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.
30 May, 2006
A dinner with Nicolas Potel (2004 tasting plus several others)
Chapitre d'Orchide. The now annual event with the Confrerie held to showcase Nicolas Potel's wines. I missed, what, two? three? of past events, and so this time I decided I have to make it. Besides, this gives me my first broader-scale exposure to 2004 red burgundies.
Dinner was excellent as always at Summer Pavillion @ Ritz Carlton. And so I wouldn't want to say too much about it. And the wines were served in two sections -- the tasting section, and the dinner selection. The tasting section featured some 2004 1er and grand cru reds and then with its similar counterparts circa 2002 vintage. And finished off with two 2004 whites. Very interesting format.
The dinner was more straightforward, just pairs of wines with each dish featuring a smattering of reputable appellations from vintages of 2000-2003. Some, as you would see later on, were standout. But many too were, in my opinion, flawed.
All in all, in retrospect (and in the interest of full disclosure I did have more 2004 reds later on, although from different domaines), Potel's 2004 (both red and white) were done a tad more blowsy that I would have preferred. Given the lesser raw materials in 2004 compared to the 2002 vintage, the levels of extract were quite trying in some cases. The Bonnes-Mares, in spite of its grand-cru status, particularly did not take too well to the oak and extraction regime. None of the Bonnes-Mares impressed me tonight - all came across as too heavy, clumsy, outsized. The fruits of the 2004 reminded of 2000 with slightly less ripeness. I don't know if within the next 6 months or so (in my experience red burgundies will fully stabilize within 12 months after bottling after which it would decide whether to shutdown or just cruise along) the truer characters of these reds would emerge, but for now this was as much as I could observe.
So now here comes my tasting notes... (not necessarily in chronological order)
Meursault les Vireuls 2004 was served as aperitif. This had very ripe fruits. Pristine but rather viscous and somewhat lacked that incisive cut 2004 whites are supposed to represent. Atypical for the vintage although generous. Lots of pear fruits. In fact, IMHO not very Meursault like.
Chambolle-Musigny les Fuees 2004 - Black-fruited with mainly dark raspberries fruits. Very ripe and textured. Stemmy nose, square mouthfeel and dusty finish. Lacked shapeliness in the mouth that Chambolles are famous for. Notwithstanding this was a Fuees (which is a mini-Bonnes-Mares as many people believe), this seemed over-extracted (though not over-powerful) and the finish was less clean than I would have preferred. The 2002 sported a scarily dark hue. The nose was still reticent. The profile was somewhat similar to the 2004 sibling but this was immediately sweeter in the midpalate. Finished off with a bold tannic edge.
Vosne-Romanee les Gaudichots 2004 - Typical Vosne-nose. Spicy and stemmy but had more substantial materials to support it. Has a certain sense of grandeur in the mouth, plush, velvety and brighter in its fruits too. I quite like this; very tasty. The 2002 also carried off stemmy nose but had even more presence in the midpalate. This was a brooding wine. Finished off with, again, a tannic bite. At this point the 2004 was more delicious.
Chambertin-Clos de Beze 2004 - Brooding nose with dark liqueur essence. In the mouth there was that tell-tale Gevrey minerals. Quite extracted and tough still. Had the materials to support the 'hardness' however; very ripe but possessed a sense of reserve. Spices, raspberry and cherry fruits. Quite typical of the vineyard. The 2002 was a lot sweeter and possessed more verve in the mouth. The Gevrey earth came through effortlessly and quite elegantly.
Le Chambertin 2004 - More reticent nose than the Clos de Beze, but in the mouth it's unquestionably bigger and more voluminous. Also, true to form, very square and large in the palate with undeniable deep-seated Gevrey minerality. Has a sense of presence and command that the Clos de Beze lacked. Things got even better with the 2002 with that special oily earthy quintessentially Gevrey minerality. Again, square and dense, commanding and tense. Finished with a grip not found in any of the wines before or after.
Bonnes-Mares 2004 - There certainly was a good reason to place Bonnes-Mares last in the lineup. Unquestionably the biggest wine tonight, this had deep, dense black and blue fruits. Very powerful, forceful, textured and quite alcoholic. Very sweet and ripe. The fruits turned curranty and blueberry-inclined. The 2002 was equally gigantic. In fact, to me this was perhaps more clumsy than the 2004 and I couldn't help but feel that there was too little materials and too much extract here. Turned rather herbaceous and somewhat blander later on, but without letting up that alcoholic warmth.
A repeat of the above performance (sans the whites) with the vintage 2002 version...
Chambolle-Musigny les Fuees 2002 - Very dark colour. Reticent nose even at this point. The wine did come across as fairly square too. This was however evidently sweeter in the midpalate than the 2004, but also showed tannic bite in the finish.
Vosne-Romanee les Gaudichots 2002 - Again telltale Vosne-nose. Also stemmy but had better density than its younger sibling. Pretty much like the 2004 counterpart in every sense but this possessed more concentration and darker fruits. Serious and quite tannic at the back.
Chambertin-Clos de Beze 2002 - A clear mark up in terms of sweetness. In fact, very sweet attack with noticeable Gevrey minerality, in an elegant frame. This was a very charming Gevrey in a befitting grand cru presence.
Le Chambertin 2002 - Finally a wine that hit all the right notes. A roasted, oily, bacon-fatty, earthy nose that is quintessentially Gevrey. Square and commanding in the mouth with an implosive substantial body and unmistakable nobility. Tense and gripping. Special.
Bonnes-Mares 2002 - Unlike the previous 2002s, this didn't better the 2004 version. That is to say this too was rather extracted, huge and awkwardly outsized. The strength of extraction pulled off too much stemmy note so much so it overwhelmed the fruits. Lost whatever was left of the tastiness with further aeration. Disappointing.
The dinner followed with several more bottles.
Chassagne-Montrachet Morgeot 2004 - Pears and popcorn oil on the nose. Quite Chassagne actually. This was simple albeit generous in the mouth. None too special.
