There's been many discussion (at least within) my group about the 2004 vintage. It is after all a vintage whose wines are going to appear in the market in the next few months. After the hugely successful 2002 vintage -- which precipitated, amongst others, the escalating prices of burgundy and turning the whole world to christen this region the new darling of the wine world -- followed by the super-ripe heat-infused and early harvesting 2003 vintage which not few publications, especially those of American origin tend to rate highly, it is understandable why there's a lot of expectations on the 2004 vintage. Since the wildly successful 2002 vintage, many onlookers had suddenly diverted their attention to the recent vintages and many had found that despite the less glamorous appeal of the preceding vintages (save for 1999), they now realised that Burgundy had been -- on comparative grounds -- rather successful these past few years. To us the diehard burgheads of course we had known this all along (smirk) and so had been downing with gusto our delicious 1998s & 2000s, and cross-analysing -- with lots of intellect and satisfaction no less -- the 2001s while we confidently await the coming around of the now-dormant 1999s and the still-simple 2002s.
2004, however, does not seem blessed with the good reputes of these preceding vintages. According to many records and reports, the weather pattern was more erratic and challenging. It doesn't help either that not many had tried the wine in the bottle and so the relative pessimism of its wines cannot be mitigated by the proof in the bottle.
I for one have learnt that it doesn't pay to be general and conclusive about any given vintage. I take this stand after many discoveries exploring the wines of the region and have now safely reached a stage where I can, with all honesty, recognise and, more importantly, celebrate vintage variations. My eagerness for tasting 2004 stems from the fact that no one is the better than one who has tasted the wines and has done so as widely as possible. And so I begin my journey of the 2004 with white burgundies from the domaine of Yves Boyer-Martenot and Sylvie Boyer (negociant).
The chevalier congregated to celebrate the Chinese New Year via a tradition beloved and institutionalised by the Singaporean chinese called Lo Hei. The ritual basically includes the tossing of raw fish salad by the whole bunch of us wishing each other prosperity, health and other things auspicious. This time it was held at the Crystal Jade Palace Restaurant at Ngee Ann City.
We started out with the white wines from Sylvie Boyer. First on the lineup (aperitif) was an Auxey-Duresses. The first thing that really hit me was the juicy malic acid that seemed to take the centerstage. "Hmmm... I like it already." I thought, the acid-freak that I am. With further aeration, this came across as meaty and finished with some degree of rusticity. Straightforward, food-friendly wine. (The same bottle, which I managed to taste the day after was somewhat more fleshed out, and seems like a miniature pre-mature Corton Charlie..., i.e., minus the intensity, midpalate and size). St. Aubin 1er Cru from the same house was served next. This has a bit more obvious oak handling with an elegant aroma of pencil shaving and grilled peanut skins. On the palate this was more juicy but still with a hint of earth. As with the Auxey, this finished with a forceful and lifting acid but with somewhat broad shape which lacked some penetration and cut. Still this is more complete than the previous one.
Moving on to the domaine bottling, we started out with a flight of two villages level Meursault. It was remarkable that at once we seem to be dealing with a totally different beasts altogether -- almost as if the wines were made by different grapes (which it wasn't) and the origins clearly differed. The l'Ormeau wine had a creamier, more refined nose. Ripe pineapples (a somewhat trademark of Meursaults) and far more penetrating in the mouth than the previous wines. Still lacking midpalate presence somehow... The Narvaux was a more complete wine and very Meursault upfront. Caramel-infused nose with gunflint hints and the same pineapple-y fruits. Leaner, denser and very primary in the mouth. The austere malic acidity was obvious behind the more sizeable structure and volume than its l'Ormeau sibling. A near complete villages wine.
The next duo was quite anticipated -- at least by me. These are probably the most famous of the Meursault 1er cru vineyards. Again, the up-class breed, intensity and flavour sets are evident. The Charmes showed melons and buttery warm nose, leading toward a palate sensation that was mouthfilling and somewhat structured acid cut I have come to be convinced is a (welcome) feature of this vintage. At once fat, supple and generous with pineapple-y acids which was delicious. I have yet to taste a disappointing Meursault Perrieres and the next bottle perpetuate the unbroken string of excellent Perrieres I've crossed path with. This was entirely different. It was evidently classier, racier and more profound -- not in the manner of lush fruits, but in terms of minerality and saline suggestions. Chicken broth , minerals, earth, and grilled peanuts were the aromas I found in this wine. In the mouth, it was incredibly sharply delineated and hugely penetrating. A linear wine from start to finish. Had there been a slightly more depth and length, this would have been nothing short of incredible. Still, without a doubt, the wine of the evening for me. Downright palate-staining and intense.
