that possesses an unshy levels of minerals in the wine. In short, quite extraordinary. What is left to see is whether it would put on the more typical Pommard character as it ages. After tasting the 1990 and 1995, I believe it would -- and this is very important.
Leroux and Marchand to some extent also offers two different styles. Both respect terroirs but while Marchand's wines tend to have this unbridled sense of energy and some degree of rustic edginess, Leroux's interpretation tend to be more plush, refined and gentle. Marchand's wines invariably demonstrates more power and density, but Leroux's version always showcases pristine high-pitched fruits with juicy sappiness. There is no right or wrong here, but this goes to show the effect a winemaker can lend to the wine, regardless of how little intervention they profess to make and how much they respect the already gifted terroir. Winemaking, in its most basic, after all, is but a human interpretation of the nature's gift.
One of the highlights of our recent wine discovery must be Domaine Comte Armand of Pommard. To be quite fair, the domaine had made its mark in history for a long time, and any true burgundy diehard must know of this famous estate. The resurrection of this domaine seems inextricably connected to the finding and founding of two young "superstar" winemakers responsible for turning around the overall quality and within a short spate of time, reestablishing and once again justifying the fame of this historical estate. Pascal Marchand and his one-time assistant, Benjamin Leroux, had both achieved in the burgundy geek-speak context, nothing short of a winemaking superstardom. Benjamin particularly is extremely young, but is very well-travelled, and is a hardworking, deliberate and philosophical winemaker. Based on what I've been told by Andy through his personal encounter with Leroux, he struck me as a good wine taster too.
This estate is also synonymous with its most prized parcel of land, the monopole "Clos des Epeneaux", thought by many as possibly the most gifted and distinctive plot of Pommard. Such attribution, of course, often tends to be more romantic than it is quantifiable, but as far as my personal experience goes, this plot of land has indeed produced quite consistently many Pommards of distinction, not just with respect to its appellation, but also in the greater Burgundy in general.
(For a concise yet informative introduction to this domaine, its current winemaker and the "Clos des Epeneaux", pls refer to Auric Pacific's newsletter here.)
The tasting tonight at Wine Garage showcased several vintages of Clos des Epeneaux -- 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998, 1995 and 1990. The first three wines were made by Benjamin Leroux while the last three were the works of Pascal Marchand. It promised to be exciting as we could experience the difference the winemaking practices of these two guys made to the wines, as well as taste the development profile of the terroir. Quite specifically I wanted to explore what is "Clos des Epeneaux"?
Besides the aperitif, two other red wines were also served as a precursor to the vertical tasting: Domaine de la Vougeraie's Pommard "les Petit Noizons" 2002 (Marchand produced this wine) and Comte Armand Volnay 2002 (Leroux's Volnay interpretation).
Aperitif came in the form of Domaine Guy Roulot Bourgogne Blanc 2004. Still as malic as the last time I tasted it, the glass tonight seemed more cohesive. Nonetheless, green apple skins and limes still dominate the fruit profile of this wine. There was healthy acidity and extreme liveliness but being what it really was, this was still very thin in the mouth. What it made up for was length at the end, which was not so much fruit laden, but more due to the persistent acids. Bright wine but ultimately very light weight. Delicious, just not serious.
Comte Armand's Volnay 2002 was quite serious in the nose, with high-toned aromas of dark raspberries. Sweet and pliant in the mouth, if somewhat lacking midpalate, this had redcurrants aplenty and suggestions of golden sultanas in the innermouth perfume. Even textured and gentle wine ultimately. Finished with a subtle but sufficient suggestion of sappiness and some structure (for a Volnay AC particularly). Reasonable finish. Good, even handed, but not quite special. (This was put in so that the context of Benjamin's approach to winemaking would be better understood when we later assess the Clos des Epeneaux.)
Vougeraie's Pommard "les Petit Noizons" 2002's nose was distinctly different from the Volnay -- and it should be, by typicity alone. A serious Pommard nose which was visibly more massive, with slightly oily and almost roasted aromas. Lots of black fruits and very tannic in the mouth. This has impressive extract for a villages level wine. The use of stems was detected -- quite deftly done (I don't think the stems were green at all). Not transcedental for the cru but a classy Pommard nonetheless complete with its honest-to-goodness rusticity.
The vertical of six wines were served in the following flight of pairs: 2001 & 2003, 1998 & 2002, and 1995 & 1990. My personal order of tasting (which I deliberately did) was to taste: 2003 & 1998, 2002 & 2001, 1995 & 1990. This worked out better for me, though I must say that the 2003 was unlike any other wines, as expected and so pairing it with anything wouldn't have provided a better context other than, on hindsight, perhaps with the 2002. Nonetheless...
The 2003 sported a vitamin-B nuance on the nose with an almost liqueur like aromas and cassis. Very ripe, almost plummy, yet managed to stand up straight on its structure. Decidedly creamier than all the others with vanillin-scented oak influence, this did not have the sappy cleanliness in the finish which this wine tends to have but other Pommards don't. Nonetheless, generously textured and voluminous in the mouth still, if not quite lacking a certain freshness. Quite impressive in the context of the vintage.