Corton-Charlemagne 2004 - Always one of my favourite white burgundies, this immediately came across as leaner and meaner, even on the nose. Quite penetrating although ripe, with chalkiness I always associate with this piece of land. The malic acid peeked through in the true fashion of this (to me at least) lovely white burgundy vintage.
Distracted by the conversations and the food, I did not pay a close look to the second bottle other than noting that it had the "Corton-Charlemagne" label on it. I thought this was the same wine, and the host had extra! Not that I minded... This example possessed better mineral definition, culminating into an intriguing salinity in the mouth, mixed with citrusy freshness. It was sappy, and showed some buttery popcornish aromas, and texturally more voluminous and exotically oily. I could almost swear this was a different (and better) wine. Actually, it was. This was the Corton-Charlemagne 2002.
Flights of reds followed. Nuits-St.-Georges les Boudots 2000 displayed an earthy stink with a sauvage tendency. Blackberries and some brett was detected. In the mouth, the fruit was consistently blackberry. Quite crunchy and briary. Interesting although technically flawed by the unclean (brett) hints.
Vosne-Romanee les Malconsorts 2000 - Again, earthy and meaty stink. 'Stink' because of the brett I once again detected on the nose. This was very ripe. The fruits were almost red-plummy, and the ripeness was tipping over surmaturite: pretty direct and spine-less in the mouth. Not quite balanced.
Gevrey-Chambertin Lavaux St. Jacques 2002 - Lower-pitched steely Gevrey nose. Sweet, quite minerally, savoury with delicious soya flavours but ended in a slightly warmish feel. Delicious and useful at the dinner table.
Vosne-Romanee les Suchots 2002 - Opulent Vosne nose combined the usual spices with mocha and dark chocolate. Sweet inviting flavours of dark cherries and currants. Again, the pitch was unimpressive and this wine was marked by some mustiness.
Echezeaux 2001 - Black cherries predominated with meats and earthy hints. On the palate some earthy (not rustic) sweetness and pronounced stemminess, which fortunately didn't fall over to become unclean.
Le Chambertin 2001 - corked. Duh...
Grands Echezeaux 2001 - Now, what a difference this next-door vineyard to the Ech made. Sweet plums nose yet higher pitched altogether. The fruits were clean this time. With a midpalate viscosity exemplified by the better made concentrated burgundies. This was very Vosne-like with clean and trim downright sweet fruits. Lovely.
Bonnes-Mares 2003 - Warmish and quite obviously oaky. This came across very grainy and overripe and sacrificed the pitch altogether. The fruit profile was decidedly 2003 with black and blue fruits and finished with dusty (heat-spiked) tannins. Turned curranty but failed to deliver smoothness. Didn't come across as refined as one would expect from a burgundy.
Chambertin Clos de Beze 2003 - This too didn't turn out much better than the preceding Bonnes-Mares 2003. However this possessed better clarity and integration. Still the vintage characteristics were untamed in this wine and the clumsiness was not overcome.
Dinner was excellent as always at Summer Pavillion @ Ritz Carlton. And so I wouldn't want to say too much about it. And the wines were served in two sections -- the tasting section, and the dinner selection. The tasting section featured some 2004 1er and grand cru reds and then with its similar counterparts circa 2002 vintage. And finished off with two 2004 whites. Very interesting format.
The dinner was more straightforward, just pairs of wines with each dish featuring a smattering of reputable appellations from vintages of 2000-2003. Some, as you would see later on, were standout. But many too were, in my opinion, flawed.
All in all, in retrospect (and in the interest of full disclosure I did have more 2004 reds later on, although from different domaines), Potel's 2004 (both red and white) were done a tad more blowsy that I would have preferred. Given the lesser raw materials in 2004 compared to the 2002 vintage, the levels of extract were quite trying in some cases. The Bonnes-Mares, in spite of its grand-cru status, particularly did not take too well to the oak and extraction regime. None of the Bonnes-Mares impressed me tonight - all came across as too heavy, clumsy, outsized. The fruits of the 2004 reminded of 2000 with slightly less ripeness. I don't know if within the next 6 months or so (in my experience red burgundies will fully stabilize within 12 months after bottling after which it would decide whether to shutdown or just cruise along) the truer characters of these reds would emerge, but for now this was as much as I could observe.
So now here comes my tasting notes... (not necessarily in chronological order)
Meursault les Vireuls 2004 was served as aperitif. This had very ripe fruits. Pristine but rather viscous and somewhat lacked that incisive cut 2004 whites are supposed to represent. Atypical for the vintage although generous. Lots of pear fruits. In fact, IMHO not very Meursault like.
Chambolle-Musigny les Fuees 2004 - Black-fruited with mainly dark raspberries fruits. Very ripe and textured. Stemmy nose, square mouthfeel and dusty finish. Lacked shapeliness in the mouth that Chambolles are famous for. Notwithstanding this was a Fuees (which is a mini-Bonnes-Mares as many people believe), this seemed over-extracted (though not over-powerful) and the finish was less clean than I would have preferred. The 2002 sported a scarily dark hue. The nose was still reticent. The profile was somewhat similar to the 2004 sibling but this was immediately sweeter in the midpalate. Finished off with a bold tannic edge.
Vosne-Romanee les Gaudichots 2004 - Typical Vosne-nose. Spicy and stemmy but had more substantial materials to support it. Has a certain sense of grandeur in the mouth, plush, velvety and brighter in its fruits too. I quite like this; very tasty. The 2002 also carried off stemmy nose but had even more presence in the midpalate. This was a brooding wine. Finished off with, again, a tannic bite. At this point the 2004 was more delicious.
Chambertin-Clos de Beze 2004 - Brooding nose with dark liqueur essence. In the mouth there was that tell-tale Gevrey minerals. Quite extracted and tough still. Had the materials to support the 'hardness' however; very ripe but possessed a sense of reserve. Spices, raspberry and cherry fruits. Quite typical of the vineyard. The 2002 was a lot sweeter and possessed more verve in the mouth. The Gevrey earth came through effortlessly and quite elegantly.