Moving across to the famous area of Puligny-Montrachets, Boyer presented one villages and a 1er cru. The villages les Reucheaux was, in my opinion, sadly wrongly placed after the Perrieres. While this is a respectably well-built wine which reflects its origin quite well, there was nothing too noteworthy about it other than it showed the white peach Puligny characteristic clearly but without the midpalate sap I have come to be addicted to at this point of the evening. The subsequent wine, the 1er cru les Caillerets, was a good blend of the delicateness of Puligny and the generosity of Meursaults. It was round and had a nice floral hints to it. It was probably the most ready wine for the night, very delicious -- perhaps too delicious given the youthfulness of the vintage. (I was told that all the wines were pre-commercial bottlings.)
Sylvie Boyer's red wine bottlings were next. The Monthelie was meaty and red-fruit driven on the nose. Berries and a touch of rusticity framed this otherwise very food-friendly wine. Its virtue was its uncomplicatedness. Fairly balanced, it was let down by a rather cloying finish. But then again, at villages level coming from a reasonably difficult vintage, I really shouldn't be complaining, should I?
This was followed by the villages Volnay. While a lot of people found this wine to be a classier, more seductive wine than the preceding wine (I won't disagree with that), I found some troubles with this bottle. Candied fruits, sweet, rather stemmy on the nose, with light and somewhat (again) cloying sweetness, perhaps more so than the Monthelie which had rusticity to balance it off. This had dehydrated sweetness and was probably affected by the hails the region was so famous for in this vintage. Turned syrupy and disjointed in the end.
The 1er cru Volnay les Carelles also shared the same candied berries nose as the villages wine but was cleaner from start to finish. The sweetness too had a more snappy feel to it, and overall there was better density in the midpalate and reasonable length. Delicious wine for dinner.
The dinner ended right about then, after which Andy, Sylvie and I went to Mezza9 @ Hyatt for a chat and drink and we cracked open a Bruno Giacosa Nebbiolo d'Alba 2003 which was a very very nice wine. Sappy dark cherries, tobacco and ash mixed in a very accessible and unusual way. This had the ripeness of the vintage plus a good deal of freshness and fantastic tannic grip at the back. If anything it lacked the nobility I am sure the bigger Barolo and/or Barbaresco brothers would bring when they are released in a couple of years' time. Lovely anyways.....
11 February, 2006
02 February, 2006
Cheap & Cheerful Burgs: is it possible?
The truth be told I've actually been on many-a-tastings lately but just plain lazy to write about it... Well, actually I've been rather busy. You see, I'm running on a tight-rope regime every day. Ferrying two children in the mornings, fetching them back in the evenings, chasing evening conference calls, and running endless errands on weekends do not generally give one a lot of disposable time. But hey, I'm not complaining. So how the hell did I make time to taste (and be merry)? Well, whatever time slots left I have in a week, if there were no other obligations outstanding, I use them for just that -- tasting.
This particular event is indeed a refreshing turn. I am always a believer that wines, in order to be enjoyed and appreciated, must be tasted 'bottom-up' -- i.e., start with the lowly crus, the generics, etc., before moving on up. As a result I spent a majority of my limited burgundy-bashing years drowning in juices that won't make me feel guilty in the morning after. (I'd write more about my burgundy appreciation disciplines at a later time -- that would be a rather hefty topic in its own right.)
Generally these wines tend to be Bourgognes (reds and whites) and less glamorous appellations villages wines. For some reasons, I tend to shy away from generic appellation wines (e.g., Cote-de-Beaune or Cote-de-Nuits Villages) but that's probably a function of supply availability as opposed to personal preferences.
So tonight, the gang gathered for an interesting exercise of tasting recent (and available) retail burgundies costing $80 or less. This exercise hopes to show the versatility of this wondrous region, and the potential breadth of wines we're missing if we so choose to drink only 1er and grand crus. Besides, given the propensity of some of us to drink far more regularly than most vinos, there is an economic interest in this exercise as well...
