Two hours into my 'nap', and I was awakened by a morning call bell in the hotel room. I looked at the time: it was 6 am. I looked around: my room mate was out (he had an early golf game, hence the morning call) and through the window, the sky was barely lightening up. I thought, well, since I had so much issue sleeping last night -- as is always the case the first night in a strange hotel whenever I travel -- I thought I could try to nap an hour or two more before starting out my day. Right?
Wrong.
The mind wouldn't quit. The eyes wouldn't rest. The body, though not particularly sprightly, wasn't exactly tired either. Some half hour later I decided to begin my day, the early morning of which wasn't exactly the most exciting part of this trip. After a leisurely breakfast, a brief SMS exchange with another friend who was arriving later that afternoon, a rather fruitless trip to the hotel newstand, and some idling around, I made my way to meet AS. One of the most eventful things that morning turned out (as I had hoped it) to be meeting his lovely daughter Solaia, a good three months or so after I saw her when she was just one-day-old in the hospital. What a happy, fun-loving, chubby little creature.
A few good conversations later, AS and I went to his office to pick up his wines for lunch. He had been deliberating whether or not to host this lunch for all of us especially after he learned that a few of the boys had made plans to golf that morning. Just shortly before I flew to Jakarta he told me he'd heck it and just do it -- a decision I heartily congratulated -- and told everyone to just 'make it to the lunch'. I mean, why should any Burgnut in the 'right' mind refuse an offer to take part in an organized, fully blind, thematic comparative white burgundy tasting fully sponsored by a cellar whose contents are always beyond reproach? I mean, I know this guy: he may not collect too many white burgs (at least not yet, and I say this purely in relative to the red burgs he had been amassing over time), but for the 'few' (which is not really just a few, if you know what I mean...) I know it couldn't be anything less than exemplary.
Four glasses awaited us at the private room in the restaurant. Once each of the four wines were poured, the first whiff and sniff at the first glass already promised an exhilarating lunch ahead. Now this is gonna be something: a fully academic and hedonistic workout. The guessing format was this -- three variables (vintage, appellation, producer), and one of the variables was not constant. We had to guess what was not constant first, then proceed to determine which wine is which. To put this seemingly simple-sounding quiz across to everyone proved to be more challenging than any one of us would have expected. After several attempts, each of us still took turn to say, "I think wine #3 is the odd one out...", which was of course, not answering the question at all.
The answer, as majority had called it, was that the producer was not constant. Which led on to an enthusiastic discussion as to which vineyard this may belong to. Given the sheer breadth and class the nose of these wines command alone, I knew we're talking grand cru here. The elements of minerality were also tellingly evident. Each of the wines had that elements of ripe stonefruits, albeit quite dissimilarly expressed. The wines were classy and though quite broad (some quite textured), had a good sense of vertical penetration in the midpalate. My hunch told me that I was quite sure this was all 2002 vintage, and given the stony, chalky feel, plus limey acidity found in the majority of the examples, these could only be either from Corton-Charlemagne or a Chablis grand cru, probably Les Clos. I voted for Corton-Charlemagne and wrote off second option, as I jokingly remarked that it'll take quite a bit of effort by our dear friend to pull off four different 2002 bottlings of les Clos, a joke which proved to be my undoing because indeed it was a Chablis Les Clos 2002 tasting!
The first wine was a joy in the nose, giving crystalline berry-like fruits besides the peach, barley and mineral hints. Acidity was, true to terroir, healthy. What set this apart from the rest was its flamboyance: it was very sweet, floral and all-expressive. Michel Laroche Chablis les Clos 2002. Lovely juice to have today although the Chablis' edge wasn't so pronounced as in the other examples.