Le Chambertin 2004 - More reticent nose than the Clos de Beze, but in the mouth it's unquestionably bigger and more voluminous. Also, true to form, very square and large in the palate with undeniable deep-seated Gevrey minerality. Has a sense of presence and command that the Clos de Beze lacked. Things got even better with the 2002 with that special oily earthy quintessentially Gevrey minerality. Again, square and dense, commanding and tense. Finished with a grip not found in any of the wines before or after.
Bonnes-Mares 2004 - There certainly was a good reason to place Bonnes-Mares last in the lineup. Unquestionably the biggest wine tonight, this had deep, dense black and blue fruits. Very powerful, forceful, textured and quite alcoholic. Very sweet and ripe. The fruits turned curranty and blueberry-inclined. The 2002 was equally gigantic. In fact, to me this was perhaps more clumsy than the 2004 and I couldn't help but feel that there was too little materials and too much extract here. Turned rather herbaceous and somewhat blander later on, but without letting up that alcoholic warmth.
A repeat of the above performance (sans the whites) with the vintage 2002 version...
Chambolle-Musigny les Fuees 2002 - Very dark colour. Reticent nose even at this point. The wine did come across as fairly square too. This was however evidently sweeter in the midpalate than the 2004, but also showed tannic bite in the finish.
Vosne-Romanee les Gaudichots 2002 - Again telltale Vosne-nose. Also stemmy but had better density than its younger sibling. Pretty much like the 2004 counterpart in every sense but this possessed more concentration and darker fruits. Serious and quite tannic at the back.
Chambertin-Clos de Beze 2002 - A clear mark up in terms of sweetness. In fact, very sweet attack with noticeable Gevrey minerality, in an elegant frame. This was a very charming Gevrey in a befitting grand cru presence.
Le Chambertin 2002 - Finally a wine that hit all the right notes. A roasted, oily, bacon-fatty, earthy nose that is quintessentially Gevrey. Square and commanding in the mouth with an implosive substantial body and unmistakable nobility. Tense and gripping. Special.
Bonnes-Mares 2002 - Unlike the previous 2002s, this didn't better the 2004 version. That is to say this too was rather extracted, huge and awkwardly outsized. The strength of extraction pulled off too much stemmy note so much so it overwhelmed the fruits. Lost whatever was left of the tastiness with further aeration. Disappointing.
The dinner followed with several more bottles.
Chassagne-Montrachet Morgeot 2004 - Pears and popcorn oil on the nose. Quite Chassagne actually. This was simple albeit generous in the mouth. None too special.
Corton-Charlemagne 2004 - Always one of my favourite white burgundies, this immediately came across as leaner and meaner, even on the nose. Quite penetrating although ripe, with chalkiness I always associate with this piece of land. The malic acid peeked through in the true fashion of this (to me at least) lovely white burgundy vintage.
Distracted by the conversations and the food, I did not pay a close look to the second bottle other than noting that it had the "Corton-Charlemagne" label on it. I thought this was the same wine, and the host had extra! Not that I minded... This example possessed better mineral definition, culminating into an intriguing salinity in the mouth, mixed with citrusy freshness. It was sappy, and showed some buttery popcornish aromas, and texturally more voluminous and exotically oily. I could almost swear this was a different (and better) wine. Actually, it was. This was the Corton-Charlemagne 2002.
Flights of reds followed. Nuits-St.-Georges les Boudots 2000 displayed an earthy stink with a sauvage tendency. Blackberries and some brett was detected. In the mouth, the fruit was consistently blackberry. Quite crunchy and briary. Interesting although technically flawed by the unclean (brett) hints.
Vosne-Romanee les Malconsorts 2000 - Again, earthy and meaty stink. 'Stink' because of the brett I once again detected on the nose. This was very ripe. The fruits were almost red-plummy, and the ripeness was tipping over surmaturite: pretty direct and spine-less in the mouth. Not quite balanced.
Gevrey-Chambertin Lavaux St. Jacques 2002 - Lower-pitched steely Gevrey nose. Sweet, quite minerally, savoury with delicious soya flavours but ended in a slightly warmish feel. Delicious and useful at the dinner table.
Vosne-Romanee les Suchots 2002 - Opulent Vosne nose combined the usual spices with mocha and dark chocolate. Sweet inviting flavours of dark cherries and currants. Again, the pitch was unimpressive and this wine was marked by some mustiness.
Echezeaux 2001 - Black cherries predominated with meats and earthy hints. On the palate some earthy (not rustic) sweetness and pronounced stemminess, which fortunately didn't fall over to become unclean.
Le Chambertin 2001 - corked. Duh...
Grands Echezeaux 2001 - Now, what a difference this next-door vineyard to the Ech made. Sweet plums nose yet higher pitched altogether. The fruits were clean this time. With a midpalate viscosity exemplified by the better made concentrated burgundies. This was very Vosne-like with clean and trim downright sweet fruits. Lovely.
Bonnes-Mares 2003 - Warmish and quite obviously oaky. This came across very grainy and overripe and sacrificed the pitch altogether. The fruit profile was decidedly 2003 with black and blue fruits and finished with dusty (heat-spiked) tannins. Turned curranty but failed to deliver smoothness. Didn't come across as refined as one would expect from a burgundy.
Chambertin Clos de Beze 2003 - This too didn't turn out much better than the preceding Bonnes-Mares 2003. However this possessed better clarity and integration. Still the vintage characteristics were untamed in this wine and the clumsiness was not overcome.
A slight diversion: La Piemonte!
Even for a burghead like me, I am given to moments of weakness and crave for something different. Although I pledge my allegiance to burgundy and continue to be unconvinced that there is any other region more thrilling and more complete than it, I am partial to the wines of Piedmont as well as northern Rhone (the reds only).
A few days back Andy asked if the few of us should get together at the weekend and I suggested we should do something different (read: non burgundy). Perhaps syrah or Piedmontese. So he put up a line up of several interesting Barolos for the evening. This time we didn't do it blind. For a change too.