The wines came in various names in both colours...
The trio of the bourgogne blanc show just how diverse and great the quality of these 'humble' wines are. Each show the tell-tale domaine style. I always assert that one of the best ways to tell how good or lousy a domaine is through its interpretation of its bourgogne level wines. This is particularly true to the white burgundies -- probably because white burgundy domaines tend to have a smaller confine of vineyard holdings and so its bourgognes would tend to reflect more closely its elder brothers/sisters. Could that be true? Well, at least that's my theory...
The most complete of the three is the Leflaive -- it's the most voluminous, floral and persistent. The Roulot, given the youthfulness of the wine, is rather thin and disjointed. I do like the malic characteristics though... The Coche-Dury was the most 'serious' of these. It was not cheap by the way, exceeding our budget by a reasonable amount, but we just had to try this famous house. The wine came across smokier and squarer but with a forceful penetrating quality rarely seen in wines at this level. I personally liked it a lot.
The last white from Lafon showed the pointed ripeness of the vintage with a decidedly more exotic, wooded, spicier and pineapple-y character. Nice but hardly distinctive.
Ecard is a reliable source of terroir driven, balanced Savigny-les-Beaune. Interestingly I have encountered not few Savignys that really put the question in my mind why this particular communes aren't more well known than it actually deserves. We have two version of the same Ecard Savigny les Narbantons tonight. The 1999 showed plenty of high-toned cherries which are sweet and coated with an ashy character. It is still closed, but is becoming drinkable, with a nice paler shade of ruby and ended with a dusty tannic grip. Built to age and is not showing sign of nearing its apogee just yet. The 2002 was immediately brighter and more candied. It was creamy, red-fruit drenched and quite primary. Very fruit driven, but not showing the stuff it's got yet. Hard to guess as a Savigny at this stage -- although quite Cote-de-Beaune origin oriented.
If the 02 Ecard was candied, the Cecile Tremblay Vosne 2003 VV is unabashedly spilling out with berries. It almost reminded me of a Beaujolais in its straightforward fruitiness. Creamy and dark raspberries tinged, it has a beguiling almost creamy texture which I could only attribute to the old vines it said it's made of.
Taking a more serious turn, Hubert Lignier's Gevrey 2001 screams of nothing but minerals and dark cherries. It was very Gevrey like (although I didn't guess it as such as in this semi-blind I wasn't aware there was going to be a Gevrey), it was sweet, linear and structured. This has midpalate sweetness. I like.
There was an unusual wine which tasted rather soupy and stemmy. The beetroot aromatics are pronounced, turning floral. On the palate this verged towards rose-syrup. I thought this was plain funky or weird. I guessed Cote-Chalonnaise. Turned out to be a St. Romain red from Domaine de Chassorney vintage 2002. Very advanced and quite tired. Interesting but not inspiring.
Dugat's Bourgogne 2001 showed black cherries, irons and minerals. This had a slightly citric finish and entered very linearly into the mouth into the centre of the palate. I liked this wine and was pleasantly surprised that it had become drinkable. The few bottles I had in the past two years showed nothing like this.
After tasting Meo's Fixin 2003, I am now quite convinced that the house-style of this domaine is quite pronounced. They don't appear very manipulated but there's a distinct confectionery sweet character of its wines. Even the very northerly Fixin region in this vintage showed the same caramelly sweetness and texture and had none of that tangy rusty flavours I expect from a Fixin.
The Roty's Marsannay did not show as well as the 2001 version. This turned out quite fleshy with a waxy midpalate and slightly sticky texture. Honestly I expect more cut from this house.
Jadot never ceases to amaze me. In most blind tastings I've attended, I always end up liking his wines. There's a certain degree of austerity and authority in his wines that I seldom get from other producers, let alone negociants. This has begun to mellow down. Still fresh and voluminous in the mouth with a Beaune-like minerality and angle, this wine reeked of class and length. Remarkable.