The second wine evolved tremendously over the duration of the lunch (as so was the third wine). This gave a more taut impression at the nose, masterfully mixing its wood-treatment with buckets of minerality. In the mouth, the initially reticent flavours slowly built up into a penetrating crescendo of attack in the midpalate. Sappy, fresh, sharp, lean and chalky. My favourite wine of the tasting, and all respect to William Fevre this time around. A masterful concoction indeed. I had tried a few of his highly rated 2002 Chablis, including the les Preuses, but none had the same class as this, and certainly not at this level of balance. It is only after this bottle was I convinced by Fevre.
The third one was the funkiest -- and this generated the most discussion on the table. If the second wine was a model of linearity, this had it too plus texture and volume. This started quite meaty and slightly musty, but blew off to give a lime-oil flavours and a highly penetrating middle and a superbly long finish. A complete les Clos with its huge square frame and buckets of minerality. Rene et Vincent Dauvissat Chablis les Clos 2002. Most voted for the day.
The moment AS revealed to us that this was a Les Clos 2002 horizontal, we had been guessing which might be the Raveneau's. The few of us in the table concurred there was no Chablis producer as great as Raveneau -- his wines possess the 'wow' factor that transcend beyond mere thrilling enjoyment into something I can only describe as near-spiritual revelation. There are only a few burgundy houses who deliver this level of consistency of greatness (but this is not a time to indulge in such a conversation...).
Prior to unveiling, some called #3 as the Raveneau, and why not? After all it had the best depth and breadth of all the wines this afternoon. I remarked earlier openly too that I could not detect that Raveneau touch in the nose of any of the wines today and so with a mixture of bafflement and trepidation we unveiled each bottle.
The fourth wine had a distinctly meaty nose, in fact rather flinty and peanut-skin like. Very large in scale, this reminded me of a cru Meursault, judging by top notes of the nose alone. The palate was very substantial, with the acid profile, which was very centric and had a commendable length, proving to (or confusing) everyone that this could be anything but a Meursault. A big wine, with all the components still not together at this point. And given the fact that this was indeed a Raveneau, my conjecture was either this was awkward or was an off-bottle. Given the track record of this producer, I am not inclined to write this wine off, although to be honest, judging from this bottle alone I could not find many reasons for exhilaration, solid materials and quality notwithstanding. Francois Raveneau les Clos 2002.
Whatever became of the wines (which were superb, as you could see) this was the tasting format I fully appreciate. Immediately the levels of participation and attention given to each wine today was far more than I had witnessed in other tastings. I suppose it was a combination of the fact that this was an afternoon tasting (everyone has not depleted their energy for the day), done in a semi-blind-with-a-twist format, and a consistent, terroir-focussed theme. The participants automatically opined about each wine, discussed this, tasted that, rechecked each other's observation, rechecked the wines again, wrote notes, compared one glass to the next, etc. In short: an intense laboratory study cum executive board meeting of the burgundian sort. This IS learning. This IS discovery. A format we all ought to emulate, and one I hope would encourage all my Jakarta friends to repeat amongst themselves -- and one I personally hope to be a part of more often.
31 July, 2006
26 July, 2006
The Jakarta Connection (Day One)
2004 Yves Boyer-Martenot Meursault “les Tillets” – Tell-tale Meursault nose. A good mixture of toasty and minerally aromas. Pretty generous for a villages, yet nicely framed and delineated by non-intrusive acid.
2004 Yves Boyer-Martenot Meursault “les Charmes” 1er – More substantial on the nose. This was decanted for a while, and by now it gave off some minerality. Lemony with richer, bolder flavours and better midpalate presence. This was very ripe to a point that it was almost warm at the back. With more aeration this put on more weight and solidity.
2004 Robert Arnoux Echezeaux – Richer yet more monolithic. Brooding aromas of dark roasted red fruits. Still unyielding but very sweet, though not especially refined. Some gaminess as opposed to the spiciness of the Reignots.
1997 Joseph Roty Gevrey-Chambertin “les Fontenys” 1er – The first bottle was corked. Second sample had the standard Roty fare of roasted, bacon-fatty aromas. Texturally quite oily and dark fruited, and given its stage of development, it was not as pristine as the villages Champs Chenys I had a few weeks back. In fact today this tasted a little too simple.