The scene at Wine Garage was just great. We were out there in the open by the riverside and the weather was quite cool. The crowd was bustling (business was good and the neighbour, Brewerks, was even better) but given the arrangement and spacing of the seats, we were nice and cosy: relaxed yet still enough to focus on the wines too. The food was great. Very pleasurable and tasty. Creative but not over-the-top, with the intention of the dish well communicated. Prices were fair too. And service? Good: not-intrusive yet quite accomodating when needed.
The Laurent-Perrier Grand Siecle NV Brut (supposedly a blend of 1992, 1995 and 1996 vintages) kicked off the evening and it was delicious. This certainly had finer bubbles than the Brut 1996 I had just the week before. Fairly Chard driven nose with a bready and buttery mood. Sweet yet crisp, quite clean, fresh and zingy. Very generous in the mouth yet maintained a slim and elegant frame. It was fantastic with the fresh oyster.
A blind white followed. A generous buttery nose introduced a slightly oaked Chard flavours. A softer, fleshier style but possessed quite a tight core. Lemon zests and hints of banana skins. The latter made me think of this as an 2003 white burg. Henri Boillot Puligny-Montrachet les Perrieres 2003. A good 2003 but like most of its counterparts, the details are somewhat muted.
The first Barolo, the 1999 Massolino Barolo Vigna Parafada, followed. Black cherries and curranty fruits. This was made in a somewhat modern style but was still restrained. Dark yet soft fruits. Evident details of ash, tobacco and smoke in the nose as well as vanillin. My grouse is that the wine lacked spine.
The first of the 'trio-Conternos' followed - 1999 Paolo Conterno Barolo Ginestra. The nose is now purer. Tell-tale tar and black cherry liqueur, with ash and tobacco. It was also sweeter, as the plummy fruits were elevated by a sound, better integrated acidity. This came through more transparent than the Massolino, and finished with broad yet refined tannins. This had the elements but just didn't carry that oomph or punch to stand apart from the others.
2001 Aldo Conterno Barolo Cicala was poured next. While I admire the elegance of the 1999s before this, the completeness of the 2001 vintage was undeniably clear. Crystalline nose with an impression of solidness. Ever the enlightened (semi-modern) school, this wine mixed - and quite successfully at that - ash, vanillin, black cherries, licorice and cream on the nose. Pure but still compactly blunt at this stage and with extended aeration opened up a little to show the fruit details. Still a bit modernesque for my taste. A viscous wine yet demonstrated an admirable transparency. Very good wine in a superb vintage.
The next house is somewhat of a legend for those who are into artisanal, classical, honest-to-goodness, massive Barolos built to age a lifetime. The 1998 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Cascina Francia was a knockout by the merits of its personality alone. Pure earthy funk on the nose underlied the dark cherry liqueur essense. Amazingly almost alcohol-less although there is doubting of the ripeness and immensity of this baby. In the mouth this had an almost wild energy, a certain zestiness that enlivened the dark fruits flavours. Totally a wine of pleasure. The aromas developed and added a crazy mix of earthy Italian herbs and porcini mushrooms. And need I mention that this came from a less-classical, very ripe vintage and this is not the top-of-the-line of the house? (His expression of Barolo in his Barolo Monfortino Riserva 1996, though painfully youthful, remains firmly etched in my memory as the most profound Barolo I've ever tasted.) I am partial, but this wine is one of the kind and a walks away from the rest tonight by sheer virtue of its character and charm.
How does one top up such an individualistic performance as the Cascina Francia? Well, the dinner ended with a very different interpretation of Barolo in the hands of Bruno Giacosa. His 2001 Barolo Faletto had a most pristine nose of berries, red plums and red raspberries. This was the most red-fruited Barolo of the night, and the overally body, aromas and texture unequivocally brought to mind a Chambolle-Musigny. Creamy in the palate with yet superbly pristine and pure. Very high pitched and framed by bright and harmonious acidity. This wine was balanced to the point that it felt almost weightless and the abundance of the fruits were such that the solid silky tannins were indiscernible. Flavoursome, complex and showed the wondrous blessings of its vintage to a fault. Superb.
What can I say? Old school rules, I guess. They rule in Burgundy and they sure rule in Piedmont too! The Giacomo Conterno and Bruno Giacosa were staggeringly impressive tonight. And most importantly, they proudly carried the flag of its region and charmed the table with its strong and root personality.
A few days back Andy asked if the few of us should get together at the weekend and I suggested we should do something different (read: non burgundy). Perhaps syrah or Piedmontese. So he put up a line up of several interesting Barolos for the evening. This time we didn't do it blind. For a change too.
The scene at Wine Garage was just great. We were out there in the open by the riverside and the weather was quite cool. The crowd was bustling (business was good and the neighbour, Brewerks, was even better) but given the arrangement and spacing of the seats, we were nice and cosy: relaxed yet still enough to focus on the wines too. The food was great. Very pleasurable and tasty. Creative but not over-the-top, with the intention of the dish well communicated. Prices were fair too. And service? Good: not-intrusive yet quite accomodating when needed.
The Laurent-Perrier Grand Siecle NV Brut (supposedly a blend of 1992, 1995 and 1996 vintages) kicked off the evening and it was delicious. This certainly had finer bubbles than the Brut 1996 I had just the week before. Fairly Chard driven nose with a bready and buttery mood. Sweet yet crisp, quite clean, fresh and zingy. Very generous in the mouth yet maintained a slim and elegant frame. It was fantastic with the fresh oyster.
A blind white followed. A generous buttery nose introduced a slightly oaked Chard flavours. A softer, fleshier style but possessed quite a tight core. Lemon zests and hints of banana skins. The latter made me think of this as an 2003 white burg. Henri Boillot Puligny-Montrachet les Perrieres 2003. A good 2003 but like most of its counterparts, the details are somewhat muted.
The first Barolo, the 1999 Massolino Barolo Vigna Parafada, followed. Black cherries and curranty fruits. This was made in a somewhat modern style but was still restrained. Dark yet soft fruits. Evident details of ash, tobacco and smoke in the nose as well as vanillin. My grouse is that the wine lacked spine.