The last wine, which is a non-budget for sure, is an education for all. Showing meaty aged aromas, the fruit profile of this wine borders on the exotic with passionfruit and jackfruits suggestions. The fruits are sweet and although lacking the cut of the best vintages, this has length, breed and finesse. A producer to watch indeed with a very special monopole vineyard -- d'Angerville Volnay 1er Clos des Ducs 1976.
This particular event is indeed a refreshing turn. I am always a believer that wines, in order to be enjoyed and appreciated, must be tasted 'bottom-up' -- i.e., start with the lowly crus, the generics, etc., before moving on up. As a result I spent a majority of my limited burgundy-bashing years drowning in juices that won't make me feel guilty in the morning after. (I'd write more about my burgundy appreciation disciplines at a later time -- that would be a rather hefty topic in its own right.)
Generally these wines tend to be Bourgognes (reds and whites) and less glamorous appellations villages wines. For some reasons, I tend to shy away from generic appellation wines (e.g., Cote-de-Beaune or Cote-de-Nuits Villages) but that's probably a function of supply availability as opposed to personal preferences.
So tonight, the gang gathered for an interesting exercise of tasting recent (and available) retail burgundies costing $80 or less. This exercise hopes to show the versatility of this wondrous region, and the potential breadth of wines we're missing if we so choose to drink only 1er and grand crus. Besides, given the propensity of some of us to drink far more regularly than most vinos, there is an economic interest in this exercise as well...
The wines came in various names in both colours...
Domaine Roulot Bourgogne Blanc 2004
Heritiers des Comtes Lafon Macon-chardonnay Clos de la Crochette 2003
Coche-Dury Bourgogne Blanc 2002
Leflaive Bourgogne Blanc 2002
Claude Dugat Bourgogne Rouge 2001
Meo-Camuzet Frere et Soeur Fixin 2002
Roty Marsannay "Champs Saint Etienne" 2002
Hubert Lignier Gevrey-Chambertin 2001
Cecile Tremblay Vosne-Romanee VV 2003
Maurice Ecard Savigny Les Beaune "Les Narbantons" 1999 & 2002
Louis Jadot Beaune 1er Cru Cent Vignes
Marquis d'Angerville Volnay 1er Cru Clos des Ducs 1976 (okay so this is not a cheap one, but a cheerful one nonetheless)
The trio of the bourgogne blanc show just how diverse and great the quality of these 'humble' wines are. Each show the tell-tale domaine style. I always assert that one of the best ways to tell how good or lousy a domaine is through its interpretation of its bourgogne level wines. This is particularly true to the white burgundies -- probably because white burgundy domaines tend to have a smaller confine of vineyard holdings and so its bourgognes would tend to reflect more closely its elder brothers/sisters. Could that be true? Well, at least that's my theory...
The most complete of the three is the Leflaive -- it's the most voluminous, floral and persistent. The Roulot, given the youthfulness of the wine, is rather thin and disjointed. I do like the malic characteristics though... The Coche-Dury was the most 'serious' of these. It was not cheap by the way, exceeding our budget by a reasonable amount, but we just had to try this famous house. The wine came across smokier and squarer but with a forceful penetrating quality rarely seen in wines at this level. I personally liked it a lot.
The last white from Lafon showed the pointed ripeness of the vintage with a decidedly more exotic, wooded, spicier and pineapple-y character. Nice but hardly distinctive.
Ecard is a reliable source of terroir driven, balanced Savigny-les-Beaune. Interestingly I have encountered not few Savignys that really put the question in my mind why this particular communes aren't more well known than it actually deserves. We have two version of the same Ecard Savigny les Narbantons tonight. The 1999 showed plenty of high-toned cherries which are sweet and coated with an ashy character. It is still closed, but is becoming drinkable, with a nice paler shade of ruby and ended with a dusty tannic grip. Built to age and is not showing sign of nearing its apogee just yet. The 2002 was immediately brighter and more candied. It was creamy, red-fruit drenched and quite primary. Very fruit driven, but not showing the stuff it's got yet. Hard to guess as a Savigny at this stage -- although quite Cote-de-Beaune origin oriented.
If the 02 Ecard was candied, the Cecile Tremblay Vosne 2003 VV is unabashedly spilling out with berries. It almost reminded me of a Beaujolais in its straightforward fruitiness. Creamy and dark raspberries tinged, it has a beguiling almost creamy texture which I could only attribute to the old vines it said it's made of.