The 1998 (under Marchand's hands) was a complete contrast. There was aloofness and edginess in the wine -- something I'd rather attribute to the vintage more than the winemaking style. However, the winemaking did impart certain characteristics too. The nose, for example, showed evidence of stems. This was quite ripe and extracted, but the extraction went a little off-balance IMHO -- as it turned slightly green in the finish. Nonetheless the natural sweetness was quite impressive for what had been a challenging vintage. The note of greeness persisted later on and the finish had a marked rusticity on it. This is unlikely to become better, but should still last for a while.
I once remarked that Comte Armand's Clos des Epeneaux 2002 redefined my perception of Pommard. At least my first bottle of it did for sure. My second experience was less impressive with the wine coming across as very ripe, generously styled burgundy. And tonight, my third bottle was certainly more typical compared to my previous experience, sporting ripe fruits, almost candied, and almost roasted but just did not cross the line. Bright red fruits predominate here, in fact also blue-fruits streak. At some point, due to the size, concentration, foursquare elegance and blue-fruit tendencies of this wine I was reminded of Bonnes-Mares, a mini version if you will. Sweet, persistent, plush and quite sappy, yet not quite as cleansing as the 2001 and less angular too. Textured, but not a fruit-bomb like the 2003 and very ripe but not as dehydrated as the 2003. Delicious and one day would be great.
The 2001 took my breath away after letting it sit in my glass for more than half-an-hour. Lighter hued than the densely red 2002, the '01 immediately struck the nose with crushed red fruits and a heightened expression of minerals quite hard to imagine to ever come out of Pommard. Bright raspberries and cherries fruits, with lots of minerals again on the palate complicated by nuances of wet soil, this wine possessed the linearity of flavours which is unsurpassed by even the 2002 example. Deeply penetrating, awesomely structured but not hard, in fact, rather gentle, this has the backbone of minerally fruits I associate only with truly great burgundies. Very impressive with great future but already a great wine of impeccable stature and balance. Spellbinding.
The last two wines set the stage and truly define what Marchand could and had done with this precious land. The 1995 seemed to be cut out of the same mould as the 1998 except that I suspect it had a better raw materials to start with. There was tell-tale stemmy whiff on the nose but more gentle, perhaps due to riper stems? The aromas were more pristine, combining fruits of black cherries and flinty minerals. Sweet and persistent in the mouth with an assertive tartness at the finish which further lenghtened the flavours. A very good showing regardless of what I've read about this wine. The origin of this wine is showing well.
The 1990 can be summed up in one word: monstrous. Huge, thick, meaty and finished off with a somewhat spirit-like nuance in the nose. In the mouth, none too different the typical Pommard outfit of ash, soil and tobacco were all there. So this was probably the most typically Pommard wine of the night with a hugely tannic structure to boot even at this age. A one of a kind Pommard (or even burgundy) of massive extract, the youthfulness of this wine is mind-bending. That said, everything, despite being upsized, was still in balance. This is a relentless monument of a wine which is unlikely to soften for another 15-20 years. Incomparable, to say the least.
Suffice it to say, as I contemplate on the wines tonight, Clos des Epeneaux is indeed quite special. There is an understated quality to its wines, the fruits bright and relatively gentle (especially in the context of Pommard). This is also the only Pommard that possesses an unshy levels of minerals in the wine. In short, quite extraordinary. What is left to see is whether it would put on the more typical Pommard character as it ages. After tasting the 1990 and 1995, I believe it would -- and this is very important.
Leroux and Marchand to some extent also offers two different styles. Both respect terroirs but while Marchand's wines tend to have this unbridled sense of energy and some degree of rustic edginess, Leroux's interpretation tend to be more plush, refined and gentle. Marchand's wines invariably demonstrates more power and density, but Leroux's version always showcases pristine high-pitched fruits with juicy sappiness. There is no right or wrong here, but this goes to show the effect a winemaker can lend to the wine, regardless of how little intervention they profess to make and how much they respect the already gifted terroir. Winemaking, in its most basic, after all, is but a human interpretation of the nature's gift.
An incidental Gevrey-Chambertin 1998 grand cru workout
People are full of excuses. So is the burgfest gang. So with our friend Royce in town for a couple of days, we turned our gathering into a small exercise in 1998 Gevrey grand cru tasting -- plus more! We met at Sage the Restaurant at Robertson Walk, a nice discovery for French food. The ambience is simple and quiet, the service personable and most importantly, the food quite impressive.
We started out with a non-Burg, a Bordeaux, but a blanc nonetheless from Chateau Margaux -- Pavillon Blanc 2001. This is supposed to be pure Sauvignon blanc, but this tasted and smelled like no Sauvignon I've ever had in my life. Tough, massively structured, with an almost imperceptible and reticent nose. I got a sweaty damp oak aromas mixing some slates and limeskins. Hard and closed in the mouth, like chewing on steel nails, but the volume and energy were all there. Finished with minerally notes and intriguing mildly nuance of fino sherry.
The next few reds were poured full blind. The first bottle had a stalky, gentle, sweetish currant essence nose. Quite matured character, with a lemon-tea suggestion on the nose, giving way to dark cherries, spices and meatstock on the palate. Silky and ready to drink. Delicious. Hudelot-Noellat Clos Vougeot 1997.