1997 Joseph Roty Griotte-Chambertin – Very wild roasted cherries on the nose. In the mouth, likewise, lots of roasted fruits, huge and voluminous and very very wild too. This turned slightly medicinal afterward, and with further aeration, the Gevrey minerals eventually were coaxed out. A big wine that was not nearly ready.
2003 Comte de Vogue Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru – Pristine dark raspberries on the nose with mineral tinge. Possessed ripe but rather discreet aromas and flavours. Vitamins. In the palate the usual deep creamy flavours so typical of this cuvee was particularly present. Surprisingly very cool. Quite impressive.
2003 Comte de Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes – Knockout nose with fruit profile similar to the 1er cru but with abundantly more class and breed. Deeper, more expansive, regal and very sweet. A very complex and complete wine. Though the fruits were characteriscally 2003-oriented, the texture, balance and crystalline nature of the wine far belied the vintage. A complex fusion of dark fruited sweetness and red fruited freshness and a decidedly velvety texture makes this a totally remarkable 2003. Compelling stuff.
25 July, 2006
The Major Cross-Over
By this I mean tonight I moved from old world to new world, from pinot to cabernet, from France to California... Talk about a change!
Through the generosity of one dear friend, HY, I've been granted the rare privilege on several occasions to taste very interesting, and possibly now-rare, aged Californian cabernets. Tonight is one such exercise. HY had a couple of us over for hearty meaty foods and equally hearty generous cabs to go along.
Aperitif came in a pair of champagnes. (Oh yes, the aperitifs are typically already a treat on its own!)
Dom Perignon 1996 - I've always admired Dom 1996 but tonight's bottle could be slightly off. A trace of cork was detected but none too intrusive. Yet there was some impact on the palate which didn't quite possess the intense raciness of the better examples. Nonetheless I still enjoyed this bubbly. Flinty, toasty aromas gave way to lemon-zest infused flavours that were bright and brisk in the mouth. Despite the off-ness, this still finished with an admirable citric bite and was quite bone dry.
Louis Roederer Cristal 1999 - My first Cristal and this was quite fine. Yeasty and flinty on the nose. Pears and lemons in the mouth with distinctly bread-like elements. Compared to the Dom, this was broader and creamier. Sweet, generous and flamboyant, this was let down by a lack of cleansing grip and tartness I have come to expect from the best of Champagnes. Delicious and theoretically this could have been a Meursault-Charmes with fizz perhaps...?
Dinner started with a Domaine Leflaive Bourgogne (blanc) 2001. For the record, Leflaive makes a darn good Bourgogne blanc. Serve it blind and it's not likely that majority would vote it as a bourgogne. This wine had flinty apricots and peachy aromas. Warm and cosy on the nose, this led to a generous, rather mouthfilling chardonnay flavours. Although I may so ever grumble about the lack of cut (very evidently a vintage characteristic), there was no doubting this was a superb and delicious bourgogne. Keep a lookout for this wine vintage in and vintage out.
Stonestreet Chardonnay Sonoma County 2001 - Here comes the Cali! Yes, Cal-chard nose of butter popcorn and oak-spices, this certainly promised to be a rather fat wine. Standard Cal-chard flavours which were well orchestrated and despite the oaky generosity of the wine, there was no trace of warmth at all in the finish.
Peter Michael Chardonnay Belle cote 2004 - A completely different breed of Cal-chard. Crystalline pineapple nose with a mouth that was at once creamy (textured) yet candied. According to JC who brought it, this arrived in town not too long ago. In fact tonight this had some fizziness in the wine which need a bit of aeration to blow off. This was a classy Cali chardonnay. Dense and sweet, a bit monolithic and simple at this point (though I think this would ease off with more bottle rest), this turned up with a late suggestion of passionfruits. I like it.
And the cabernet flight now begins.
