I had the delightful opportunity to join a winetasting group called Coterie de Dionysus on a certain Friday night. The theme was quite appropriate, of course, and it sought to compare and vote for the preferred wines made of Chardonnay and Pinot Noir grapes hailing from Burgundy and New World areas. There's a budget to each wine, however (in the range of S$60 a bottle, I think...) and so the comparison exercise is geared towards finding the best drinking and best tasting wine for each flight. Each flight is composed of one wine from the new world and one wine from the old world -- served fully blind. At the end of the tasting, a poll count is taken to see whether the old world or the new world won the night.
I never thought the turnout would be so large. I mean, this was a massive party! Everyone was in the mood for fun and a great tasting experience. In fact I've never attended a more interactive session than this (at least not at this size -- around 40 pax). There was a lot of exchange and play. In short, a very fun evening.
The line up by flight and my personal comments follows...
ROUND ONE - Patrick Javillier Mersault ‘les Tillets’ 2002 vs. Petaluma Chardonnay Piccadilly Valley 2003
It's not exactly easy to tell which was new world and which was old world. There was however a distinct stylistic difference. Wine 'A' was cold and reticent on the nose. Pear and some banana skins could be detected with some warming up. Leaner on the palate than 'B', this had greater linearity, pure fruited sweetness and better midpalate presence. It turned floral afterwards. This had to be old world, I thought. Wine 'B', on the other hand, was immediately more gratifying with a spicier (hints of anise and dill) and richer nose. Oakiness was evident. In the mouth it was also very generous with fuller body and noticeably layered textures. Orange peels hints emerged later. Bigger wine than 'A' but maintains a sense of elegance. What it did not have was the focus of 'A'. I prefered 'A', but most voted for 'B'. 'B' was the Petaluma and 'A' was the Meursault. Score: 23 vs. 14 in favour of Petaluma.
ROUND TWO - Wantirna Estate Lily Yarra Valley Pinot Noir 2004 vs. Joseph Roty Marsannay Champs St. Etienne 2003
This was a lot easier to tell apart which was which (not necessarily what the exact wine, though). Wine 'A' had red plum and spices on the nose. On the palate however this had a stewey rose-syrup like flavour which I do not like. Soupy texture but still had some brightness, this was decidedly wooded yet well-made. Finished with cloying sweetness. Must be Aussie from a hot region, I thought. Wine 'B' was corked but fortunately there was a spare bottle. What a contrast -- crushed red fruits, cherries and minerals, steely and high-pitched. Must be a northern Burgundy. Ended with a lovely mouthwatering sappiness. 'A' was the Yarra pinot, and 'B' was the Marsannay. No prize for guessing which one I preferred. Burgundy was a runaway winner with a score of 30 to 8.
ROUND THREE - Domaine Bruno Desauney Bissey Gevrey Chambertin 2003 vs. Dog Point Vineyard Malborough 2004
This turned out to be a very close fight. Wine 'A' sported ripe black fruits, with a very ripe and spicy tendency. Plush and round in the mouth with reasonably good grip -- in fact, rather Vosne-like to me. With air, liqueur-like elements merged, indicating this came from a very hot vintage (which it was, as we learned later), and a rouch of rusticity framed the finish. A certain amount of volatile acids was evident throughout. Wine 'B' had a soupy, stemmy nose. Fairly spritzy (some CO2 trappings?), this needed a hefty amount of swirling and patience to blow off. This was decidedly new world to me (in comparison, I wasn't sure if 'A' was old world initially, except for the rustic element later on which let the cat out of the bag for me). Textured, weighty and voluminous with a tomatoey hint in the mouth, for which I marked 'B' down. But compared to the new world pinot of the previous flight, this was certainly cleaner and tighter. Because I had to make a decision, I still liked 'A' a tad more, and yes that was the burgundy. Burgundy won with a narrow score of 19 to 18.
ROUND FOUR - A.P. de Villaine Mercurey ‘les Montots’ 2004 vs. Mt Difficulty Pinot Noir 2004
As the round progressed, the wine pairing became more difficult to distinguish -- coincidence or not. Wine 'A' had a somewhat reticent nose dominated by dark berries. Quite tight with a nicely integrated acidity but fell short of having that 'finesse' factor -- which ruled out Cote d'Or, making me think this was some satellite appellation wine from the southern part of Cote-de-Beaune. A rather flamboyant burgundy with a gregarious fruits in the mouth, I thought. Wine 'B' smelled distinctly whole-cluster fermented with pronounced stems. Fruits were rather dark and plummy, with distinctly new-worldly flinty wood. The stemmy character gave way to an overt (in my definition at least) floral impression. In the mouth this was rather warm and fleshy and had a volatile backend. Surely a new world where the winemaking was executed in an over-eager manner. True enough this came from a new 'happening' Pinot place in NZ. The burgundy narrowly won again with a 19 to 18 score. What did I vote for? 'A' of course, given the context of comparison.
ROUND FIVE - Saintsbury Reserve Pinot Noir 2000 vs. Domaine de Perdrix Nuits St. Georges 1996
Ah, the contrast returned... 'A's nose unmistakably read spicy oak, plums and raspberries. In the mouth it was rather abrasive although concentrated, with a stemmy almost soapy flavours. Nothing much to discover in here -- rather clumsy and overblown new world pinot (I was sure), I thought. Interestingly 'B' was also rather idiosyncratic. What was clear about 'B' was that it was old world. Rather musty, stinky nose -- almost reductive -- and this wine was also quite stemmy. On the palate, however, this gave off a cosy savoury, earthy flavours. Not complex, in fact rather simple, but quite cleansing and finished with a certain degree of salinity. Delicious but not great. I voted for 'B' and so did the others. Burgundy won hands down 34 votes to 3.
What was most heartening to learn tonight -- besides the fact that burgundy won (yay, yay, yay!!!) -- was the fact that I got the sense that as the audience discussed and carefully assessed the wines over the course of dinner, I saw a shift from new world tendency to the old world. Understated qualities that don't speak of in-your-face sensations, such as tactile impressions, the taste of the soil, etc, began to be noticed. I think this would be the beginning of many a joyful burgundy discoveries for many. But whatever the results was, it was clear that everyone walked out satisfied, merry and I'm sure this would be a discussion topic for many of the attendants for some time to come.
23 April, 2006
Chambolles
A bunch of us gathered together and did this -- surprisingly massive -- tasting at a friend's place. The premise is simple: the wines of Chambolle-Musigny. The turnout was jawdropping: 14 red wines plus 5 whites as starters. Now who would have thought this would not be enough for even the insatiable 10 persons that we were tonight? Judging from quantity alone, we've passed with flying colours. But wait! We have more than just quantity...
The host wanted to do a Puligny-Montrachet les Caillerets comparative for the whites and so he lined up two pairs of two vintages of the wines including the "Les Demoiselles" wine, which in actuality was an enclose of the Caillerets vineyard.
Clos des Lambrays Puligny-Montrachet Clos de Caillerets 2001 exhibited a very ripe apricot nose. Quite elegant yet very voluminous in the mouth, and again very ripe and very textured. There was a touch of warmth and hints of creme brulees in the finish which made me hesitant about giving this wine its due praise. Its counterpart - Michel Colin-Deleger et Fils Puligny-Montrachet les Demoiselles 2001 - however was immediately different. Tighter and more intensely knit nose, elegant with a deft classy oak treatment. Lemon infused with white plums. More cool and viscous in the mouth yet it possessed more grip. Tense and has a solid midpalate impression. Turned slightly pineappley later on.