We moved on to the next and this immediately came across as more minerally and powerful in the nose. It was darker and the aromas were brooding. Structured in the palate yet rounded. Black fruits predominate, good pitch and oily suggestions afterwards. I thought Gevrey premier, but perhaps mid-90s? Armand Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin Clos St. Jacques 1988. Very well preserved, but somewhat did not show its breed other than the sleek finish.
The next bottle's nose screamed of just one area... Candied raspberries, cream and berries introduction followed by similar palate which mixed intriguing minerality. Despite its ripeness and generosity, it maintained a certain edge with its persistent minerality and cleansing finish. Put on oily texture afterwards. A mini-Musigny by definition, kind of... Comte de Vogue Chambolle-Musigny 1er cru.
The last blind had a decidedly stemmy nose -- it screamed Domaine Dujac to me. Dense in the mouth, but somewhat flat and low-pitched. Quite mono-dimensional, unfortunately, and again flat in texture and presence. A gentle but frontal wine seriously lacking in midpalate. I guessed Morey (I didn't get minerals and it's quite soft). But it's a Dujac Charmes-Chambertin 1995. Another disappointing showing from this domaine especially in the context of the vintage and cru...
The next 6 bottles of Gevrey grand crus were served semi-blind randomly.
The first Gevrey was dense and had a powerful nose of black cherries. It was high-pitched, grippy and intense. This pulled ahead of the previous set of blinds like a pedigreed racehorse running against a bunch of donkeys in terms of presence and volume. In the mouth it was velvety, plush with some wood infused character plus soy, currants, some spices and a suggestion of licorice. Turned deliciously saline at the back. Bruno Clair Chambertin Clos de Beze 1998. Quite impressive.
The next bottle was just plain awkward and tired. Meaty dark fruit aromas interspersed with slightly oily and oaky notes. Huge in the mouth, quite voluminous but just lacked the cut, precision and energy of the previous wine. Tannins dominated the back and it was quite a rustic tannin too.... J.L. Trapet le Chambertin 1998.
Savoury and meaty notes introduced grand cru #3. Suggestion of lower-toned licorice (as opposed to Clair's de Beze's which is a more pristine and high-pitched rendition), smoke and bright black cherries fruits. Not lacking at all in volume and palate presence, but this showed more size and intensity rather than harmony and character. Technically impressive, but not moving. Joseph Roty's Charmes-Chambertin Tres Vieilles Vignes 1998.
Grand cru #4 greeted my nose with a rare and precise attack of pristine earth and red-crushed fruits. I would have liked to think this was a Chambertin (of course later I learned I was wrong). A rare display of cheesiness and gaminess at the tail-end of its aromatics, it was hugely dense in the mouth, but unlike the previous wine, deeply penetrating -- a completely 'vertical' wine, it attacked the midpalate and dug deep into it. Ended with a ripe-tartness (I know this is an oxymoron but this was precisely how it felt) mouthfeel that gripped and embalmed the fruits long after it's swallowed. Superb and my favourite wine of the night. Joseph Roty Mazy-Chambertin 1998.
After #4, I knew it was going to be hard to top it. Wine #5 again had a berry-scented, stemmy nose with very polished dark fruits. The palate suggested some soapiness after a while but interesting the fruits became brighter and more minerally later on. A very polished wine, manufactured to a fault, in a fruit-forward friendly style. Pierre Damoy Chapelle-Chambertin 1998.
The last bottle sported almost a reductive nose, with lots of meats and initially it was rather spritzy. The gas dissipated in a few minutes revealing an easygoing, lighter style wine. There really wasn't much to describe here, other than this was a rather simple and lower-pitched Gevrey. IMHO, not necessarily deserving of its cru either. My second disappointing bottle of Ruchottes from the same producer. Georges Roumier Ruchottes-Chambertin 1998.
We started out with a non-Burg, a Bordeaux, but a blanc nonetheless from Chateau Margaux -- Pavillon Blanc 2001. This is supposed to be pure Sauvignon blanc, but this tasted and smelled like no Sauvignon I've ever had in my life. Tough, massively structured, with an almost imperceptible and reticent nose. I got a sweaty damp oak aromas mixing some slates and limeskins. Hard and closed in the mouth, like chewing on steel nails, but the volume and energy were all there. Finished with minerally notes and intriguing mildly nuance of fino sherry.
The next few reds were poured full blind. The first bottle had a stalky, gentle, sweetish currant essence nose. Quite matured character, with a lemon-tea suggestion on the nose, giving way to dark cherries, spices and meatstock on the palate. Silky and ready to drink. Delicious. Hudelot-Noellat Clos Vougeot 1997.
We moved on to the next and this immediately came across as more minerally and powerful in the nose. It was darker and the aromas were brooding. Structured in the palate yet rounded. Black fruits predominate, good pitch and oily suggestions afterwards. I thought Gevrey premier, but perhaps mid-90s? Armand Rousseau Gevrey-Chambertin Clos St. Jacques 1988. Very well preserved, but somewhat did not show its breed other than the sleek finish.
The next bottle's nose screamed of just one area... Candied raspberries, cream and berries introduction followed by similar palate which mixed intriguing minerality. Despite its ripeness and generosity, it maintained a certain edge with its persistent minerality and cleansing finish. Put on oily texture afterwards. A mini-Musigny by definition, kind of... Comte de Vogue Chambolle-Musigny 1er cru.