The first of the 'trio-Conternos' followed - 1999 Paolo Conterno Barolo Ginestra. The nose is now purer. Tell-tale tar and black cherry liqueur, with ash and tobacco. It was also sweeter, as the plummy fruits were elevated by a sound, better integrated acidity. This came through more transparent than the Massolino, and finished with broad yet refined tannins. This had the elements but just didn't carry that oomph or punch to stand apart from the others.
2001 Aldo Conterno Barolo Cicala was poured next. While I admire the elegance of the 1999s before this, the completeness of the 2001 vintage was undeniably clear. Crystalline nose with an impression of solidness. Ever the enlightened (semi-modern) school, this wine mixed - and quite successfully at that - ash, vanillin, black cherries, licorice and cream on the nose. Pure but still compactly blunt at this stage and with extended aeration opened up a little to show the fruit details. Still a bit modernesque for my taste. A viscous wine yet demonstrated an admirable transparency. Very good wine in a superb vintage.
The next house is somewhat of a legend for those who are into artisanal, classical, honest-to-goodness, massive Barolos built to age a lifetime. The 1998 Giacomo Conterno Barolo Cascina Francia was a knockout by the merits of its personality alone. Pure earthy funk on the nose underlied the dark cherry liqueur essense. Amazingly almost alcohol-less although there is doubting of the ripeness and immensity of this baby. In the mouth this had an almost wild energy, a certain zestiness that enlivened the dark fruits flavours. Totally a wine of pleasure. The aromas developed and added a crazy mix of earthy Italian herbs and porcini mushrooms. And need I mention that this came from a less-classical, very ripe vintage and this is not the top-of-the-line of the house? (His expression of Barolo in his Barolo Monfortino Riserva 1996, though painfully youthful, remains firmly etched in my memory as the most profound Barolo I've ever tasted.) I am partial, but this wine is one of the kind and a walks away from the rest tonight by sheer virtue of its character and charm.
How does one top up such an individualistic performance as the Cascina Francia? Well, the dinner ended with a very different interpretation of Barolo in the hands of Bruno Giacosa. His 2001 Barolo Faletto had a most pristine nose of berries, red plums and red raspberries. This was the most red-fruited Barolo of the night, and the overally body, aromas and texture unequivocally brought to mind a Chambolle-Musigny. Creamy in the palate with yet superbly pristine and pure. Very high pitched and framed by bright and harmonious acidity. This wine was balanced to the point that it felt almost weightless and the abundance of the fruits were such that the solid silky tannins were indiscernible. Flavoursome, complex and showed the wondrous blessings of its vintage to a fault. Superb.
What can I say? Old school rules, I guess. They rule in Burgundy and they sure rule in Piedmont too! The Giacomo Conterno and Bruno Giacosa were staggeringly impressive tonight. And most importantly, they proudly carried the flag of its region and charmed the table with its strong and root personality.
29 May, 2006
Family day (a.k.a. Happy 7th Birthday)
My son turned 7 on this day. And as an act of novelty and an excuse to get together with families, we decided to throw a small party for Ethan. And of course there's reason for wines too, right? And Ethan's birthyear being 1999, I decided to set up a very small set of 1999 wines with the help of Andy's.
Highfield "Elstree" Marlborough Cuvee Brut 1999 (a Chard and Pinot Noir mix sparkling) -- Very toasty nose gave way to easygoing, lemon, guava, peach and custard infused flavours. The acids were rather flat however and this showed why old world still rules when it comes to sparkling wines. Held on and gave away into maderized pruney nose. Some residual sugar detected.
We just read the enthusiastic review of this wine in Tanzer's California coverage. Peter Michael "L'Apres-Midi" Sauvignon Blanc 2004 Sonoma -- Impressive, almost crystalline grassy, strawy Sauvignon nose (reminded me of riper vintages of Dagueneau's Pouilly Fume in the nose alone.) Filled with grapefruits and pineapples in the mouth. Juicy and brisk, quite crunchy in fact, and in spite of the alcoholic ripeness, this wine remained bright, clean and lightweight in the mouth. No trace of alcohol in the finish. The most compelling North American sauvignon blanc I've tasted to date but still some distance to go to compare with its French counterparts. Continued to evolve to passionfruits flavours and held its cool well a few hours later.
Moet & Chandon Brut Rose 1999 Champagne -- Again this was toasty and bready on the nose. The difference is in the palate. Brisk acidity kept the wine going and its greatest virtue tonight was that it paired very well with all sorts of food. Still this was simple and short in the mouth. Rather hollow, lacking intensity in the middle.
Etienne Sauzet Puligny-Montrachet les Perrieres 1999 -- Flinty, buttery nose combined lemon oil and pineapples. In fact quite Meursault-like, with aromas of toasted nuts. Cool and minty in the mouth but textured and generous with butter, peanuts and pears. Finished rather bracing and this wine refused to budge throughout the six hours it was opened. An odd, somewhat awkward combination of very ripe chardonnay and bracing almost steely acidity.
Domaine des Lambrays Clos des Lambrays 1999 -- I know it's against my principle to open a 1999 grand cru at this stage, but.... the occasion called for it. Typical dark almost impenetrable dark red hue a la 1999. Ripely stemmy with hints of beetroots and tomatoes atop of dark cherry infused nose. Almost liqueur like in its fruity aromas and not especially expressive at this point. Developed to reveal lovely red plums. Not especially refined but possessed a wealth of materials underneath waiting to come out. The question is whether they'd harmonize. The wine was not disjointed nor awkward, but the slightly rustic briary characteristics made me think about its harmonization potentials. Plenty of backbone and possessed grand cru volume and weight after (again) some 6 hours of airing. Plenty of structure, but not necessarily generous at this point, as evidenced by an unshy levels of tannins.
Marquis d'Angerville Volnay les Fremiet 2002 -- Have I ever told anyone I really admire this producer? This wine further ratified my respect for this domaine. Transluscent deep red. Creamy raspberries on the nose. High toned crushed berries and very red fruited so typical of 2002 red burgs. Similar profile in the palate with fatness and volume, and less in terms of minerality and cut. Lovely wine and an outstanding show for its pedigree.