The next was a pair of 1999s...
Michel Colin-Deleger et Fils Puligny-Montrachet les Demoiselles 1999 had a tired and slightly maderized nose. This was however better than the first bottle I had, proving that perhaps indeed there was a random oxidation problem in the white burgs 1999. Rather fat and viscous but somewhat flabby. Nothing too much to discuss here about the flavours. Finished with a touch of warmth. Hubert de Montille Puligny-Montrachet les Caillerets 1999 was worlds apart right from the start. Extremely classy, stony, high-pitched nose with hints of mineral-infused peaches. In the mouth it was razor sharp and all liquid mineral. Good fatness, however, but framed in sleek and hardened structure. Gave off truffley hint amidst the painfully youthful fruits. A class of its own. (Alcohol was at 12.5% - classic de Montille standard...)
Since this is the night of Chambolles, the feature of the one and only Chambolle-Musigny white is almost obligatory. Andy had so kindly provided a bottle of Comte Georges de Vogue's Bourgogne Blanc 2003 (previously known as Musigny Blanc and is now de-glorified of its title due to the uproot of the older vines leaving only young vines to make this wine.) Very pale colour. Upfront, a very elegant nose with a classy wood treatment. Pears on the nose, in fact very Cote-de-Beaune like... Fat on the palate yet still maintained a sense of restraint. Rather fleshy and flabby in the midpalate. With extended aeration, the 2003 characteristics emerged showing more tropical fruits hints and voluptuous texture.
The first pair of blind bottles of red were now served. These could not be more different and presented a reasonable study of the terroir of Chambolle-Musigny. The first had a darker hue, almost with a bluish tint. Chambolle nose with a meaty and oily character suggesting hints of masculinity. A brooding wine, square and quite earthy. Black fruits were found besides the typical raspberries and cherries. Quite hard although not impossible to assess. Tannic too with hints of licorice lurking every now and then in the background. Some metallic minerality peeked around later on the nose. This was the Christian Serafin Chambolle-Musigny les Baudes 2002.
The next bottle had an ethereal quintessential Chambolle red fruits nose. Crunchy fruits, and immediately classier, sexier. On the palate, red fruits maximus! An elegantly transparent wine, this wine was also sweeter, sleeker and entered gently yet persistently sweet. Quite linear and satiny in texture and already very expressive at this stage with complicating subtle minerality. Comte de Vogue Chambolle-Musigny les Amoureuses 2001.
The next bottle had a distinctly minerally nose with reticent Chambolle fruits. Fairly oily textured too -- suggesting masculinity -- and very substantial in the mouth. Textured with hints of blue fruits peeking through. A well handled whole-cluster wine from Faiveley Chambolle-Musigny les Fuees 2002. Compared to the la Combe d'Orveau 2002 I had from the same house, this was a whole lot friendlier, although I would argue that this is squarer in the mouth than the Combe d'Orveau -- something which I firmly believe is a function of the vineyard character.
There was a solo wine flight next and this was heavily heavily bricked. Very old indeed... This had a rather meaty, oily yet decidedly stemmy nose. Quite aged but still possessed the requisite grand cru volume and density. Some sous bois hints and quite square. At this age, it would be impossible to guess what it was. I would shoot for a grand cru and instinctively a Bonnes-Mares due to the squareness. Indeed it was a Bonnes-Mares 1947 but the producer was unknown. This was relabeled till beyond recognition.
The next was a pair of semi-blind of Mugnier's Musigny 1992 & 1997. The first wine was classy. This had that haunting presence that says le Musigny. Sweet raspberries and red plums with solid density and perceptible minerality. This too had stems but was in many ways riper and better handled than the next bottle. Round, gentle and polished. I tasted this wine over several occasions recently and I have to say this was the best representation of them all: J.F. Mugnier Musigny 1992. The next bottle was decidedly stemmier, and spicier. It was somewhat reminiscent of Musigny but although the fruit spectrum was redder, this just lacked that overall authoritative aura of the vineyard. Rather weak in the core and whoever has this should really drink up anyways. J.F. Mugnier Musigny 1997.
Louis Jadot Chambolle-Musigny les Amoureuses 2000 initially had a sulphuric nose which blew off and eventually gave off smoky, tangy, slightly stemmy (deep, reticent sort, which was more understated) and vitamin-like aromas. Meaty in a way, yet very subtle. This was a hardcore producer. The structure of this wine was right at the centre and this came across as a linear, somewhat structured wine with a disguise of gentility. Pristine and flavoursome and the same bottle two days later was even more shut down. Finished off with a sappy citric bite. I guessed it as a les Amoureuses but the vintage just escaped me. Another proof that the best of Jadot 2000 are just out of this world, and completely go beyond its vintage. Impressive.
The next wine was so immense and yet so reticent. Nonetheless this had the expressive fruit of vintage 2002, which although was very shy tonight, it was not sullen. This had a super floral nose -- not just any stemmy rose-syrup type of nose (that's too easy!), but a massively yet masterfully orchestrated pure pinot extract fruit bomb kind of floral -- and had an intriguing medicinal overtone. This is what I'd call an implosive wine, where the huge size was encased in elegance and just came folded unto itself at this point. The amount of reserves and the potentials of this wine was just mindblowing. I overlooked the medicinal attribute and I thought that this might have been another les Amoureuses thanks to the floral quality. But I was sure this would be a Roumier. And when I was told it was a grand cru, I just knew it had to be Georges Roumier Bonnes-Mares 2002. Stupendous. (I had a taste of this several hours later and it was just amazing -- ultra-cool red-and-blue pinot extract with a backbone of fruits. A rare experience.)
The next bottle was dense, spicy and in fact slightly reductive at that point. This had a squareness in the mouth that only speaks of one possible area (the sweetness and volume confirmed it had to be a grand cru). There was a subtle trace of licorice behind the lurking dark raspberry fruits. Tight and clenched at the back-end but the fruits were already quite expressive -- tell tale of 2002. Roblet-Monnot Bonnes-Mares 2002.
A dear friend set aside the next bottle for this event for me although he was away in Japan. The nose reminded me at once of Comte de Vogue with that hallmark densely opulent cream-infused raspberries. Smoke, vitamins add to the fireworks at the nose. On the palate, dark cherries and creamy raspberries. Some evident of stems made me think away from de Vogue at this point, and this had a premier cru volume. With aeration this turned grippier and squarer -- a good sign for longevity. I'd guess this to be Roumier Chambolle-Musigny les Cras 2001. Very nice. I'm having a lot of Roumier education tonight, and I must say I am loving it!
The next wine had a rather shrill acid edge. Somewhat aged but infused with red fruits, this had quite a stemmy edge. Instinctively this tasted like a Musigny but it lacked that certain structure and definition to be a great le Musigny. J.F. Mugnier Musigny 1995.
In contrast to the preceding wine, the next bottle had an oily minerally nose with dense black yet high-pitched nose. Structured, meaty wine which interestingly was very clean on the palate. Solid and hugely voluminous in the mouth with a brooding sense of reserve but no doubt possessed an immense bottomless depth of fruits that were just so deeply buried waiting to come out with time. Very complex and monumental wine in the making yet the elements were already in balance. Louis Jadot le Musigny 2001. Mind-bogglingly good -- a wine with an attitude -- approximately twenty years away from maturity (and I'm being optimistic here)! With this we ended the Chambolle-Musigny flight, and as expected, the party did not end yet. Three blind ringers followed...