The last blind had a decidedly stemmy nose -- it screamed Domaine Dujac to me. Dense in the mouth, but somewhat flat and low-pitched. Quite mono-dimensional, unfortunately, and again flat in texture and presence. A gentle but frontal wine seriously lacking in midpalate. I guessed Morey (I didn't get minerals and it's quite soft). But it's a Dujac Charmes-Chambertin 1995. Another disappointing showing from this domaine especially in the context of the vintage and cru...
The next 6 bottles of Gevrey grand crus were served semi-blind randomly.
The first Gevrey was dense and had a powerful nose of black cherries. It was high-pitched, grippy and intense. This pulled ahead of the previous set of blinds like a pedigreed racehorse running against a bunch of donkeys in terms of presence and volume. In the mouth it was velvety, plush with some wood infused character plus soy, currants, some spices and a suggestion of licorice. Turned deliciously saline at the back. Bruno Clair Chambertin Clos de Beze 1998. Quite impressive.
The next bottle was just plain awkward and tired. Meaty dark fruit aromas interspersed with slightly oily and oaky notes. Huge in the mouth, quite voluminous but just lacked the cut, precision and energy of the previous wine. Tannins dominated the back and it was quite a rustic tannin too.... J.L. Trapet le Chambertin 1998.
Savoury and meaty notes introduced grand cru #3. Suggestion of lower-toned licorice (as opposed to Clair's de Beze's which is a more pristine and high-pitched rendition), smoke and bright black cherries fruits. Not lacking at all in volume and palate presence, but this showed more size and intensity rather than harmony and character. Technically impressive, but not moving. Joseph Roty's Charmes-Chambertin Tres Vieilles Vignes 1998.
Grand cru #4 greeted my nose with a rare and precise attack of pristine earth and red-crushed fruits. I would have liked to think this was a Chambertin (of course later I learned I was wrong). A rare display of cheesiness and gaminess at the tail-end of its aromatics, it was hugely dense in the mouth, but unlike the previous wine, deeply penetrating -- a completely 'vertical' wine, it attacked the midpalate and dug deep into it. Ended with a ripe-tartness (I know this is an oxymoron but this was precisely how it felt) mouthfeel that gripped and embalmed the fruits long after it's swallowed. Superb and my favourite wine of the night. Joseph Roty Mazy-Chambertin 1998.
After #4, I knew it was going to be hard to top it. Wine #5 again had a berry-scented, stemmy nose with very polished dark fruits. The palate suggested some soapiness after a while but interesting the fruits became brighter and more minerally later on. A very polished wine, manufactured to a fault, in a fruit-forward friendly style. Pierre Damoy Chapelle-Chambertin 1998.
The last bottle sported almost a reductive nose, with lots of meats and initially it was rather spritzy. The gas dissipated in a few minutes revealing an easygoing, lighter style wine. There really wasn't much to describe here, other than this was a rather simple and lower-pitched Gevrey. IMHO, not necessarily deserving of its cru either. My second disappointing bottle of Ruchottes from the same producer. Georges Roumier Ruchottes-Chambertin 1998.
12 March, 2006
Oso impromptu - Premier Cru Maximus
Have I ever shared why I love my drinking group? Here's why... One: we love wine. Two: we love Burgundy. Three: we always seek understanding about the region we love. Four: we make time (responsibly, of course!) anytime to explore Burgundy together. Five: we don't give $^~t about wine labels nor cru.
And so we decided overnight that we were going to Oso for a late dinner (9.30 pm) for another round of burgundy education. Andy picked a couple of wines and off we went. Oso is probably my favourite italian haunt for some inexplicable reasons. Yes, the food is great and the ambience too. But there's a certain cosiness I just find quite special and I have yet to find elsewhere that makes me want to come back.
At the bar, while waiting for our table to be ready, a blind white was poured. This had a gorgeous malic nose with some reticent vitamins on it. 2004? Yes it was. On the nose, there was toast and pickled olives. On the palate, equally malic (yummy!) with lemons and ripe limes, with persistent linearity and a finish that tapers off long. Meaty fruits but rather thin at the centre. Having said this, the overall balance was very nice, and the length of the finish more than made up for it. A delicious and extremely rare wine, according to Andy, it was Hubert Lignier Fixin Cepage Chardonnay 2004.
The first red was Jean Louis Trapet's Gevrey Chambertin 1er cru Petite Chapelle 2002. Cosy, fireplace ash and toasted meat in the nose amidst the Gevrey iron nose. Sweaty leather inflected black cherries, and this was just delicious if not anything else. The pitch was lacking comparatively coming from the cru and vintage, but this again, was from the other side of Gevrey combe lavaut, remember? A nice wine nonetheless.
The next wine outclassed the previous wine by a sizeable margin. In fact this was rather special. This had crushed red fruits, minerals and high-pitched Gevrey iron and Vitamin-B. The pitch was two steps up from the previous wine. Savoury, voluminous, sweet, powerful and persistent. A medium-scaled grand-cru wannabe, if you ask me. This was Fourrier Gevrey Chambertin 1er Cru Combe Aux Moines 2002. Wonderful, thought-provoking juice. Indeed a producer to watch out for.