La Jota Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 1987 - Sweaty saddle leather on the nose. Hints of lavender and cassis. Sweet and quite elegant but lacked that punch and lift that a truly structured cab would show off. Some herbaceousness turned up later and the wine had a somewhat rustic texture. This would no longer improve. Sign of tiredness is sipping in already with the wine coming off as overtly plump at this stage.
Beringer Cabernet Sauvignon Knights Valley 1990 - Smoky, medicinal nose dominated by plummy fruits. Sweet, very ripe, in fact, liqueur-like. But interestingly there wasn't much of a trace of alcohol. This was so ripe the tannins to me was rather raspy and quite biting. A funky wine that was surely overextracted. Finished off with a bitter note. Rather unbalanced though perfectly alive.
Chateau Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 1992 - My first thought was: "Wow! This is serious!" Yes, I have always admired this estate (the 1994 and 1987 I had were nothing short of stupendous). Tonight's 1992 had all the works of a great californian cabernet - smoke, meats, whiff of spicy oak in the nose; smells very primary still with vibrant dark raspberries and currants. Very sweet in the midpalate (which was precisely why I liked the 1994 over its competitors in the recent 1994 Napa shootout). Very lively with a distinct earthiness. The structure, concentration and balance guarantee this baby a long beautiful life ahead.
Ridge Monte Bello 1994 - One great wine after another. Another respected estate of mine (at least the older vintages). This was sweet, lush and full in the nose with the classiest American oak infused vanillin nuance. I've never come across wine treated with American oak this refined with sweet plums and cassis in the mouth. Dense and lively. And most importantly, wonderfully balanced.
Corison Cabernet Sauvignon Kronos Vineyard Napa Valley 1997 - Monstrous still, after over 5 hours of decanting. Cassis, plums and redcurrants on the nose. Very sweet and monolithic to say the least at this point. Plush and quite silky although reticent in the mouth with fruits which certainly came from a very ripe year. Finished with broad, dusty tannins. Academically interesting.
Heitz Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 1997 - Fruit cake, very ripe nose which suggested malolactic-in-barrel treatment. This could have had more individuality had it not applied these modernist garagistes techniques. Predictably lots of coffee and dark currants. This certainly came from very ripe fruits in very warm year (which it was) with pronounced oakiness, warmth and very dusty tannins. The fruits were sadly rather oxidized too.
Everyone was still having fun and so the host decided to open two quite rare and old bottles. (Not as though we needed it, as we were already quite stuffed! Nonetheless...)
Dalla Valle Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 1992 - Very beguiling aromatics combining violets, blackberries, currants and soy. The nose was a kaleidoscopic explosion! The mouth, however, was quite simple in comparison. In fact, quite simple, period. It was rather flat and closed and finished a little short. Also lacking midpalate density. But the nose was an experience by itself.
Joseph Phelps Cabernet Sauvignon Insignia 1991 - Pure currant essence on the nose. At once dense and muscular but with some nobility. Actually this was rather impressive. Dark raspberries fruits with complicating peppery nuances. Quite impressive and certainly very well built.
A very late visit by Mr. Tan brought along the next bottle with him.
Radio Coteau Pinot Noir 'Terra Neuma' Sonoma 2004 - Spicy blueberry scented nose with suggestions of pepper. Rather soft and very ripe. Lots of gras in the mouth but lacked cut. In fact quite warm and lacking acidity. Rather disappointing for what I've revered as the definitive pinot noir estate in California (judging from its single vintage, 2002, that is...)
Through the generosity of one dear friend, HY, I've been granted the rare privilege on several occasions to taste very interesting, and possibly now-rare, aged Californian cabernets. Tonight is one such exercise. HY had a couple of us over for hearty meaty foods and equally hearty generous cabs to go along.
Aperitif came in a pair of champagnes. (Oh yes, the aperitifs are typically already a treat on its own!)