Taking a more serious turn, Hubert Lignier's Gevrey 2001 screams of nothing but minerals and dark cherries. It was very Gevrey like (although I didn't guess it as such as in this semi-blind I wasn't aware there was going to be a Gevrey), it was sweet, linear and structured. This has midpalate sweetness. I like.
There was an unusual wine which tasted rather soupy and stemmy. The beetroot aromatics are pronounced, turning floral. On the palate this verged towards rose-syrup. I thought this was plain funky or weird. I guessed Cote-Chalonnaise. Turned out to be a St. Romain red from Domaine de Chassorney vintage 2002. Very advanced and quite tired. Interesting but not inspiring.
Dugat's Bourgogne 2001 showed black cherries, irons and minerals. This had a slightly citric finish and entered very linearly into the mouth into the centre of the palate. I liked this wine and was pleasantly surprised that it had become drinkable. The few bottles I had in the past two years showed nothing like this.
After tasting Meo's Fixin 2003, I am now quite convinced that the house-style of this domaine is quite pronounced. They don't appear very manipulated but there's a distinct confectionery sweet character of its wines. Even the very northerly Fixin region in this vintage showed the same caramelly sweetness and texture and had none of that tangy rusty flavours I expect from a Fixin.
The Roty's Marsannay did not show as well as the 2001 version. This turned out quite fleshy with a waxy midpalate and slightly sticky texture. Honestly I expect more cut from this house.
Jadot never ceases to amaze me. In most blind tastings I've attended, I always end up liking his wines. There's a certain degree of austerity and authority in his wines that I seldom get from other producers, let alone negociants. This has begun to mellow down. Still fresh and voluminous in the mouth with a Beaune-like minerality and angle, this wine reeked of class and length. Remarkable.
The last wine, which is a non-budget for sure, is an education for all. Showing meaty aged aromas, the fruit profile of this wine borders on the exotic with passionfruit and jackfruits suggestions. The fruits are sweet and although lacking the cut of the best vintages, this has length, breed and finesse. A producer to watch indeed with a very special monopole vineyard -- d'Angerville Volnay 1er Clos des Ducs 1976.
20 January, 2006
Assorted older Burgs from less-known (but equally good) producers
This sort of tasting seldom comes by. The wines, all twenty bottles of them, featuring vintages between 1972-1993 (well, save for the aperitif, which is a 2004 Macon villages), are compliments of Andy and his wine merchant, Peter Thustrup, represented by Benoit Trouve.
Tasting was done over dinner which was one of the most memorable western dinners I've had in a long time. The food at Harbour Grill was simply marvellous. The new chef sure knows his stuff. The menu was imaginative and executed with a lot of pride and care. Yummy!
The first flight was a presentation of Robert Ampeau's red wines from Volnay-Santenots.
The 1992 was delicious and ready for the table, so to speak. Redcurrants, soil, a touch of smoke dominate the nose and palate. The vintage's limitation showed at the front and back -- it entered rather abrasively and showed green notes in the finish with aeration later on.
Many people liked the 1976 possibly because it exceeded expectations for what had come from a seemingly lacklustre vintage. Now I don't have any idea about what 1976 wines are supposed to be like. This one showed decidedly an aged aroma of meat and minty nuance. While this lacks the immediate sweetness of the 92, it hits the palate with more volume and wider array of secondary nuances. A gentle, sweet (not taste-wise) little burgundy. Delicious now.
The 1993 is the most different wine within this group. Visually it's darker and on the nose, an immediately more authoritative ("serious" my notes says) dark fruits aromas and flavours. Definitely more concentrated and voluminous, this was let down with a sticky sweetness and slight warmth at the finish.
The 1994 is the most disappointing of these foursome. There wasn't enough sweetness and complexity -- in fact it was rather watery with raspy disjointed acids. It didn't help that the wine showed mustiness, but otherwise the underlying fruits (whatever there was) were quite red.
I was quite eager to taste Joseph Voillot's wines which were featured in the next flight. Reportedly this is one of the least known quality-driven producers of Volnays and Pommards but the reviews of his wines had been nothing short of complimentary.