We move down south to Vosne-Romanee next. This came from Sylvain Cathiard. The Vosne-Romanee Aux Malconsorts 1998 was very impressive. In fact the most impressive Vosne I've tasted for a long time, and considering the challenging vintage for the commune, the credibility of this wine was nothing short of outstanding. Briary black fruits on the nose and some sappiness, in spite of the perceptible stem treatment, which I thought was handled masterfully if he ever did so. There were Vosne spices and a purity of fruits which was quite cleansing, especially in the context of a Vosne wine. Authoritative, slightly wild wine but tampered with good transparency and breed. Impressive. Looking forward to more tasting around this domaine.
The last wine was a blind. It could only have come from Chambolle. On the nose this was all high-pitched raspberries ,all pristine and clean. This was pure sex in the mouth, an explosion of nothing but red fruits with icy sappiness, intriguing minerality and gentleness of great class. This was an example of palate staining sweetness and thorough ripeness of fruits without heaviness. Finished off with linear cleansing fruits which reminds me, as Andy also commented, of the great Henri Jayer's wines. Special. J.F. Mugnier Chambolle-Musigny les Fuees 2001.
We should do more tastings like this. None too grand, but all were great wines which showed exemplary typicity and class of its vineyards, and so quite enlightening and educational.
And so we decided overnight that we were going to Oso for a late dinner (9.30 pm) for another round of burgundy education. Andy picked a couple of wines and off we went. Oso is probably my favourite italian haunt for some inexplicable reasons. Yes, the food is great and the ambience too. But there's a certain cosiness I just find quite special and I have yet to find elsewhere that makes me want to come back.
At the bar, while waiting for our table to be ready, a blind white was poured. This had a gorgeous malic nose with some reticent vitamins on it. 2004? Yes it was. On the nose, there was toast and pickled olives. On the palate, equally malic (yummy!) with lemons and ripe limes, with persistent linearity and a finish that tapers off long. Meaty fruits but rather thin at the centre. Having said this, the overall balance was very nice, and the length of the finish more than made up for it. A delicious and extremely rare wine, according to Andy, it was Hubert Lignier Fixin Cepage Chardonnay 2004.
The first red was Jean Louis Trapet's Gevrey Chambertin 1er cru Petite Chapelle 2002. Cosy, fireplace ash and toasted meat in the nose amidst the Gevrey iron nose. Sweaty leather inflected black cherries, and this was just delicious if not anything else. The pitch was lacking comparatively coming from the cru and vintage, but this again, was from the other side of Gevrey combe lavaut, remember? A nice wine nonetheless.
The next wine outclassed the previous wine by a sizeable margin. In fact this was rather special. This had crushed red fruits, minerals and high-pitched Gevrey iron and Vitamin-B. The pitch was two steps up from the previous wine. Savoury, voluminous, sweet, powerful and persistent. A medium-scaled grand-cru wannabe, if you ask me. This was Fourrier Gevrey Chambertin 1er Cru Combe Aux Moines 2002. Wonderful, thought-provoking juice. Indeed a producer to watch out for.
We move down south to Vosne-Romanee next. This came from Sylvain Cathiard. The Vosne-Romanee Aux Malconsorts 1998 was very impressive. In fact the most impressive Vosne I've tasted for a long time, and considering the challenging vintage for the commune, the credibility of this wine was nothing short of outstanding. Briary black fruits on the nose and some sappiness, in spite of the perceptible stem treatment, which I thought was handled masterfully if he ever did so. There were Vosne spices and a purity of fruits which was quite cleansing, especially in the context of a Vosne wine. Authoritative, slightly wild wine but tampered with good transparency and breed. Impressive. Looking forward to more tasting around this domaine.
The last wine was a blind. It could only have come from Chambolle. On the nose this was all high-pitched raspberries ,all pristine and clean. This was pure sex in the mouth, an explosion of nothing but red fruits with icy sappiness, intriguing minerality and gentleness of great class. This was an example of palate staining sweetness and thorough ripeness of fruits without heaviness. Finished off with linear cleansing fruits which reminds me, as Andy also commented, of the great Henri Jayer's wines. Special. J.F. Mugnier Chambolle-Musigny les Fuees 2001.
We should do more tastings like this. None too grand, but all were great wines which showed exemplary typicity and class of its vineyards, and so quite enlightening and educational.
06 March, 2006
Salvation Army charity dinner @ Ming San's - Burgundy 2000
I stepped in late at Ming San's residence, running into Ming San, Hee Hon and the house maids trying to get Princess, the Alsatian, into Ming San's SUV for an emergency trip to the vet. A chicken bone apparently found itself into Princess' tooth/gum(?) just minutes prior to my arrival. Ming San told me to join the rest of the gang and enjoy the wine in the meantime.
I was greeted with a delicious, blind (white) bottle which had a somewhat heady toasty aromas and ripe high-toned pineappley kind of flavours. The finish was strongly acidic however, in a manner I was not too familiar with. The midpalate was lacking, perhaps even slightly dilute (reminded me of Ramonet's less than stellar attempts in 1999 and 2000 vintage here). Some suggested this was a villages Meursault. I thought this was a little bit more like a Chassagne, though to be honest this was quite Meursault like on the nose too -- but I was quite sure this was a 2000. And then someone else suggested this might even be an Aligote. Right on... It was Coche-Dury Bourgogne Aligote 2000, fruit source unknown.