Dom Perignon 1996 - I've always admired Dom 1996 but tonight's bottle could be slightly off. A trace of cork was detected but none too intrusive. Yet there was some impact on the palate which didn't quite possess the intense raciness of the better examples. Nonetheless I still enjoyed this bubbly. Flinty, toasty aromas gave way to lemon-zest infused flavours that were bright and brisk in the mouth. Despite the off-ness, this still finished with an admirable citric bite and was quite bone dry.
Louis Roederer Cristal 1999 - My first Cristal and this was quite fine. Yeasty and flinty on the nose. Pears and lemons in the mouth with distinctly bread-like elements. Compared to the Dom, this was broader and creamier. Sweet, generous and flamboyant, this was let down by a lack of cleansing grip and tartness I have come to expect from the best of Champagnes. Delicious and theoretically this could have been a Meursault-Charmes with fizz perhaps...?
Dinner started with a Domaine Leflaive Bourgogne (blanc) 2001. For the record, Leflaive makes a darn good Bourgogne blanc. Serve it blind and it's not likely that majority would vote it as a bourgogne. This wine had flinty apricots and peachy aromas. Warm and cosy on the nose, this led to a generous, rather mouthfilling chardonnay flavours. Although I may so ever grumble about the lack of cut (very evidently a vintage characteristic), there was no doubting this was a superb and delicious bourgogne. Keep a lookout for this wine vintage in and vintage out.
Stonestreet Chardonnay Sonoma County 2001 - Here comes the Cali! Yes, Cal-chard nose of butter popcorn and oak-spices, this certainly promised to be a rather fat wine. Standard Cal-chard flavours which were well orchestrated and despite the oaky generosity of the wine, there was no trace of warmth at all in the finish.
Peter Michael Chardonnay Belle cote 2004 - A completely different breed of Cal-chard. Crystalline pineapple nose with a mouth that was at once creamy (textured) yet candied. According to JC who brought it, this arrived in town not too long ago. In fact tonight this had some fizziness in the wine which need a bit of aeration to blow off. This was a classy Cali chardonnay. Dense and sweet, a bit monolithic and simple at this point (though I think this would ease off with more bottle rest), this turned up with a late suggestion of passionfruits. I like it.
And the cabernet flight now begins.
La Jota Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 1987 - Sweaty saddle leather on the nose. Hints of lavender and cassis. Sweet and quite elegant but lacked that punch and lift that a truly structured cab would show off. Some herbaceousness turned up later and the wine had a somewhat rustic texture. This would no longer improve. Sign of tiredness is sipping in already with the wine coming off as overtly plump at this stage.
Beringer Cabernet Sauvignon Knights Valley 1990 - Smoky, medicinal nose dominated by plummy fruits. Sweet, very ripe, in fact, liqueur-like. But interestingly there wasn't much of a trace of alcohol. This was so ripe the tannins to me was rather raspy and quite biting. A funky wine that was surely overextracted. Finished off with a bitter note. Rather unbalanced though perfectly alive.
Chateau Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 1992 - My first thought was: "Wow! This is serious!" Yes, I have always admired this estate (the 1994 and 1987 I had were nothing short of stupendous). Tonight's 1992 had all the works of a great californian cabernet - smoke, meats, whiff of spicy oak in the nose; smells very primary still with vibrant dark raspberries and currants. Very sweet in the midpalate (which was precisely why I liked the 1994 over its competitors in the recent 1994 Napa shootout). Very lively with a distinct earthiness. The structure, concentration and balance guarantee this baby a long beautiful life ahead.
Ridge Monte Bello 1994 - One great wine after another. Another respected estate of mine (at least the older vintages). This was sweet, lush and full in the nose with the classiest American oak infused vanillin nuance. I've never come across wine treated with American oak this refined with sweet plums and cassis in the mouth. Dense and lively. And most importantly, wonderfully balanced.
Corison Cabernet Sauvignon Kronos Vineyard Napa Valley 1997 - Monstrous still, after over 5 hours of decanting. Cassis, plums and redcurrants on the nose. Very sweet and monolithic to say the least at this point. Plush and quite silky although reticent in the mouth with fruits which certainly came from a very ripe year. Finished with broad, dusty tannins. Academically interesting.