The first had a wood-infused aromas which blew off to show off spicy red fruits. Definitely oaked, this wine showed good layers of rather creamy texture and a more in-your-face attitude. Hard to pin down its origin, this turned out to be Clos de Tart 2001, which, in my opinion, probably was one of the better Clos de Tart to-date. Most just had an overwhelmingly rich extract with roasted flavours of coffee and mocha. Not this one though it was definitely not a shy wine.
The next bottle was pronouncedly minerally in character with very ripe steely fruits. Again, rather imploded wine, with rather hard to define characteristics besides the intriguing saline sweetness of fruits. Solid in the core with a huge backbone and dark fruits set. Joseph Roty Charmes-Chambertin Tres Vieilles Vignes 1998.
The last bottle definitely came from a whole-cluster school but this was very ripe with intense savoury nose which led to a rather saline minerally flavour profile too. Almost Gevrey like as it exhibited (a lower-pitched) steeliness but I doubted it was due to the fruit profile. Nonetheless, this turned out to be a very young tasting Michel Magnien Clos de la Roche 1993. Nice.
What a gigantic night. It's hard to top this up and a very pointed learning experience indeed.
The host wanted to do a Puligny-Montrachet les Caillerets comparative for the whites and so he lined up two pairs of two vintages of the wines including the "Les Demoiselles" wine, which in actuality was an enclose of the Caillerets vineyard.
Clos des Lambrays Puligny-Montrachet Clos de Caillerets 2001 exhibited a very ripe apricot nose. Quite elegant yet very voluminous in the mouth, and again very ripe and very textured. There was a touch of warmth and hints of creme brulees in the finish which made me hesitant about giving this wine its due praise. Its counterpart - Michel Colin-Deleger et Fils Puligny-Montrachet les Demoiselles 2001 - however was immediately different. Tighter and more intensely knit nose, elegant with a deft classy oak treatment. Lemon infused with white plums. More cool and viscous in the mouth yet it possessed more grip. Tense and has a solid midpalate impression. Turned slightly pineappley later on.
The next was a pair of 1999s...
Michel Colin-Deleger et Fils Puligny-Montrachet les Demoiselles 1999 had a tired and slightly maderized nose. This was however better than the first bottle I had, proving that perhaps indeed there was a random oxidation problem in the white burgs 1999. Rather fat and viscous but somewhat flabby. Nothing too much to discuss here about the flavours. Finished with a touch of warmth. Hubert de Montille Puligny-Montrachet les Caillerets 1999 was worlds apart right from the start. Extremely classy, stony, high-pitched nose with hints of mineral-infused peaches. In the mouth it was razor sharp and all liquid mineral. Good fatness, however, but framed in sleek and hardened structure. Gave off truffley hint amidst the painfully youthful fruits. A class of its own. (Alcohol was at 12.5% - classic de Montille standard...)
Since this is the night of Chambolles, the feature of the one and only Chambolle-Musigny white is almost obligatory. Andy had so kindly provided a bottle of Comte Georges de Vogue's Bourgogne Blanc 2003 (previously known as Musigny Blanc and is now de-glorified of its title due to the uproot of the older vines leaving only young vines to make this wine.) Very pale colour. Upfront, a very elegant nose with a classy wood treatment. Pears on the nose, in fact very Cote-de-Beaune like... Fat on the palate yet still maintained a sense of restraint. Rather fleshy and flabby in the midpalate. With extended aeration, the 2003 characteristics emerged showing more tropical fruits hints and voluptuous texture.
The first pair of blind bottles of red were now served. These could not be more different and presented a reasonable study of the terroir of Chambolle-Musigny. The first had a darker hue, almost with a bluish tint. Chambolle nose with a meaty and oily character suggesting hints of masculinity. A brooding wine, square and quite earthy. Black fruits were found besides the typical raspberries and cherries. Quite hard although not impossible to assess. Tannic too with hints of licorice lurking every now and then in the background. Some metallic minerality peeked around later on the nose. This was the Christian Serafin Chambolle-Musigny les Baudes 2002.
The next bottle had an ethereal quintessential Chambolle red fruits nose. Crunchy fruits, and immediately classier, sexier. On the palate, red fruits maximus! An elegantly transparent wine, this wine was also sweeter, sleeker and entered gently yet persistently sweet. Quite linear and satiny in texture and already very expressive at this stage with complicating subtle minerality. Comte de Vogue Chambolle-Musigny les Amoureuses 2001.
The next bottle had a distinctly minerally nose with reticent Chambolle fruits. Fairly oily textured too -- suggesting masculinity -- and very substantial in the mouth. Textured with hints of blue fruits peeking through. A well handled whole-cluster wine from Faiveley Chambolle-Musigny les Fuees 2002. Compared to the la Combe d'Orveau 2002 I had from the same house, this was a whole lot friendlier, although I would argue that this is squarer in the mouth than the Combe d'Orveau -- something which I firmly believe is a function of the vineyard character.
There was a solo wine flight next and this was heavily heavily bricked. Very old indeed... This had a rather meaty, oily yet decidedly stemmy nose. Quite aged but still possessed the requisite grand cru volume and density. Some sous bois hints and quite square. At this age, it would be impossible to guess what it was. I would shoot for a grand cru and instinctively a Bonnes-Mares due to the squareness. Indeed it was a Bonnes-Mares 1947 but the producer was unknown. This was relabeled till beyond recognition.
The next was a pair of semi-blind of Mugnier's Musigny 1992 & 1997. The first wine was classy. This had that haunting presence that says le Musigny. Sweet raspberries and red plums with solid density and perceptible minerality. This too had stems but was in many ways riper and better handled than the next bottle. Round, gentle and polished. I tasted this wine over several occasions recently and I have to say this was the best representation of them all: J.F. Mugnier Musigny 1992. The next bottle was decidedly stemmier, and spicier. It was somewhat reminiscent of Musigny but although the fruit spectrum was redder, this just lacked that overall authoritative aura of the vineyard. Rather weak in the core and whoever has this should really drink up anyways. J.F. Mugnier Musigny 1997.
Louis Jadot Chambolle-Musigny les Amoureuses 2000 initially had a sulphuric nose which blew off and eventually gave off smoky, tangy, slightly stemmy (deep, reticent sort, which was more understated) and vitamin-like aromas. Meaty in a way, yet very subtle. This was a hardcore producer. The structure of this wine was right at the centre and this came across as a linear, somewhat structured wine with a disguise of gentility. Pristine and flavoursome and the same bottle two days later was even more shut down. Finished off with a sappy citric bite. I guessed it as a les Amoureuses but the vintage just escaped me. Another proof that the best of Jadot 2000 are just out of this world, and completely go beyond its vintage. Impressive.
The next wine was so immense and yet so reticent. Nonetheless this had the expressive fruit of vintage 2002, which although was very shy tonight, it was not sullen. This had a super floral nose -- not just any stemmy rose-syrup type of nose (that's too easy!), but a massively yet masterfully orchestrated pure pinot extract fruit bomb kind of floral -- and had an intriguing medicinal overtone. This is what I'd call an implosive wine, where the huge size was encased in elegance and just came folded unto itself at this point. The amount of reserves and the potentials of this wine was just mindblowing. I overlooked the medicinal attribute and I thought that this might have been another les Amoureuses thanks to the floral quality. But I was sure this would be a Roumier. And when I was told it was a grand cru, I just knew it had to be Georges Roumier Bonnes-Mares 2002. Stupendous. (I had a taste of this several hours later and it was just amazing -- ultra-cool red-and-blue pinot extract with a backbone of fruits. A rare experience.)