We started the dinner with a duo Puligny-Montrachet 1er les Perrieres 2000 from Carillon and Sauzet. Both whites were served out of decanter, semi-blind. The first one had an exotic nose, mixing almost tropical fruits with lemon tea and oak. This wine was also quite warm though was quite generous in the mouth. Again, like most 2000 whites I've had of late, this was rather evolved. An easygoing, crowd-pleasing wine. This turned out (expectedly) to be Louis Carillon's example.
The other Perrieres (Sauzet) was immediately firmer and structured even going by the nose. Bracing and penetrating hints of lemon skins in the nose and quinine at the finish, this wine had an almost painful intensity and excellent penetration in the mouth. It also developed and became richer as time moved on. A powerful wine with palate staining finish yet still retains its Puligny delicacy. Lovely, and improving.
The second flight comes in the form of two premier crus. Henri Gouges Nuits St. Georges les Pruliers 2000 had an intriguing mix of crushed raspberries and spices, rather sauvage nose. The same wildness was detected in the mouth, which otherwise it would have been quite Chambolle-like. Finished off with slight rusticity. I liked the linearity of flavour this wine sported. Lightweight as it might be this was a serious wine, and a rather elegant Nuits. I like it!
Les Gaudichots has an illustrious heritage. It is believed (deductively) that Nicolas Potel purchased his Gaudichots grapes from Domaine de la Romanee-Conti since the latter still owns a parcel of this prized land which over time had been gradually annexed to La Tache. A poor man's La Tache? Well, not exactly, mostly because the price of les Gaudichots bottling isn't exactly within a poor man's reach... Nonetheless, the Potel Vosne Romanee les Gaudichots 2000 initially gave off a brett-inflected nose which fortunately cleared up after some aeration. Obvious stemmy and pungent meaty character at first leading to a plush, dense, generous dark fruits and a slightly alcoholic finish. This wine showed breed and volume but I found the oak treatment did not allow it to carry its flavours cleanly to the finish. While this was obviously classier than the preceding wine, I just didn't find it to be quite as 'honest' as Gouges' les Pruliers... But then again, we're comparing apples vs. oranges here.
We moved on to the next flight of the 'ubiquitous grand crus' -- a phrase I realise is an oxymoron. Nonetheless, when we are considering Clos Vougeot and Echezeaux, is that not quite true? Well, generally speaking yes, but when one looks at these two producers we are really talking about the exception to the norm.
Hudelot-Noellat Clos Vougeot 2000 gave off an earthy, meaty nose initially which very quickly led off to a classy icy, candied and briary nose of black cherries and plums. Square and dense in the mouth with bright dark fruits to boot. An impressive Clos Vougeot, but like even in the best examples, of which this is clearly one of them, this was rather charmless, and I honestly thought this was a function of its terroir more than anything else.
Georges Jayer Echezeaux 2000 is Henri Jayer's wine ultimately as he oversees the winemaking at this estate, and every wine by Jayer is a rare treat. This one is no exception. Delicate dark cherries, and textural linearity that brought me to my knees. This is a perfect marriage of delineation of flavours, straight-line entry-midpalate-finish-innermouth-perfume, and utterly cool, satiny texture. Very penetrating yet unbelievably gentle. The most elegantly rendered spicy Vosne fruits with nobility and unsurpassed gentleness. (I know, I know, I keep saying that this wine is gentle. But this is precisely what makes it so special.) Cleansing, highly perfumed finish that wouldn't quite and literally weightless in the mouth. A humbling experience. (I pitied Noellat's Clos Vougeot put side by side this wine, not that it was even bad to start with!)
The battle of the titans? Well, almost. We're seeing a Chambertin Clos de Beze shootout between Armand Rousseau and Louis Jadot next, served semi blind out of the decanter. The first wine had a very candied and red fruited generosity in the nose. It was creamy, had slight confectionery and deceptive fruity simplicity but I sensed a brooding reserve underneath. It finished with soy-like finish and oily texture emerged after extended aeration. This was a spicy and classy Chambertin which was already approachable. I wonder what it would be like in a few years time. I believe there'd be some upside. And most got it right: this was Armand Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze 2000. I liked it, but this just didn't have the pitch, cut and formidability of his Le Chambertin (one of my best burgundy experience I must confess).
Jadot's rendition couldn't have been more different. (Again, tonight it seemed we were playing a game of contrasts in flights of similar wines... How fun!) High-pitched, enclosed, oily, very complex and minerally Gevrey on the nose (although more rounded than the typical examples -- but then again, this was a Clos de Beze). In the mouth, intense deep red fruits with an aristocratic structure, velvety texture, cleansing and sweet. I revisited this wine many times over that night (there was quite a lot left in the decanter, so I presume this couldn't have been the favourite of the table), and close to an hour later, this put on that Jadot-esque savoury, meaty and slightly minty aftertaste. As Darth Vader would say, "Impressive... Most impressive..." Wonderful juice and one that I thought about a lot afterwards.