We started out with the 1982 Volnay Fremiets 1er. Mid garnet in colour with bright hue and transluscent to near the centre. This tasted rather jammy with strong profile of raspberry jam and is rather 'sticky' textured. The 1983 version displayed sous-bois mushroomy character -- far more aged comparatively speaking. Straightforward with no obvious differentiating characteristics besides its rather deep colour.
The next duo are Pommards. The 1983 Pommard Rugiens 1er sported a deep hue with reticent nose of earth and tar. (For a moment I was reminded of the wines of Piedmont...) This clearly showed more structure, depth and refinement despite a rather burly shape. Unmistakably Pommard and a very decent one at that. The 1983 Pommard Epenots 1er was immediately sweeter on the entrance, very approachable (in fact too approachable?) and simple. From a terroir standpoint I question: where is the earth and structure?
Louis Remy's mini vertical of Clos de la Roche was next. Featured are vintages '81, '82, '85, '86 and '88. Starting out with 1981, the shift from Cote de Beaune to Cote de Nuits and from premier to grand cru was obvious. Despite a very pale appearance the '81 CdlR showcased more refinement and a step up in pitch and midpalate sweetness. Lots of cherries and redcurrants with pleasant gentle texture. The '82 was brighter though similarly light in colour. There's a hint of decayed meat on the nose, and disappointingly musty and flat in flavours. Both these wines did not have the cut and volume I would expect the better examples of grand crus should possess.
Hardly exciting so far, we moved on to the famed '85 vintage. Yet another major disappointment, especially in the context of the fabled reputation of this vintage. Mushroomy nose with sweet and easy-going character on the palate. Hardly complex and certainly lacking spine. The 1988 marked a turnaround in this series. Immediately blacker in colour, with serious dark nose. On the palate it's structured, solid and persistent with brightness and midcore sweetness enlivened by a healthy dose of acid. I like this very much. With airing some tobaccoey earthy nuances showed up. The '86 is a sleeper. Mild jackfruits complicated the nose. On the palate it was sweet, tasty and gentle -- with a certain reserved elegance not found in the previous wines. A burgundy drinker's burgundy perhaps?
The final group represented the finest of the evening. Latricieres-Chambertin is one of my most loved grand crus. At its finest, it's a perfect mesh of the femininity and structure with no one character particularly outdoing each other. It is also frankly and generously an elegant Gevrey. And tonight we started with a bang...
Louis Remy 1972 Latricieres stole the hearts of almost everyone tonight. This is what old burgundies are all about. Very complex, soft, cosy aromas of leather, roast meats and dried flowers mingled in harmony atop a bright, gentle and oily textured palate. The tell-tale bacon-fat and floral hints with almost curranty yet minerally fruits, this wine is indeed about pleasure. Charmed. Totally.
It was followed by a somewhat lacklustre showing of the 1989. Again, meats, decomposed soil on the nose. On the palate this is immediately more massive and larger scaled. This also came across heavier and riper -- quite sun-baked -- and finished a tad alcoholic. Fortunately this maintained a sense of finesse but would be really nice if it sported more depth.
Maybe it's just tonight, but the 1985 appeared jinxed (again). This is simple, somewhat dilute, slightly tired and lacking flavours as well as volume, not to mention sweetness. Not a terrible wine, but again let down by its famed vintage, pedigree and the wines that preceded it. Lacked presence. On the other hand, the 1983 was interesting and a very alive wine. Musty leather and grilled peanut skins preceded a black-fruited flavour profile (despite its rather lightish colour). The fruits are still there. It's a wine made in a lighter vein but is not showing signs of tiredness yet.
The 1986 too provided some interests. Smoke and earthy stink on the nose gave way to a somewhat similar palate. This turned curiously minty later on. Interesting and well made wine that just didn't make any special marks. As we approached the 1988, it's again immediate how this vintage provided a version that is just... different from the rest. The colour is deeper, and the immensity of the intense high-pitched black fruits hit me right from the nose. This is indeed a macho, deep and powerful wine -- offering smoke, tobacco nuances atop of high-pitched fruits enlivened by strong natural acidities. This wine is still too youthful at this stage, and its structure was still over-protruding, but one that held good promise. The most complete of all the Latricieres of this flight and one I'm confident would develop into something truly special. Impressed.