The next bottle was dense, spicy and in fact slightly reductive at that point. This had a squareness in the mouth that only speaks of one possible area (the sweetness and volume confirmed it had to be a grand cru). There was a subtle trace of licorice behind the lurking dark raspberry fruits. Tight and clenched at the back-end but the fruits were already quite expressive -- tell tale of 2002. Roblet-Monnot Bonnes-Mares 2002.
A dear friend set aside the next bottle for this event for me although he was away in Japan. The nose reminded me at once of Comte de Vogue with that hallmark densely opulent cream-infused raspberries. Smoke, vitamins add to the fireworks at the nose. On the palate, dark cherries and creamy raspberries. Some evident of stems made me think away from de Vogue at this point, and this had a premier cru volume. With aeration this turned grippier and squarer -- a good sign for longevity. I'd guess this to be Roumier Chambolle-Musigny les Cras 2001. Very nice. I'm having a lot of Roumier education tonight, and I must say I am loving it!
The next wine had a rather shrill acid edge. Somewhat aged but infused with red fruits, this had quite a stemmy edge. Instinctively this tasted like a Musigny but it lacked that certain structure and definition to be a great le Musigny. J.F. Mugnier Musigny 1995.
In contrast to the preceding wine, the next bottle had an oily minerally nose with dense black yet high-pitched nose. Structured, meaty wine which interestingly was very clean on the palate. Solid and hugely voluminous in the mouth with a brooding sense of reserve but no doubt possessed an immense bottomless depth of fruits that were just so deeply buried waiting to come out with time. Very complex and monumental wine in the making yet the elements were already in balance. Louis Jadot le Musigny 2001. Mind-bogglingly good -- a wine with an attitude -- approximately twenty years away from maturity (and I'm being optimistic here)! With this we ended the Chambolle-Musigny flight, and as expected, the party did not end yet. Three blind ringers followed...
The first had a wood-infused aromas which blew off to show off spicy red fruits. Definitely oaked, this wine showed good layers of rather creamy texture and a more in-your-face attitude. Hard to pin down its origin, this turned out to be Clos de Tart 2001, which, in my opinion, probably was one of the better Clos de Tart to-date. Most just had an overwhelmingly rich extract with roasted flavours of coffee and mocha. Not this one though it was definitely not a shy wine.
The next bottle was pronouncedly minerally in character with very ripe steely fruits. Again, rather imploded wine, with rather hard to define characteristics besides the intriguing saline sweetness of fruits. Solid in the core with a huge backbone and dark fruits set. Joseph Roty Charmes-Chambertin Tres Vieilles Vignes 1998.
The last bottle definitely came from a whole-cluster school but this was very ripe with intense savoury nose which led to a rather saline minerally flavour profile too. Almost Gevrey like as it exhibited (a lower-pitched) steeliness but I doubted it was due to the fruit profile. Nonetheless, this turned out to be a very young tasting Michel Magnien Clos de la Roche 1993. Nice.
What a gigantic night. It's hard to top this up and a very pointed learning experience indeed.
19 April, 2006
4 decades of Corton Charlemagne and still NOT enough!
My dear friend Arif and I adjourned to dinner after the Bonneau du Martray tasting of the Corton Charlemagne. We wanted to keep it simple -- after all we've had eight glasses of white wines on empty stomachs before that! And so we picked up two miniature bottles of sweeties (not stickies). With sweeties, we had an easy time with food -- virtually everything worked with them.
The Egon Muller Scharzhofberger Auslese 1999 exhibited a briary spicy apricot pit, slate, petroleum and minerally nose. This screamed "I'm a Mosel German Riesling!" and its typicity was unquestionable. The wine has a cleanliness and crispness to it that hid the bortrytis infection and there's a sleek elegance about it that was very exquisite. In the palate this too converges quickly into the midpalate and the finish would never quit. Nuts, stones and flowers were found in the inner mouth perfume as it evolved. Weightless, silky and round. In short, a great wine.
Leon Beyer Gewurtztraminer Selection de Grains Nobles 1983 was, above all things, an intriguing wine. Unabashedly Gewurtz even at over 20 years old, the nose gave off lychees, passion fruits, orange peels and caramels. In the palate this started out viscous and round, but not cloying, with an intriguing bitter quinine bite in the finish that somewhat gave the wine a grip at the back. However in the second hour of aeration, the integration of the elements of this wine was nothing short of remarkable. At that point the wine became much more cleansing, delicate and the bortrytis element almost disappeared, while the still-fresh fruits came to the foreground. The finish was bewildering -- interlacing the bitterness and sweetness of the grapes in a harmonious and seamless coexistence -- that it induced us to return to the wine over and over again. Beautiful and balanced. A delightful surprise.
Indeed a white (wine) filled night.
The Egon Muller Scharzhofberger Auslese 1999 exhibited a briary spicy apricot pit, slate, petroleum and minerally nose. This screamed "I'm a Mosel German Riesling!" and its typicity was unquestionable. The wine has a cleanliness and crispness to it that hid the bortrytis infection and there's a sleek elegance about it that was very exquisite. In the palate this too converges quickly into the midpalate and the finish would never quit. Nuts, stones and flowers were found in the inner mouth perfume as it evolved. Weightless, silky and round. In short, a great wine.
Leon Beyer Gewurtztraminer Selection de Grains Nobles 1983 was, above all things, an intriguing wine. Unabashedly Gewurtz even at over 20 years old, the nose gave off lychees, passion fruits, orange peels and caramels. In the palate this started out viscous and round, but not cloying, with an intriguing bitter quinine bite in the finish that somewhat gave the wine a grip at the back. However in the second hour of aeration, the integration of the elements of this wine was nothing short of remarkable. At that point the wine became much more cleansing, delicate and the bortrytis element almost disappeared, while the still-fresh fruits came to the foreground. The finish was bewildering -- interlacing the bitterness and sweetness of the grapes in a harmonious and seamless coexistence -- that it induced us to return to the wine over and over again. Beautiful and balanced. A delightful surprise.
Indeed a white (wine) filled night.
Bonneau du Martray: 4 decades of Corton-Charlemagne
This event is one of the wine masterclass presentations in the annual World Gourmet Summit event in Singapore. The tasting session was presided over by Dr. N. K. Yong and the proprietor/winemaker of Domaine Bonneau du Martray, Jean-Charles le Bault de la Moriniere.
As many of us have known, this domaine along with Domaine de la Romanee-Conti are the two burgundy houses who produce solely grand crus (okay, so you may contradict this by virtue of the occasional release of Vosne-Romanee premier cru cuvee Duvault Blochet by DRC...) One of the many things said about the domaine's Corton-Charlemagne vineyard as Jean-Charles moderated and commented throughout the tasting is that peculiarly, the vines here are west-facing, something that none of the other Corton Charlie vineyards do, nor other vineyards in Burgundy for that matter. Jean-Charles' first vintage was the 1994 vintage.