Phew... And now we're going to the hallowed moment where we would compare the incomparable Musigny from the house of Comte de Vogue and J.F. Mugnier. Again, in semi blind. The first wine sported the tell-tale Chambolle nose of creamy raspberries but with some oaky density which was all rendered in class and finesse. Voluminous in the mouth but not quite as focussed and pristine as the... second wine, which also had a creamy raspberry flavours and a very transparent spine of fruits. Very sweet on the verge of (but short of) stickiness, this continued to showcase admirable luminosity and high-pitched minerality in its fruits. There was a sense of plush royal presence that was unmistakably... Musigny. This second wine had a purity of fruits that the first wine could not overcome. Musigny wine #1 was de Vogue and #2 was Mugnier. I suppose when wines like these were put side by side can one begin to appreciate the difference in the details that the domaines impart or highlight to their wines. While de Vogue's Musigny had every right to be a le Musigny, so to speak, it was more massive and less transparent and delineated than Mugnier's. Having said this, I know de Vogue's Musigny is a strange beast, in that in the typical burgundy tradition, they would put on more clarity and expand its layers several years afterwards. It was highly likely that we were not catching this 2000 in its upcurve slope yet. Having said that, regardless of the potentials, Mugnier's Musigny was something else. His approach of purity of fruits above all else, and a standard treatment of skinny percentage of new oak even at this level had produced an expression that was entirely lovely yet regal, and ultimately an ultimate Chambolle-Musigny wine -- lush, structured, commanding, seductive, rich, minerally, and, to say the least, the complete burgundy. I shudder to think what he could have released in the other more favourable vintages...
Ming San cracked another bottle open for the fun of it. This one was certainly aged. Unfortunately -- I don't know if it was the cold temperature of the wine, or the fact that there was some sediment disturbance -- this wine came across as rather lean and ungiving. It was nicely structured however, but should have come from a hot vintage, probably a less illustrious one. Meatstock aromas with stemmy acidity and fairly persistent. I guessed '7os... probably '78 Gevrey but premier cru? I mean, I had no idea about this decade, and so I just took that shot. He said it was an '83, which he thought now behave quite similarly to the '76s, and it's a grand cru from Vosne. It was Gros Frere et Soeur Richebourg 1983.
And so the night ended and I had a lot of fun just sitting there, sipping, and thinking about each wine as I savoured them. All the wines showed typicity of its communes and well deserved their cru standing. There was no disappointment, as even the 'weaker' wines displayed its origin and its flaws weren't unexpected (e.g., Carillon's). This is a tasting I contemplate often after the event for the sheer education it afforded me, and I am still thinking about it even as I write this.......................
I was greeted with a delicious, blind (white) bottle which had a somewhat heady toasty aromas and ripe high-toned pineappley kind of flavours. The finish was strongly acidic however, in a manner I was not too familiar with. The midpalate was lacking, perhaps even slightly dilute (reminded me of Ramonet's less than stellar attempts in 1999 and 2000 vintage here). Some suggested this was a villages Meursault. I thought this was a little bit more like a Chassagne, though to be honest this was quite Meursault like on the nose too -- but I was quite sure this was a 2000. And then someone else suggested this might even be an Aligote. Right on... It was Coche-Dury Bourgogne Aligote 2000, fruit source unknown.
We started the dinner with a duo Puligny-Montrachet 1er les Perrieres 2000 from Carillon and Sauzet. Both whites were served out of decanter, semi-blind. The first one had an exotic nose, mixing almost tropical fruits with lemon tea and oak. This wine was also quite warm though was quite generous in the mouth. Again, like most 2000 whites I've had of late, this was rather evolved. An easygoing, crowd-pleasing wine. This turned out (expectedly) to be Louis Carillon's example.
The other Perrieres (Sauzet) was immediately firmer and structured even going by the nose. Bracing and penetrating hints of lemon skins in the nose and quinine at the finish, this wine had an almost painful intensity and excellent penetration in the mouth. It also developed and became richer as time moved on. A powerful wine with palate staining finish yet still retains its Puligny delicacy. Lovely, and improving.
The second flight comes in the form of two premier crus. Henri Gouges Nuits St. Georges les Pruliers 2000 had an intriguing mix of crushed raspberries and spices, rather sauvage nose. The same wildness was detected in the mouth, which otherwise it would have been quite Chambolle-like. Finished off with slight rusticity. I liked the linearity of flavour this wine sported. Lightweight as it might be this was a serious wine, and a rather elegant Nuits. I like it!
Les Gaudichots has an illustrious heritage. It is believed (deductively) that Nicolas Potel purchased his Gaudichots grapes from Domaine de la Romanee-Conti since the latter still owns a parcel of this prized land which over time had been gradually annexed to La Tache. A poor man's La Tache? Well, not exactly, mostly because the price of les Gaudichots bottling isn't exactly within a poor man's reach... Nonetheless, the Potel Vosne Romanee les Gaudichots 2000 initially gave off a brett-inflected nose which fortunately cleared up after some aeration. Obvious stemmy and pungent meaty character at first leading to a plush, dense, generous dark fruits and a slightly alcoholic finish. This wine showed breed and volume but I found the oak treatment did not allow it to carry its flavours cleanly to the finish. While this was obviously classier than the preceding wine, I just didn't find it to be quite as 'honest' as Gouges' les Pruliers... But then again, we're comparing apples vs. oranges here.
We moved on to the next flight of the 'ubiquitous grand crus' -- a phrase I realise is an oxymoron. Nonetheless, when we are considering Clos Vougeot and Echezeaux, is that not quite true? Well, generally speaking yes, but when one looks at these two producers we are really talking about the exception to the norm.