Highfield "Elstree" Marlborough Cuvee Brut 1999 (a Chard and Pinot Noir mix sparkling) -- Very toasty nose gave way to easygoing, lemon, guava, peach and custard infused flavours. The acids were rather flat however and this showed why old world still rules when it comes to sparkling wines. Held on and gave away into maderized pruney nose. Some residual sugar detected.
We just read the enthusiastic review of this wine in Tanzer's California coverage. Peter Michael "L'Apres-Midi" Sauvignon Blanc 2004 Sonoma -- Impressive, almost crystalline grassy, strawy Sauvignon nose (reminded me of riper vintages of Dagueneau's Pouilly Fume in the nose alone.) Filled with grapefruits and pineapples in the mouth. Juicy and brisk, quite crunchy in fact, and in spite of the alcoholic ripeness, this wine remained bright, clean and lightweight in the mouth. No trace of alcohol in the finish. The most compelling North American sauvignon blanc I've tasted to date but still some distance to go to compare with its French counterparts. Continued to evolve to passionfruits flavours and held its cool well a few hours later.
Moet & Chandon Brut Rose 1999 Champagne -- Again this was toasty and bready on the nose. The difference is in the palate. Brisk acidity kept the wine going and its greatest virtue tonight was that it paired very well with all sorts of food. Still this was simple and short in the mouth. Rather hollow, lacking intensity in the middle.
Etienne Sauzet Puligny-Montrachet les Perrieres 1999 -- Flinty, buttery nose combined lemon oil and pineapples. In fact quite Meursault-like, with aromas of toasted nuts. Cool and minty in the mouth but textured and generous with butter, peanuts and pears. Finished rather bracing and this wine refused to budge throughout the six hours it was opened. An odd, somewhat awkward combination of very ripe chardonnay and bracing almost steely acidity.
Domaine des Lambrays Clos des Lambrays 1999 -- I know it's against my principle to open a 1999 grand cru at this stage, but.... the occasion called for it. Typical dark almost impenetrable dark red hue a la 1999. Ripely stemmy with hints of beetroots and tomatoes atop of dark cherry infused nose. Almost liqueur like in its fruity aromas and not especially expressive at this point. Developed to reveal lovely red plums. Not especially refined but possessed a wealth of materials underneath waiting to come out. The question is whether they'd harmonize. The wine was not disjointed nor awkward, but the slightly rustic briary characteristics made me think about its harmonization potentials. Plenty of backbone and possessed grand cru volume and weight after (again) some 6 hours of airing. Plenty of structure, but not necessarily generous at this point, as evidenced by an unshy levels of tannins.
Marquis d'Angerville Volnay les Fremiet 2002 -- Have I ever told anyone I really admire this producer? This wine further ratified my respect for this domaine. Transluscent deep red. Creamy raspberries on the nose. High toned crushed berries and very red fruited so typical of 2002 red burgs. Similar profile in the palate with fatness and volume, and less in terms of minerality and cut. Lovely wine and an outstanding show for its pedigree.
Mother's Day
The family went out at the ever-ready to serve, ever-ready to please, cosy fine dining modern Chinese cuisine touting Jiang Nan Chun. This is a restaurant I truly feel at home. While there are now many newer trendier restaurants precipitated by the fad-chasing Singaporean dining industry, it is sad to see that while these chase the new highs of chic-ness, most, if not all, have forgotten the fundamentals -- that people go out to restaurants to eat to feel good, not just to look good.
My family of four (yes, it suddenly dawned on me we're now four!) celebrated Mother's day simply by having lunch together. I picked a bottle of Laurent-Perrier Brut 1996 Champagne as a token for celebration. It's just too bad Fiona didn't quite get along with bubblies as she claimed that just a fraction of a sip she took earlier had gotten to her head. Well, it's Mother's day and it's her day. She calls the shots. So 'poor' me ended sipping the bottle all by myself (actually I asked the restaurant manager to join me for a couple of sips together as we chatted -- talk about cosy and homey...)
The bubbly was decidedly and bracingly dry a la 1996. The nose was quite Chard-like: leesy with pears, minerals and crushed stones. Moderately textured in the mouth and quite refined with green apples and again, bracing acidity. Rather austere and ungiving at this moment but I liked the bone-dry finish of this wine which accentuates its fairly sappy fruits.
Oh and the food? Compared to Graze the previous night, this one is simply superb.
My family of four (yes, it suddenly dawned on me we're now four!) celebrated Mother's day simply by having lunch together. I picked a bottle of Laurent-Perrier Brut 1996 Champagne as a token for celebration. It's just too bad Fiona didn't quite get along with bubblies as she claimed that just a fraction of a sip she took earlier had gotten to her head. Well, it's Mother's day and it's her day. She calls the shots. So 'poor' me ended sipping the bottle all by myself (actually I asked the restaurant manager to join me for a couple of sips together as we chatted -- talk about cosy and homey...)
The bubbly was decidedly and bracingly dry a la 1996. The nose was quite Chard-like: leesy with pears, minerals and crushed stones. Moderately textured in the mouth and quite refined with green apples and again, bracing acidity. Rather austere and ungiving at this moment but I liked the bone-dry finish of this wine which accentuates its fairly sappy fruits.
Oh and the food? Compared to Graze the previous night, this one is simply superb.
Gevrey 2002 Premier Cru comparative @ Graze
Rochester Park. Supposedly the happening hub of chic dining scene of the moment. Graze opened there and immense publicity preceded the establishment of its place in the hall of culinary fame. Well, to cut the long story short, I didn't enjoy the experience. The food tried too hard to be creative, mixing Pacific-rim modern cuisine with spicy flavours borrowed from the Thais, Viets and the what-nots. Fusion, or confusion? You decide. Quality was decent, but service was a let-down and the dishes cannibalise themselves.
But what am I talking about the restaurant? (I suppose it's bad enough for me to bitch about it...) Let's talk about the burgundy workout tonight. The idea was to gather wines to represent each premier cru at the combe de lavaut section of Gevrey-Chambertin, make the vintage constant and study their nuances.