It is heartening to see that there's an event like this that showcase a study of Corton-Charlemagne from a particular domaine. I won't pretend to know if the intent of the organizers was to showcase the Domaine or to provide a mini exposition of the wines of Corton-Charlemagne. I suspect the former. Nonetheless, I must maintain that Corton-Charlemagne is probably the most difficult white burgundy grand cru to appreciate, let alone understand.
I must admit to a certain partiality toward the wines of Corton-Charlemagne. I admire its qualities, because these are wines that could successfully marry linear minerally delicate flavours and punchy forceful strength of a grand cru. It almost always exerts the impression of intensity and concentration yet the wine is almost always lean and restrained, giving a misleading impression of austerity.
The biggest wisdom I brought with me to this tasting was this: give the wine time. In fact the 1.5 hrs tasting was hardly enough for the wines to develop to a point of equilibrium at its current stages of developments given its respective vintages. But as my experience has confirmed even through this tasting, the wines DO change with air. And the study of these changes are crucial to the understanding of the wines. I held all my glasses throughout the tasting and I was always intrigued by my second and third (re)visits.
The tasting order was from the youngest to the oldest vintages. And purportedly the bottles were opened 2-3 hours beforehand. They were not decanted.
2003 - Initially a fairly bright nose with ripe pears, figs and lemon. With air some lemon custards emerged on the nose. While the nose showed some elegance and reservedness (in the context of the vintage, that is), the palate was more reflective of the vintage. While it's not warm nor overripe, due to the lack of malic acidity, the flavours were soft, simple and short. There was some stony grip but overall still rather accessible and soft. With extended aeration, banana skins and tropical fruit elements began to make its way to the nose, confirming the vintage characteristics.
2002 - One whiff and I knew this had to be a great wine. Right from the beginning, much higher pitch than the 2003 with a classy oak scent and an invigorating freshness of fruits absent in the 2003. Pure ripe lime extract in the mouth with substantial sap and minerality. True Corton-Charlemagne hallmarks of stoniness and lean yet forceful fruits were in full display here. Juicy and mouthwatering. The untamed and healthy dose of acid, particularly a trace of malic acidity, created the latter effect. The wine was unchanging to the very end of the tasting, combining elegance, unusual expressiveness, (stony) fruit purity and lovely sugar/acid balance. Delicious and irresistible.
1996 - This came across pretty much like a more evolved 2002 with more austerity, forcefulness, size and density, yet less exuberance in its fruits. In the mouth this was lemony and more fleshy. Reticent at first yet the minerality was completely unabashed. With air, it turned more expressive and incisive, almost savage -- intense yet continued to maintain a sense of class and elegance. An honest-to-goodness terroir-driven Corton Charlemagne.
1994 - This, by far, was the most different wine of the tasting. A gunflint infected and toast infused nose reminded me of a Meursault more than a Corton. There was some meatiness and woodiness to it. I really wondered if the wood handling of this wine was any different from the others. Less bright but richer in texture. Quite a crowd pleaser I would expect and like my initial suggestion of likeness to Meursault, the fruits turned more pineappley later on while the texture turned grippier and leaner. I suspect most attendants (except those who held this out till the end of the tasting) might have missed the character change in this wine in the end but would have nonetheless enjoyed the upfront generosity of its earlier display.
1992 - A highly rated (yet recently controversial) vintage. This was done by Jean-Charles' dad. The stylistic change was evident. There was an immediate impression of more rusticity and squareness in this wine. There were meatiness, and a marked earthiness to this wine. In the palate however this was rounder than the nose would have suggested, in fact rather plump and textured with a lovely combination of lime and pear fruits. Again, like the 1994, this became firmer later on. And in spite of the generous and fatty texture, this wine exhibits the clear minerality Corton Charlies are so famous for.
1987 - Warm bread, smoke, and exotic suggestions of sweet tea and stewed fruits in the nose. Probably bortrytized. Equally exotic in the palate which mirrored the nose except that this had a shrill, agressive and disjointed acidic finish. I am fairly certain this was acidified and the wine, in spite of the initial superficial charm of an old white burgundy, was ultimately not balanced.
1985 - This was supposed to be a 100-point Parker wine and I didn't know that. I searched the website to confirm the rating but could not find it... Nonetheless, right about now, the colour of the wine had now become golden as opposed to light straw hue of all the previous ones (quite consistently so, I must add). A meaty stink behind oily minerals and custard infused nose. In the palate this was very round and viscous, with some maderized suggestion in the inner mouth perfume. I wasn't sure if I liked it initially but I gave this second and third chances and retasted it constantly till the end of the tasting. Again, interestingly this also turned firmer, but displayed not much minerality at this stage and I doubt this would be worth keeping around for long hoping that it would improve. Evolved but not over the hill (yet).
1976 - Many thought this was probably the wine of the tasting. The nose opened with a classic old white burg aromas which somehow magically married lemon skins, honey and the earthy notes of which had turned into exotic truffley nuances. Metallic nose hints at the transformed generous minerality of the wine and once you put this in the mouth, this wine rapidly converged and gunned down the midpalate with plenty of supporting acidity to further highlight the very lively fruits. In fact the fruits here were more alive than the preceding 1985, 1987, 1992 and 1994! Stony, limey, sweet, sappy, mouthwateringly crunchy yet silky in texture, it seemed that this wine had come to a standstill and is now proudly standing at its peak. Over time, the mineral elements also took on a petroleum and exquisite floral character. A very special treat and a living proof why great white burgundies are one of the greatest wines on earth.
As many of us have known, this domaine along with Domaine de la Romanee-Conti are the two burgundy houses who produce solely grand crus (okay, so you may contradict this by virtue of the occasional release of Vosne-Romanee premier cru cuvee Duvault Blochet by DRC...) One of the many things said about the domaine's Corton-Charlemagne vineyard as Jean-Charles moderated and commented throughout the tasting is that peculiarly, the vines here are west-facing, something that none of the other Corton Charlie vineyards do, nor other vineyards in Burgundy for that matter. Jean-Charles' first vintage was the 1994 vintage.
It is heartening to see that there's an event like this that showcase a study of Corton-Charlemagne from a particular domaine. I won't pretend to know if the intent of the organizers was to showcase the Domaine or to provide a mini exposition of the wines of Corton-Charlemagne. I suspect the former. Nonetheless, I must maintain that Corton-Charlemagne is probably the most difficult white burgundy grand cru to appreciate, let alone understand.
I must admit to a certain partiality toward the wines of Corton-Charlemagne. I admire its qualities, because these are wines that could successfully marry linear minerally delicate flavours and punchy forceful strength of a grand cru. It almost always exerts the impression of intensity and concentration yet the wine is almost always lean and restrained, giving a misleading impression of austerity.
The biggest wisdom I brought with me to this tasting was this: give the wine time. In fact the 1.5 hrs tasting was hardly enough for the wines to develop to a point of equilibrium at its current stages of developments given its respective vintages. But as my experience has confirmed even through this tasting, the wines DO change with air. And the study of these changes are crucial to the understanding of the wines. I held all my glasses throughout the tasting and I was always intrigued by my second and third (re)visits.
The tasting order was from the youngest to the oldest vintages. And purportedly the bottles were opened 2-3 hours beforehand. They were not decanted.
2003 - Initially a fairly bright nose with ripe pears, figs and lemon. With air some lemon custards emerged on the nose. While the nose showed some elegance and reservedness (in the context of the vintage, that is), the palate was more reflective of the vintage. While it's not warm nor overripe, due to the lack of malic acidity, the flavours were soft, simple and short. There was some stony grip but overall still rather accessible and soft. With extended aeration, banana skins and tropical fruit elements began to make its way to the nose, confirming the vintage characteristics.