Heitz Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 1997 - Fruit cake, very ripe nose which suggested malolactic-in-barrel treatment. This could have had more individuality had it not applied these modernist garagistes techniques. Predictably lots of coffee and dark currants. This certainly came from very ripe fruits in very warm year (which it was) with pronounced oakiness, warmth and very dusty tannins. The fruits were sadly rather oxidized too.
Everyone was still having fun and so the host decided to open two quite rare and old bottles. (Not as though we needed it, as we were already quite stuffed! Nonetheless...)
Dalla Valle Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 1992 - Very beguiling aromatics combining violets, blackberries, currants and soy. The nose was a kaleidoscopic explosion! The mouth, however, was quite simple in comparison. In fact, quite simple, period. It was rather flat and closed and finished a little short. Also lacking midpalate density. But the nose was an experience by itself.
Joseph Phelps Cabernet Sauvignon Insignia 1991 - Pure currant essence on the nose. At once dense and muscular but with some nobility. Actually this was rather impressive. Dark raspberries fruits with complicating peppery nuances. Quite impressive and certainly very well built.
A very late visit by Mr. Tan brought along the next bottle with him.
Radio Coteau Pinot Noir 'Terra Neuma' Sonoma 2004 - Spicy blueberry scented nose with suggestions of pepper. Rather soft and very ripe. Lots of gras in the mouth but lacked cut. In fact quite warm and lacking acidity. Rather disappointing for what I've revered as the definitive pinot noir estate in California (judging from its single vintage, 2002, that is...)
05 July, 2006
Old-school? (assorted)
Golden Palace is probably the next most mentioned two-word after pinot noir in this blog. A few of us met up at this favoured joint for a casual time and mucking around a couple of bottles one evening and conversations got pretty hot by the time the subject of finding taxis in Singapore was brought up. Nonetheless, fortunately no one was crazy enough to indulge too far in that sacred paradox. Sort of concluded that the wines were more worthy of our attention and gusto that night. A good thing no less.
Lassalle Rose NV Brut Champagne accompanied the small dishes. Sweaty aromas of pear, plain white bread and berries greeted the nose before the moderately luscious, juicy and rather textured mouthfeel caught on. The bubbles were brisk and busy, though not especially fine. A versatile and rich rose for the dining table.
Crushed rocks and lime zest aromas were found in the next wine. Deftly oaked, treated very (rarely) masterfully and plenty of minerality too. In the palate, again, stony fruits and some earth dirts. Soft and plush in the mouth, tall-framed yet gentle, there was structure here but quite masked by the elegance. Raveneau Chablis Chapelot 1er Cru 1999.
The next wine was decidedly Bordeaux with some cedary, tobaccoey nose. Lush and soft in the mouth, in fact very soft. This seemed like right-bank to me. Classy but perhaps a tad too plush for what it is, especially at this stage of development. L'Evangile Pomerol 1998.
A decanted bottle was poured next. Ripe raspberries, quite ashy and tobaccoey actually, with hints of stems. I thought this was an aged burgundy, given the texture... perhaps a Pommard in the 80s? Finished with some dusty extract, a sign of hot climate, but the palate impression remained soft. Turned tea like later on. I guessed it wrong. It was Henri Bonneau Chateauneuf du Pape 1996. It's just as well, since the grenache-like liqueur elements I detected only in my second pour. Interesting.
The next bottle was decidedly modern. Fruitcakes essence and vanillin-scented oak on the nose. Certainly treated with malolactic-in-barrel. Fruits were dark raspberries dominated, suggesting merlot domination. The tannic structure was clearly driven out of oak treatment instead of natural skin extracts. Quite disappointing... Clos l'Eglise Pomerol 1999.