This tasting left me with a number of thoughts which I intend to share in future posts as a way of commentary. Given the breadth of representation of the various vintages, it is certainly tempting for one to try to draw certain vintage opinions. It is however a tendency I am cautious about. As a matter of fact, if there is one takeaway I made from tonight's tasting is this: never write off an old burg; never write off a 'mediocre' vintage and never write off a less-known producer. Burgundy, despite its size, is so fragmented and so difficult to understand (and represent) that there are gems left to be discovered. And tonight's tasting has made an impression to me to this effect. That there are great, totally pleasurable wines, wines that are totally and can only be Burgundy, to be had outside the ordinary extraordinaries. It is sometimes the humble and the nondescript that may illumine and astonish -- and all it takes is an attitude of understanding.
More to come on these thoughts... For now, some sleep!
Tasting was done over dinner which was one of the most memorable western dinners I've had in a long time. The food at Harbour Grill was simply marvellous. The new chef sure knows his stuff. The menu was imaginative and executed with a lot of pride and care. Yummy!
The first flight was a presentation of Robert Ampeau's red wines from Volnay-Santenots.
The 1992 was delicious and ready for the table, so to speak. Redcurrants, soil, a touch of smoke dominate the nose and palate. The vintage's limitation showed at the front and back -- it entered rather abrasively and showed green notes in the finish with aeration later on.
Many people liked the 1976 possibly because it exceeded expectations for what had come from a seemingly lacklustre vintage. Now I don't have any idea about what 1976 wines are supposed to be like. This one showed decidedly an aged aroma of meat and minty nuance. While this lacks the immediate sweetness of the 92, it hits the palate with more volume and wider array of secondary nuances. A gentle, sweet (not taste-wise) little burgundy. Delicious now.
The 1993 is the most different wine within this group. Visually it's darker and on the nose, an immediately more authoritative ("serious" my notes says) dark fruits aromas and flavours. Definitely more concentrated and voluminous, this was let down with a sticky sweetness and slight warmth at the finish.
The 1994 is the most disappointing of these foursome. There wasn't enough sweetness and complexity -- in fact it was rather watery with raspy disjointed acids. It didn't help that the wine showed mustiness, but otherwise the underlying fruits (whatever there was) were quite red.
I was quite eager to taste Joseph Voillot's wines which were featured in the next flight. Reportedly this is one of the least known quality-driven producers of Volnays and Pommards but the reviews of his wines had been nothing short of complimentary.
We started out with the 1982 Volnay Fremiets 1er. Mid garnet in colour with bright hue and transluscent to near the centre. This tasted rather jammy with strong profile of raspberry jam and is rather 'sticky' textured. The 1983 version displayed sous-bois mushroomy character -- far more aged comparatively speaking. Straightforward with no obvious differentiating characteristics besides its rather deep colour.
The next duo are Pommards. The 1983 Pommard Rugiens 1er sported a deep hue with reticent nose of earth and tar. (For a moment I was reminded of the wines of Piedmont...) This clearly showed more structure, depth and refinement despite a rather burly shape. Unmistakably Pommard and a very decent one at that. The 1983 Pommard Epenots 1er was immediately sweeter on the entrance, very approachable (in fact too approachable?) and simple. From a terroir standpoint I question: where is the earth and structure?
Louis Remy's mini vertical of Clos de la Roche was next. Featured are vintages '81, '82, '85, '86 and '88. Starting out with 1981, the shift from Cote de Beaune to Cote de Nuits and from premier to grand cru was obvious. Despite a very pale appearance the '81 CdlR showcased more refinement and a step up in pitch and midpalate sweetness. Lots of cherries and redcurrants with pleasant gentle texture. The '82 was brighter though similarly light in colour. There's a hint of decayed meat on the nose, and disappointingly musty and flat in flavours. Both these wines did not have the cut and volume I would expect the better examples of grand crus should possess.
Hardly exciting so far, we moved on to the famed '85 vintage. Yet another major disappointment, especially in the context of the fabled reputation of this vintage. Mushroomy nose with sweet and easy-going character on the palate. Hardly complex and certainly lacking spine. The 1988 marked a turnaround in this series. Immediately blacker in colour, with serious dark nose. On the palate it's structured, solid and persistent with brightness and midcore sweetness enlivened by a healthy dose of acid. I like this very much. With airing some tobaccoey earthy nuances showed up. The '86 is a sleeper. Mild jackfruits complicated the nose. On the palate it was sweet, tasty and gentle -- with a certain reserved elegance not found in the previous wines. A burgundy drinker's burgundy perhaps?