2002 - One whiff and I knew this had to be a great wine. Right from the beginning, much higher pitch than the 2003 with a classy oak scent and an invigorating freshness of fruits absent in the 2003. Pure ripe lime extract in the mouth with substantial sap and minerality. True Corton-Charlemagne hallmarks of stoniness and lean yet forceful fruits were in full display here. Juicy and mouthwatering. The untamed and healthy dose of acid, particularly a trace of malic acidity, created the latter effect. The wine was unchanging to the very end of the tasting, combining elegance, unusual expressiveness, (stony) fruit purity and lovely sugar/acid balance. Delicious and irresistible.
1996 - This came across pretty much like a more evolved 2002 with more austerity, forcefulness, size and density, yet less exuberance in its fruits. In the mouth this was lemony and more fleshy. Reticent at first yet the minerality was completely unabashed. With air, it turned more expressive and incisive, almost savage -- intense yet continued to maintain a sense of class and elegance. An honest-to-goodness terroir-driven Corton Charlemagne.
1994 - This, by far, was the most different wine of the tasting. A gunflint infected and toast infused nose reminded me of a Meursault more than a Corton. There was some meatiness and woodiness to it. I really wondered if the wood handling of this wine was any different from the others. Less bright but richer in texture. Quite a crowd pleaser I would expect and like my initial suggestion of likeness to Meursault, the fruits turned more pineappley later on while the texture turned grippier and leaner. I suspect most attendants (except those who held this out till the end of the tasting) might have missed the character change in this wine in the end but would have nonetheless enjoyed the upfront generosity of its earlier display.
1992 - A highly rated (yet recently controversial) vintage. This was done by Jean-Charles' dad. The stylistic change was evident. There was an immediate impression of more rusticity and squareness in this wine. There were meatiness, and a marked earthiness to this wine. In the palate however this was rounder than the nose would have suggested, in fact rather plump and textured with a lovely combination of lime and pear fruits. Again, like the 1994, this became firmer later on. And in spite of the generous and fatty texture, this wine exhibits the clear minerality Corton Charlies are so famous for.
1987 - Warm bread, smoke, and exotic suggestions of sweet tea and stewed fruits in the nose. Probably bortrytized. Equally exotic in the palate which mirrored the nose except that this had a shrill, agressive and disjointed acidic finish. I am fairly certain this was acidified and the wine, in spite of the initial superficial charm of an old white burgundy, was ultimately not balanced.
1985 - This was supposed to be a 100-point Parker wine and I didn't know that. I searched the website to confirm the rating but could not find it... Nonetheless, right about now, the colour of the wine had now become golden as opposed to light straw hue of all the previous ones (quite consistently so, I must add). A meaty stink behind oily minerals and custard infused nose. In the palate this was very round and viscous, with some maderized suggestion in the inner mouth perfume. I wasn't sure if I liked it initially but I gave this second and third chances and retasted it constantly till the end of the tasting. Again, interestingly this also turned firmer, but displayed not much minerality at this stage and I doubt this would be worth keeping around for long hoping that it would improve. Evolved but not over the hill (yet).
1976 - Many thought this was probably the wine of the tasting. The nose opened with a classic old white burg aromas which somehow magically married lemon skins, honey and the earthy notes of which had turned into exotic truffley nuances. Metallic nose hints at the transformed generous minerality of the wine and once you put this in the mouth, this wine rapidly converged and gunned down the midpalate with plenty of supporting acidity to further highlight the very lively fruits. In fact the fruits here were more alive than the preceding 1985, 1987, 1992 and 1994! Stony, limey, sweet, sappy, mouthwateringly crunchy yet silky in texture, it seemed that this wine had come to a standstill and is now proudly standing at its peak. Over time, the mineral elements also took on a petroleum and exquisite floral character. A very special treat and a living proof why great white burgundies are one of the greatest wines on earth.
16 April, 2006
Impromptu dinner @ Kheam Hock
Life is good with impromptu get-togethers. And life is VERY good when these impromptus feature lovely burgundies.
Ming San invited a few of us to his place and hours later we arrived at his cosy abode. The evening started with an Egly Ouriet NV VP (Vieillissement Prolonge) Grand Cru, a Champagne made out of mostly, if not entirely, Pinot Noir. This was disgorged in May 2005 and the nose was had a pain grille element to it. High pitched and crisp berries with very ripe grapefruits dominated the palate. Plenty of acidity, this bubbly was crisp, bone-dry and lip-smackingly crying for food. (It paired wonderfully well with the pasta later on.)
A white followed on later. At once buttery, generous with gunflints and toast on the nose. In fact this smelled oily. Similarly plump and round on the palate but still fresh despite clearly somewhat aged, I thought of Meursault in mid-90s. And if it's ever a Puligny (which is the only other possibility, it could only be from les Combettes). Turned out to be Robert Ampeau's Puligny-Montrachet les Combettes 1979! Okay, so I still have L.O.T.S. to learn about white burgundies. Whether I got it right or wrong, it was a very pleasureable drink. Surprisingly lively and its origin would not be masked despite its age.
The next wine came out of decanter and served into a Bordeaux glass. I know I'm in the right company when a bordeaux is served outright before the burgundies! Knowing that the host is always particular about details like stemwares, even prior to sniffing this wine, I guessed it would not be a burgundy. Well, sniff it still I must. And what I found is a bordeaux which was merlot dominated, with redcurrants, some earth and later on, hints of sweet tobacco. Already gentle and drinking gracefully now, this came through mildly sweet and honest in its flavours. Again I was lost here. I thought left -- turned out right. I took a shot at St. Emilion -- turned out to be Pomerol. I thought mid '80s, maybe '85 -- turned out '81. Given a multiple choice for its producer -- got it mistaken too. Hmmm... I think I got the hint that I should really stick to burgundies (but I'd gladly obey). Nonetheless it's a lovely drink, tireless to come back to and holding out nicely over time in the glass. La Conseillante 1981 Pomerol.
The nose of the next wine was serious -- black raspberries, slightly meaty with stemmy nuances behind a huge fruits. In the palate this went across pretty much like the nose, with spicy black cherries and crushed dark raspberries and the Chambolle typicity peeked through. Dense and fairly extracted, with a generous yet well-handled wood treatment. What this fell short was the midpalate, coming across as earnest but still a little lacking. Domaine Leroy Chambolle-Musigny les Fremieres 2002 -- a superb villages wine.
If the Leroy hinted at Chambolle, the next wine almost screamed of it. Lighter yet brighter raspberries with a creamy element on the nose. Candied and crunchy in the mouth, this hinted at some minerality and immediately displayed brighter acid spine. Linear and persistent, this was surprisingly approachable for what it was (probably due to the impression of roundness and polish in the finish). Everyone guessed it's a Cote de Nuits, only that this was Marquis d'Angerville Volnay Champans 2002. A southern Chambolle dead-ringer on all counts which further ratified my admiration for this domaine.