Of course the exercise can never be perfect. Logistically it's already challenging to get the wines completely lined up. So we have a mixed bag of six 2002s (out of which one is not from the combe de lavaut section), and two bottles of 2003s. Not to mention the setting was too distracting and the stemware, being bordeaux in shape and of a certain thickness, kind of dulled the wine's taste and aromas. Okay, okay, enough bitching already! Let's talk about the juice. (All reds were served semi-blind.)
Aperitif -- A nice very ripe yet bracingly steely white with hints of meatiness. Finishes with some minerality but was rather simple. Malic acidity was pronounced so it had to be 2004. Lovely crisp drink. Hubert Lignier Fixin Cepage Chardonnay 2004
Red #1 -- Black raspberries and hints of stems. Very ripe and quite honestly, rather low-pitched. Unforthcoming, reticent sweetness and finished off rather dusty. Joseph Roty Gevrey-Chambertin les Fontenys 2002. Quite a disappointing display. I'm sure this could do better in other settings.
Red #2 -- Vitamins, meats and red crushed fruits. Slightly reductive at this point. Medium-pitched with sour tomatoes flavours (in a good way). Not particularly charming but finished off quite sweet. Domaine de Varoilles Gevrey-Chambertin "Clos des Varoilles" 2002
Red #3 -- Now this I recognise... Classic Gevrey nose filled with pure red crushed fruits. Vitamins, 'dirt' and earth. Sweet yet lifted endlessly by a bright acid backbone. Very cool in the mouth and finished with mouthwatering sappiness and a respectable grip. Not particularly complex but delicious as hell. Fourrier Gevrey-Chambertin Combe aux Moines 2002
Red #4 -- Well-pitched Gevrey nose. Complicating nuances of soy and sour plums. Serious, almost brooding in the palate. Not particularly easy to assess. Finished off with dusty tannins. Jean et Jean-Louis Trapet Gevrey-Chambertin Petite-Chapelle 2002
Red #5 -- Rather aristocratic nose. Quite voluminous and tannic in the mouth yet quite bright. A funky Gevrey combining both dark and red fruits - muscular and all-packed-in. Formidable, square wine and a very good showing of this house and more so given the vintage. Lucien le Moine Gevrey-Chambertin les Cazetiers 2003
Red #6 -- Flinty wood nose. Somewhat stemmy. Fairly disjointed at this point - on one hand it had a good lift at the finish, but somewhat incoherent. The sweetness came across as clumsy, almost syrupy. A disappointing and I'm sure an atypical show of this very good wine, which I've had the privilege to taste some time back. Humbert Freres Gevrey-Chambertin les Poissenots 2002
Red #7 -- Deep black fruits. Noticeable wood treatment with roasted fruit flavours but still managed to let its minerality to peek through. Some mocha notes emerged later on, confirming either the vintage (very hot year) or just plain modern school of winemaking. An underachieved Bruno Clair Gevrey-Chambertin Clos-St.-Jacques 2003
Red #8 -- Sauvage, almost Nuits-St.-Georges like nose. Rather oily with black cherry fruits. Not particularly generous nor sweet but there's an honest purity about it. Not a wine for everyone and to be frank I too have issues approaching it although I could recognise its latent talents. Domaine de Varoilles Gevrey-Chambertin La Romanee 2002
But what am I talking about the restaurant? (I suppose it's bad enough for me to bitch about it...) Let's talk about the burgundy workout tonight. The idea was to gather wines to represent each premier cru at the combe de lavaut section of Gevrey-Chambertin, make the vintage constant and study their nuances.
Of course the exercise can never be perfect. Logistically it's already challenging to get the wines completely lined up. So we have a mixed bag of six 2002s (out of which one is not from the combe de lavaut section), and two bottles of 2003s. Not to mention the setting was too distracting and the stemware, being bordeaux in shape and of a certain thickness, kind of dulled the wine's taste and aromas. Okay, okay, enough bitching already! Let's talk about the juice. (All reds were served semi-blind.)
Aperitif -- A nice very ripe yet bracingly steely white with hints of meatiness. Finishes with some minerality but was rather simple. Malic acidity was pronounced so it had to be 2004. Lovely crisp drink. Hubert Lignier Fixin Cepage Chardonnay 2004
Red #1 -- Black raspberries and hints of stems. Very ripe and quite honestly, rather low-pitched. Unforthcoming, reticent sweetness and finished off rather dusty. Joseph Roty Gevrey-Chambertin les Fontenys 2002. Quite a disappointing display. I'm sure this could do better in other settings.
Red #2 -- Vitamins, meats and red crushed fruits. Slightly reductive at this point. Medium-pitched with sour tomatoes flavours (in a good way). Not particularly charming but finished off quite sweet. Domaine de Varoilles Gevrey-Chambertin "Clos des Varoilles" 2002
Red #3 -- Now this I recognise... Classic Gevrey nose filled with pure red crushed fruits. Vitamins, 'dirt' and earth. Sweet yet lifted endlessly by a bright acid backbone. Very cool in the mouth and finished with mouthwatering sappiness and a respectable grip. Not particularly complex but delicious as hell. Fourrier Gevrey-Chambertin Combe aux Moines 2002
Red #4 -- Well-pitched Gevrey nose. Complicating nuances of soy and sour plums. Serious, almost brooding in the palate. Not particularly easy to assess. Finished off with dusty tannins. Jean et Jean-Louis Trapet Gevrey-Chambertin Petite-Chapelle 2002
Red #5 -- Rather aristocratic nose. Quite voluminous and tannic in the mouth yet quite bright. A funky Gevrey combining both dark and red fruits - muscular and all-packed-in. Formidable, square wine and a very good showing of this house and more so given the vintage. Lucien le Moine Gevrey-Chambertin les Cazetiers 2003
Red #6 -- Flinty wood nose. Somewhat stemmy. Fairly disjointed at this point - on one hand it had a good lift at the finish, but somewhat incoherent. The sweetness came across as clumsy, almost syrupy. A disappointing and I'm sure an atypical show of this very good wine, which I've had the privilege to taste some time back. Humbert Freres Gevrey-Chambertin les Poissenots 2002
Red #7 -- Deep black fruits. Noticeable wood treatment with roasted fruit flavours but still managed to let its minerality to peek through. Some mocha notes emerged later on, confirming either the vintage (very hot year) or just plain modern school of winemaking. An underachieved Bruno Clair Gevrey-Chambertin Clos-St.-Jacques 2003
Red #8 -- Sauvage, almost Nuits-St.-Georges like nose. Rather oily with black cherry fruits. Not particularly generous nor sweet but there's an honest purity about it. Not a wine for everyone and to be frank I too have issues approaching it although I could recognise its latent talents. Domaine de Varoilles Gevrey-Chambertin La Romanee 2002
Joseph Roty's Champs Chenys mini-vert
Back on the burg world again, and number poses no issues for the intrepid burgnuts in our group. Just the three of us and we went headlong into this mini vertical of Joseph Roty's Gevrey-Chambertin les Champs Chenys. This is a villages wine but my experience had shown that Roty's wines are typically consistently treated from top-to-bottom and each cuvee represents a unique interpretation of both the terroir as well as the admirable "Roty style" of winemaking. Four vintages of Champs Chenys were presented in semi blind format. There were 2003, 2002, 1997 and 1993. Add to that, two bottles of white preluded the tasting.