We finally returned to the burgundy land. I suggested when this was poured earlier to defer this till later as the fruits were still relatively compact. Pure red raspberries nose with plenty of cold-soak berries. Quite Chambolle like. Persistent in the mouth, at once round and voluminous too. In fact, turned rather peppery but lacked pitch and cut. The oak treatment was obvious but not dominating. Still reticent even at this point, giving an impression of squareness. Cecile Tremblay Chambolle-Musigny les Feuselottes 2004.
The next wine was a big-boy, but for what clearly appeared to be an Aussie, this actually was very well framed. Spicy oak, with vanillin elements that suggested American oak, this gave way to a still-fresh prune-like dark fruits. Quite high-pitched for an Aussie shiraz (that's what I'd guess) and probably not too old. Well, actually I was wrong - this was quite aged. Brokenwood "Hermitage" 1990.
The last wine had a noble nose of rose petals, tar, licorice and wood. This must be a ripe vintage Nebbiolo. Ash and tobacco atop very pristine red fruits and some gentleness in the tannins unlike the more arresting Barolo tannins. Quite rich and mouthfilling yet never heavy nor cloying. Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco Rabaja Riserva 2001.
Lassalle Rose NV Brut Champagne accompanied the small dishes. Sweaty aromas of pear, plain white bread and berries greeted the nose before the moderately luscious, juicy and rather textured mouthfeel caught on. The bubbles were brisk and busy, though not especially fine. A versatile and rich rose for the dining table.
Crushed rocks and lime zest aromas were found in the next wine. Deftly oaked, treated very (rarely) masterfully and plenty of minerality too. In the palate, again, stony fruits and some earth dirts. Soft and plush in the mouth, tall-framed yet gentle, there was structure here but quite masked by the elegance. Raveneau Chablis Chapelot 1er Cru 1999.
The next wine was decidedly Bordeaux with some cedary, tobaccoey nose. Lush and soft in the mouth, in fact very soft. This seemed like right-bank to me. Classy but perhaps a tad too plush for what it is, especially at this stage of development. L'Evangile Pomerol 1998.
A decanted bottle was poured next. Ripe raspberries, quite ashy and tobaccoey actually, with hints of stems. I thought this was an aged burgundy, given the texture... perhaps a Pommard in the 80s? Finished with some dusty extract, a sign of hot climate, but the palate impression remained soft. Turned tea like later on. I guessed it wrong. It was Henri Bonneau Chateauneuf du Pape 1996. It's just as well, since the grenache-like liqueur elements I detected only in my second pour. Interesting.
The next bottle was decidedly modern. Fruitcakes essence and vanillin-scented oak on the nose. Certainly treated with malolactic-in-barrel. Fruits were dark raspberries dominated, suggesting merlot domination. The tannic structure was clearly driven out of oak treatment instead of natural skin extracts. Quite disappointing... Clos l'Eglise Pomerol 1999.
We finally returned to the burgundy land. I suggested when this was poured earlier to defer this till later as the fruits were still relatively compact. Pure red raspberries nose with plenty of cold-soak berries. Quite Chambolle like. Persistent in the mouth, at once round and voluminous too. In fact, turned rather peppery but lacked pitch and cut. The oak treatment was obvious but not dominating. Still reticent even at this point, giving an impression of squareness. Cecile Tremblay Chambolle-Musigny les Feuselottes 2004.
The next wine was a big-boy, but for what clearly appeared to be an Aussie, this actually was very well framed. Spicy oak, with vanillin elements that suggested American oak, this gave way to a still-fresh prune-like dark fruits. Quite high-pitched for an Aussie shiraz (that's what I'd guess) and probably not too old. Well, actually I was wrong - this was quite aged. Brokenwood "Hermitage" 1990.
The last wine had a noble nose of rose petals, tar, licorice and wood. This must be a ripe vintage Nebbiolo. Ash and tobacco atop very pristine red fruits and some gentleness in the tannins unlike the more arresting Barolo tannins. Quite rich and mouthfilling yet never heavy nor cloying. Bruno Giacosa Barbaresco Rabaja Riserva 2001.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