The next wine was a showstopper. Drop dead gorgeous Chambolle fruits and intense minerality in the core, with enormously sappy palate impression and complicating nuances of very ripe yet very high-pitched fruits and intriguing scents of spices contributed possibly by the inclusion of some stems. The finish just wouldn't quit and minutes after I swallowed this, I found myself still constantly salivating and replicating the haunting red-fruited flavours of the wine in the mouth! Totally linear, clear, clean and mercilessly arresting in the midpalate with a huge volume yet utter weightlessness. Mind-boggling and unequivocally a great, great wine. Louis Jadot le Musigny 2000. This, along with Georges et Henri Jayer's Echezeaux are the two most emotionally thrilling wines I've tasted from the 2000 vintage. Those who are skeptical about 2000 Burgundies should drink these and may they hold their peace forever.
Ming San pulled another bottle out of his cellar. This had the tell-tale meaty, bacon-fatty aromas and a structured frame of cool-weather fruits encased in endless bright acids which could only (well, almost always) come from vintage 1996. This wine displayed a wealth of pure crushed red fruits and tinge of steely minerality. While not decidedly Gevrey, given the choice, I had to think along the lines of Gevrey due to its elegance and somewhat imposing yet aloof structure. Very stony, very long and very impressive especially so for a Volnay les Caillerets 60 Ouvrees 1996 from Domaine Pousse d'Or. This came from the last vintage Gerard Potel made and wow, did it really confound me, this one.
The night ended. And I was completely stupefied... What a great experience!
Ming San invited a few of us to his place and hours later we arrived at his cosy abode. The evening started with an Egly Ouriet NV VP (Vieillissement Prolonge) Grand Cru, a Champagne made out of mostly, if not entirely, Pinot Noir. This was disgorged in May 2005 and the nose was had a pain grille element to it. High pitched and crisp berries with very ripe grapefruits dominated the palate. Plenty of acidity, this bubbly was crisp, bone-dry and lip-smackingly crying for food. (It paired wonderfully well with the pasta later on.)
A white followed on later. At once buttery, generous with gunflints and toast on the nose. In fact this smelled oily. Similarly plump and round on the palate but still fresh despite clearly somewhat aged, I thought of Meursault in mid-90s. And if it's ever a Puligny (which is the only other possibility, it could only be from les Combettes). Turned out to be Robert Ampeau's Puligny-Montrachet les Combettes 1979! Okay, so I still have L.O.T.S. to learn about white burgundies. Whether I got it right or wrong, it was a very pleasureable drink. Surprisingly lively and its origin would not be masked despite its age.
The next wine came out of decanter and served into a Bordeaux glass. I know I'm in the right company when a bordeaux is served outright before the burgundies! Knowing that the host is always particular about details like stemwares, even prior to sniffing this wine, I guessed it would not be a burgundy. Well, sniff it still I must. And what I found is a bordeaux which was merlot dominated, with redcurrants, some earth and later on, hints of sweet tobacco. Already gentle and drinking gracefully now, this came through mildly sweet and honest in its flavours. Again I was lost here. I thought left -- turned out right. I took a shot at St. Emilion -- turned out to be Pomerol. I thought mid '80s, maybe '85 -- turned out '81. Given a multiple choice for its producer -- got it mistaken too. Hmmm... I think I got the hint that I should really stick to burgundies (but I'd gladly obey). Nonetheless it's a lovely drink, tireless to come back to and holding out nicely over time in the glass. La Conseillante 1981 Pomerol.
The nose of the next wine was serious -- black raspberries, slightly meaty with stemmy nuances behind a huge fruits. In the palate this went across pretty much like the nose, with spicy black cherries and crushed dark raspberries and the Chambolle typicity peeked through. Dense and fairly extracted, with a generous yet well-handled wood treatment. What this fell short was the midpalate, coming across as earnest but still a little lacking. Domaine Leroy Chambolle-Musigny les Fremieres 2002 -- a superb villages wine.
If the Leroy hinted at Chambolle, the next wine almost screamed of it. Lighter yet brighter raspberries with a creamy element on the nose. Candied and crunchy in the mouth, this hinted at some minerality and immediately displayed brighter acid spine. Linear and persistent, this was surprisingly approachable for what it was (probably due to the impression of roundness and polish in the finish). Everyone guessed it's a Cote de Nuits, only that this was Marquis d'Angerville Volnay Champans 2002. A southern Chambolle dead-ringer on all counts which further ratified my admiration for this domaine.
The next wine was a showstopper. Drop dead gorgeous Chambolle fruits and intense minerality in the core, with enormously sappy palate impression and complicating nuances of very ripe yet very high-pitched fruits and intriguing scents of spices contributed possibly by the inclusion of some stems. The finish just wouldn't quit and minutes after I swallowed this, I found myself still constantly salivating and replicating the haunting red-fruited flavours of the wine in the mouth! Totally linear, clear, clean and mercilessly arresting in the midpalate with a huge volume yet utter weightlessness. Mind-boggling and unequivocally a great, great wine. Louis Jadot le Musigny 2000. This, along with Georges et Henri Jayer's Echezeaux are the two most emotionally thrilling wines I've tasted from the 2000 vintage. Those who are skeptical about 2000 Burgundies should drink these and may they hold their peace forever.
Ming San pulled another bottle out of his cellar. This had the tell-tale meaty, bacon-fatty aromas and a structured frame of cool-weather fruits encased in endless bright acids which could only (well, almost always) come from vintage 1996. This wine displayed a wealth of pure crushed red fruits and tinge of steely minerality. While not decidedly Gevrey, given the choice, I had to think along the lines of Gevrey due to its elegance and somewhat imposing yet aloof structure. Very stony, very long and very impressive especially so for a Volnay les Caillerets 60 Ouvrees 1996 from Domaine Pousse d'Or. This came from the last vintage Gerard Potel made and wow, did it really confound me, this one.
The night ended. And I was completely stupefied... What a great experience!
No longer solo... @ Oso
Amidst my relatively easygoing low-key weeks (vinously speaking, that is), I had the good fortune of being invited for lunch right smacked in the middle of the week for a wonderful 150-minute escapade.
Lunch at Oso began with a Selosse NV Rose Champagne. Intriguing bread-like, slightly maderized nose was an introduction to a fruit bomb of a Champagne -- fat, toasty, generous and textured, hints of marmalade jam, butter, berries and very ripe grapefruits. Despite its unshyness, this had a good grip and bright finish, just about enough to avoid overflaunting its outright generosity.
Sauzet's Puligny-Montrachet les Folatieres (vintage 1996) was initially unforthcoming. Reticent nose hinting minerals and stony fruits. In the mouth it was clean, tight, delicate and linear -- youthful and again, shy. With some air and temperature in the glass, the nose began to give way to an elegant oak-scent, one that reminds me immediately of Raveneau -- hints of peanut skins and pencil-shavings. At this point, the wine put on some flesh in the mouth, entering sweet, with an intriguing floral inner-mouth perfume and an oily minerally texture. The exit was exemplary, letting up none of its elegance but leaving a definite mark of very sweet juicy sappiness. Structured, classy and a long way to go still.
One whiff at Leroy's 1998 Romanee-St.-Vivant immediately called to mind a grand cru Vosne-Romanee. Ripely stemmy, spicy and rich, this was quite accessible -- a trait many a 1998 red burgundy displays today, regardless of cru. Make no mistake, this was still quite young, but at the same time it was already generous with intense black fruits. Quite structured and bright. Turns slightly soapy mid-way but as it further aerated, the wine became more savoury and cleansing in the finish. At this stage of development this wine did not display any floral elements a typical RSV would normally do. Maybe it's a question of time... Delicious and opulent.