Tasting impressions?
Sanford Sauvignon Blanc 2002 Santa Rita -- Flinty, almost meaty nose. Wooded, spicy Sauvignon. Quite grassy but overcome by rich texture and ripeness. Textured and rather alcoholic but still maintained varietal character. Finished a bit warm (alcohol level read 14.5%) and possessed a texture of a new world Chardonnay. Not exactly my cup of tea but easy to appreciate and held its own throughout the night (and the next few days).
Chateau du Tourte 2004 Graves (Blanc) -- This was in complete contrast from the previous wine. Sauvignon dominated nose (but it's made of Sauvignon-Semillon as I understood it). Quite rich but not oily. Apparently it's a sur lie wine. Simple but flavoursome with crisp acidity and bright citrusy flavour. Quite steely yet fleshy in the mouth. Superb value. I can have this anytime. Superb table white.
Wine #1 -- Meatstock nose. Densely coloured. Sauvage aromas of black cherries. Almost roasted fruits but bright and well-pitched. Gevrey minerals. Quite intense yet simple at first. Finished with dusty broad tannins. Rather austere, but with a voluminous palate presence. Took a while for me to enjoy this wine. Started out rather hollow in the middle but with time the wine fleshed out and turned sweeter and denser in the midpalate. Impressive even on second day. Roty Champs Chenys 1993.
Wine #2 -- Candied raspberries. Dense but with bright yoghurt-like creaminess in the palate. Finished quite clean for a wine this ripe. Quite plush and textured. Expectedly this was the Champs Chenys 2003.
Wine #3 -- Lightish orange hue at the rim. Again, telltale meaty nose of Roty's. Fragrant cherry-skins, quite Gevrey like. Oily textured and with a pronounced sweetness supported by a healthy levels of acidity. A wine of pleasure. Held on very well until the last third hour when it became evident to have come from a less complete vintage. Nonetheless I have always admired Roty's 1997 (his Charmes-Chambertin TVV came to mind) and this, being a mere villages wine, was flat out delicious. Champs Chenys 1997.
Wine #4 -- Pure crushed red raspberry fruits. Ripe, candied yet minerally. Some telltale meat too but not quite as pronounced as the rest. For some reason the fruits of this wine eclipsed the earthiness that the other wines tend to show. The most complete and impressive wine of the tasting which combines purity of fruits and admirable structure that was non-domineering. Roty Champs Chenys 2002.
Tasting impressions?
Sanford Sauvignon Blanc 2002 Santa Rita -- Flinty, almost meaty nose. Wooded, spicy Sauvignon. Quite grassy but overcome by rich texture and ripeness. Textured and rather alcoholic but still maintained varietal character. Finished a bit warm (alcohol level read 14.5%) and possessed a texture of a new world Chardonnay. Not exactly my cup of tea but easy to appreciate and held its own throughout the night (and the next few days).
Chateau du Tourte 2004 Graves (Blanc) -- This was in complete contrast from the previous wine. Sauvignon dominated nose (but it's made of Sauvignon-Semillon as I understood it). Quite rich but not oily. Apparently it's a sur lie wine. Simple but flavoursome with crisp acidity and bright citrusy flavour. Quite steely yet fleshy in the mouth. Superb value. I can have this anytime. Superb table white.
Wine #1 -- Meatstock nose. Densely coloured. Sauvage aromas of black cherries. Almost roasted fruits but bright and well-pitched. Gevrey minerals. Quite intense yet simple at first. Finished with dusty broad tannins. Rather austere, but with a voluminous palate presence. Took a while for me to enjoy this wine. Started out rather hollow in the middle but with time the wine fleshed out and turned sweeter and denser in the midpalate. Impressive even on second day. Roty Champs Chenys 1993.
Wine #2 -- Candied raspberries. Dense but with bright yoghurt-like creaminess in the palate. Finished quite clean for a wine this ripe. Quite plush and textured. Expectedly this was the Champs Chenys 2003.
Wine #3 -- Lightish orange hue at the rim. Again, telltale meaty nose of Roty's. Fragrant cherry-skins, quite Gevrey like. Oily textured and with a pronounced sweetness supported by a healthy levels of acidity. A wine of pleasure. Held on very well until the last third hour when it became evident to have come from a less complete vintage. Nonetheless I have always admired Roty's 1997 (his Charmes-Chambertin TVV came to mind) and this, being a mere villages wine, was flat out delicious. Champs Chenys 1997.
Wine #4 -- Pure crushed red raspberry fruits. Ripe, candied yet minerally. Some telltale meat too but not quite as pronounced as the rest. For some reason the fruits of this wine eclipsed the earthiness that the other wines tend to show. The most complete and impressive wine of the tasting which combines purity of fruits and admirable structure that was non-domineering. Roty Champs Chenys 2002.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
