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.