Hudelot-Noellat Clos Vougeot 2000 gave off an earthy, meaty nose initially which very quickly led off to a classy icy, candied and briary nose of black cherries and plums. Square and dense in the mouth with bright dark fruits to boot. An impressive Clos Vougeot, but like even in the best examples, of which this is clearly one of them, this was rather charmless, and I honestly thought this was a function of its terroir more than anything else.
Georges Jayer Echezeaux 2000 is Henri Jayer's wine ultimately as he oversees the winemaking at this estate, and every wine by Jayer is a rare treat. This one is no exception. Delicate dark cherries, and textural linearity that brought me to my knees. This is a perfect marriage of delineation of flavours, straight-line entry-midpalate-finish-innermouth-perfume, and utterly cool, satiny texture. Very penetrating yet unbelievably gentle. The most elegantly rendered spicy Vosne fruits with nobility and unsurpassed gentleness. (I know, I know, I keep saying that this wine is gentle. But this is precisely what makes it so special.) Cleansing, highly perfumed finish that wouldn't quite and literally weightless in the mouth. A humbling experience. (I pitied Noellat's Clos Vougeot put side by side this wine, not that it was even bad to start with!)
The battle of the titans? Well, almost. We're seeing a Chambertin Clos de Beze shootout between Armand Rousseau and Louis Jadot next, served semi blind out of the decanter. The first wine had a very candied and red fruited generosity in the nose. It was creamy, had slight confectionery and deceptive fruity simplicity but I sensed a brooding reserve underneath. It finished with soy-like finish and oily texture emerged after extended aeration. This was a spicy and classy Chambertin which was already approachable. I wonder what it would be like in a few years time. I believe there'd be some upside. And most got it right: this was Armand Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze 2000. I liked it, but this just didn't have the pitch, cut and formidability of his Le Chambertin (one of my best burgundy experience I must confess).
Jadot's rendition couldn't have been more different. (Again, tonight it seemed we were playing a game of contrasts in flights of similar wines... How fun!) High-pitched, enclosed, oily, very complex and minerally Gevrey on the nose (although more rounded than the typical examples -- but then again, this was a Clos de Beze). In the mouth, intense deep red fruits with an aristocratic structure, velvety texture, cleansing and sweet. I revisited this wine many times over that night (there was quite a lot left in the decanter, so I presume this couldn't have been the favourite of the table), and close to an hour later, this put on that Jadot-esque savoury, meaty and slightly minty aftertaste. As Darth Vader would say, "Impressive... Most impressive..." Wonderful juice and one that I thought about a lot afterwards.
Phew... And now we're going to the hallowed moment where we would compare the incomparable Musigny from the house of Comte de Vogue and J.F. Mugnier. Again, in semi blind. The first wine sported the tell-tale Chambolle nose of creamy raspberries but with some oaky density which was all rendered in class and finesse. Voluminous in the mouth but not quite as focussed and pristine as the... second wine, which also had a creamy raspberry flavours and a very transparent spine of fruits. Very sweet on the verge of (but short of) stickiness, this continued to showcase admirable luminosity and high-pitched minerality in its fruits. There was a sense of plush royal presence that was unmistakably... Musigny. This second wine had a purity of fruits that the first wine could not overcome. Musigny wine #1 was de Vogue and #2 was Mugnier. I suppose when wines like these were put side by side can one begin to appreciate the difference in the details that the domaines impart or highlight to their wines. While de Vogue's Musigny had every right to be a le Musigny, so to speak, it was more massive and less transparent and delineated than Mugnier's. Having said this, I know de Vogue's Musigny is a strange beast, in that in the typical burgundy tradition, they would put on more clarity and expand its layers several years afterwards. It was highly likely that we were not catching this 2000 in its upcurve slope yet. Having said that, regardless of the potentials, Mugnier's Musigny was something else. His approach of purity of fruits above all else, and a standard treatment of skinny percentage of new oak even at this level had produced an expression that was entirely lovely yet regal, and ultimately an ultimate Chambolle-Musigny wine -- lush, structured, commanding, seductive, rich, minerally, and, to say the least, the complete burgundy. I shudder to think what he could have released in the other more favourable vintages...
Ming San cracked another bottle open for the fun of it. This one was certainly aged. Unfortunately -- I don't know if it was the cold temperature of the wine, or the fact that there was some sediment disturbance -- this wine came across as rather lean and ungiving. It was nicely structured however, but should have come from a hot vintage, probably a less illustrious one. Meatstock aromas with stemmy acidity and fairly persistent. I guessed '7os... probably '78 Gevrey but premier cru? I mean, I had no idea about this decade, and so I just took that shot. He said it was an '83, which he thought now behave quite similarly to the '76s, and it's a grand cru from Vosne. It was Gros Frere et Soeur Richebourg 1983.
And so the night ended and I had a lot of fun just sitting there, sipping, and thinking about each wine as I savoured them. All the wines showed typicity of its communes and well deserved their cru standing. There was no disappointment, as even the 'weaker' wines displayed its origin and its flaws weren't unexpected (e.g., Carillon's). This is a tasting I contemplate often after the event for the sheer education it afforded me, and I am still thinking about it even as I write this.......................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