The next bottle came blind and immediately I was hit with a pronouncedly stemmy nose. Again this was very rich and textured, and sweetly red-fruited. It was quite evolved as well. The note of stemminess carried through in the palate and to me it was (again) very Vosne-Romanee. Later on this gave slight truffles suggestions. I was thinking of DRC, probably a Grands-Echezeaux of the early '90s. Turned out to be a Leroy Chambertin 1993. A deliciously drinking wine, but for a Chambertin, it was completely atypical as it lacked the minerality, structure and cut.
Having just arrived off the plane from Switzerland hours before, the next bottle in the decanter had a disturbed nose but to me unmistakably not-Burgundy, with hints of leather. We allowed this wine to settle in further and as it evolved, nearing the end of the lunch, its true characteristics emerged more clearly. Raspberry and cassis liqueur, with a solid core of fruits and ripe, virtually hidden tannins, this wine was massive, briary and bright. Exotic suggestions of lychee skins, the palate was explosively complex and it seemed not quite done at this stage displaying all its layers. I thought of southern rhone, a Chateauneuf du Pape -- which was correct -- and given the bright acids and briary character, plus the fact that this actually excited me (too few CDP does), this could only be a Henri Bonneau. It was a Reserves des Celestins 1989. Wow! (I thought this was perhaps a 1998 Marie Beurrier cuvee... Just goes to show how much age this wine needs, and it's so far from being ready still!) This was certainly more expressive than the version I had 2 or 3 years back. Very impressive and a rare treat.
Lunch at Oso began with a Selosse NV Rose Champagne. Intriguing bread-like, slightly maderized nose was an introduction to a fruit bomb of a Champagne -- fat, toasty, generous and textured, hints of marmalade jam, butter, berries and very ripe grapefruits. Despite its unshyness, this had a good grip and bright finish, just about enough to avoid overflaunting its outright generosity.
Sauzet's Puligny-Montrachet les Folatieres (vintage 1996) was initially unforthcoming. Reticent nose hinting minerals and stony fruits. In the mouth it was clean, tight, delicate and linear -- youthful and again, shy. With some air and temperature in the glass, the nose began to give way to an elegant oak-scent, one that reminds me immediately of Raveneau -- hints of peanut skins and pencil-shavings. At this point, the wine put on some flesh in the mouth, entering sweet, with an intriguing floral inner-mouth perfume and an oily minerally texture. The exit was exemplary, letting up none of its elegance but leaving a definite mark of very sweet juicy sappiness. Structured, classy and a long way to go still.
One whiff at Leroy's 1998 Romanee-St.-Vivant immediately called to mind a grand cru Vosne-Romanee. Ripely stemmy, spicy and rich, this was quite accessible -- a trait many a 1998 red burgundy displays today, regardless of cru. Make no mistake, this was still quite young, but at the same time it was already generous with intense black fruits. Quite structured and bright. Turns slightly soapy mid-way but as it further aerated, the wine became more savoury and cleansing in the finish. At this stage of development this wine did not display any floral elements a typical RSV would normally do. Maybe it's a question of time... Delicious and opulent.
The next bottle came blind and immediately I was hit with a pronouncedly stemmy nose. Again this was very rich and textured, and sweetly red-fruited. It was quite evolved as well. The note of stemminess carried through in the palate and to me it was (again) very Vosne-Romanee. Later on this gave slight truffles suggestions. I was thinking of DRC, probably a Grands-Echezeaux of the early '90s. Turned out to be a Leroy Chambertin 1993. A deliciously drinking wine, but for a Chambertin, it was completely atypical as it lacked the minerality, structure and cut.
Having just arrived off the plane from Switzerland hours before, the next bottle in the decanter had a disturbed nose but to me unmistakably not-Burgundy, with hints of leather. We allowed this wine to settle in further and as it evolved, nearing the end of the lunch, its true characteristics emerged more clearly. Raspberry and cassis liqueur, with a solid core of fruits and ripe, virtually hidden tannins, this wine was massive, briary and bright. Exotic suggestions of lychee skins, the palate was explosively complex and it seemed not quite done at this stage displaying all its layers. I thought of southern rhone, a Chateauneuf du Pape -- which was correct -- and given the bright acids and briary character, plus the fact that this actually excited me (too few CDP does), this could only be a Henri Bonneau. It was a Reserves des Celestins 1989. Wow! (I thought this was perhaps a 1998 Marie Beurrier cuvee... Just goes to show how much age this wine needs, and it's so far from being ready still!) This was certainly more expressive than the version I had 2 or 3 years back. Very impressive and a rare treat.
09 April, 2006
Going solo, yet relentless...
Now that the chief of wine Mr. Andy Tan is out of town, plus my being busy around the house and all, it seems that vinous gathering would have to take a backseat for a while. But solo vinous experiments do not have to wait. Here are some odd (but neat) bottles I had these past week or so...
Michel Prunier Pommard les Vignots 2002 1er Cru -- Slightly sweaty aromas suggested open-top ferment approach. Earthy, roasty aromas with blackberries and tar. With aeration some tobacco too. Entered relatively sweet, with a semi-concentrated even texture and showed some rusticity and tannic backbone. Not especially dense but had good typicity of Pommard. Wish there was more midpalate sweetness...
Faiveley Nuits-St.-Georges les Chaignots 1996 -- Had this together with Fiona on my birthday lunch. Deep red ruby with black raspberries, plums and oily aromas. Pure and hardcore with a tannic impression even at this stage. Quite wild in the mouth it was quite reservedly sweet actually. This would continue to age and taper off its formidable structure but is unlikely to become more generous. A nice and square '96 red.
P. Feraud et Fils Fleurie 2002 Cru du Beaujolais -- I've been intrigued by the Gamay grapes ever since I had this producer's straight Beaujolais 2002 last month. It's very pinot-like, far more burgundian than many new world Pinot Noirs, and this one is no different. In fact, other than the vivacious berry-fruitiness, this would have passed off as a very serious Bourgogne -- except that this has midpalate. Quite minerally berry-fruited palate with sound acidity and fairly persistent midpalate. Delicious and bracingly bright and sufficiently succulent. This worked well with the Alaskan wild salmon tonight.
Michel Prunier Pommard les Vignots 2002 1er Cru -- Slightly sweaty aromas suggested open-top ferment approach. Earthy, roasty aromas with blackberries and tar. With aeration some tobacco too. Entered relatively sweet, with a semi-concentrated even texture and showed some rusticity and tannic backbone. Not especially dense but had good typicity of Pommard. Wish there was more midpalate sweetness...
Faiveley Nuits-St.-Georges les Chaignots 1996 -- Had this together with Fiona on my birthday lunch. Deep red ruby with black raspberries, plums and oily aromas. Pure and hardcore with a tannic impression even at this stage. Quite wild in the mouth it was quite reservedly sweet actually. This would continue to age and taper off its formidable structure but is unlikely to become more generous. A nice and square '96 red.
P. Feraud et Fils Fleurie 2002 Cru du Beaujolais -- I've been intrigued by the Gamay grapes ever since I had this producer's straight Beaujolais 2002 last month. It's very pinot-like, far more burgundian than many new world Pinot Noirs, and this one is no different. In fact, other than the vivacious berry-fruitiness, this would have passed off as a very serious Bourgogne -- except that this has midpalate. Quite minerally berry-fruited palate with sound acidity and fairly persistent midpalate. Delicious and bracingly bright and sufficiently succulent. This worked well with the Alaskan wild salmon tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