The final group represented the finest of the evening. Latricieres-Chambertin is one of my most loved grand crus. At its finest, it's a perfect mesh of the femininity and structure with no one character particularly outdoing each other. It is also frankly and generously an elegant Gevrey. And tonight we started with a bang...
Louis Remy 1972 Latricieres stole the hearts of almost everyone tonight. This is what old burgundies are all about. Very complex, soft, cosy aromas of leather, roast meats and dried flowers mingled in harmony atop a bright, gentle and oily textured palate. The tell-tale bacon-fat and floral hints with almost curranty yet minerally fruits, this wine is indeed about pleasure. Charmed. Totally.
It was followed by a somewhat lacklustre showing of the 1989. Again, meats, decomposed soil on the nose. On the palate this is immediately more massive and larger scaled. This also came across heavier and riper -- quite sun-baked -- and finished a tad alcoholic. Fortunately this maintained a sense of finesse but would be really nice if it sported more depth.
Maybe it's just tonight, but the 1985 appeared jinxed (again). This is simple, somewhat dilute, slightly tired and lacking flavours as well as volume, not to mention sweetness. Not a terrible wine, but again let down by its famed vintage, pedigree and the wines that preceded it. Lacked presence. On the other hand, the 1983 was interesting and a very alive wine. Musty leather and grilled peanut skins preceded a black-fruited flavour profile (despite its rather lightish colour). The fruits are still there. It's a wine made in a lighter vein but is not showing signs of tiredness yet.
The 1986 too provided some interests. Smoke and earthy stink on the nose gave way to a somewhat similar palate. This turned curiously minty later on. Interesting and well made wine that just didn't make any special marks. As we approached the 1988, it's again immediate how this vintage provided a version that is just... different from the rest. The colour is deeper, and the immensity of the intense high-pitched black fruits hit me right from the nose. This is indeed a macho, deep and powerful wine -- offering smoke, tobacco nuances atop of high-pitched fruits enlivened by strong natural acidities. This wine is still too youthful at this stage, and its structure was still over-protruding, but one that held good promise. The most complete of all the Latricieres of this flight and one I'm confident would develop into something truly special. Impressed.
This tasting left me with a number of thoughts which I intend to share in future posts as a way of commentary. Given the breadth of representation of the various vintages, it is certainly tempting for one to try to draw certain vintage opinions. It is however a tendency I am cautious about. As a matter of fact, if there is one takeaway I made from tonight's tasting is this: never write off an old burg; never write off a 'mediocre' vintage and never write off a less-known producer. Burgundy, despite its size, is so fragmented and so difficult to understand (and represent) that there are gems left to be discovered. And tonight's tasting has made an impression to me to this effect. That there are great, totally pleasurable wines, wines that are totally and can only be Burgundy, to be had outside the ordinary extraordinaries. It is sometimes the humble and the nondescript that may illumine and astonish -- and all it takes is an attitude of understanding.
More to come on these thoughts... For now, some sleep!
08 January, 2006
Ponsot tasting @ Jan-7 2006
This was conducted over dinner with the Chevaliers at Summer Pavilion Chinese restaurant at Ritz-Carlton. The food was fantastic. There were 2 tables at this dinner. Laurent Ponsot was present to preside over the tasting. The wines were served in pairs with the exception of wine #1 (the white, Clos de Monts Luisants 2000) and wine #10 (Chapelle-Chambertin 2001).
The aperitif was quite delicious. It was a Simonnet Chablis 1er cru Mont de Milieu 2000. Very ripe and honeyed at first, but gave way to firm and razor-like acidity later on at the finish. Quite nice.
The (only) Ponsot white, the Clos de Monts Luisants 2000 showed a very ripe and toasty nose. In the palate it showed almost an overt oiliness with melons and toast (again) and spices. It was in a way rather monolithic and square in the mouth. It needed food. The finish initially was warm and reticent of acids. Later on, it showed better integration and in spite of the cooked aromas, put on more freshnesh at the back. Andy was right, rather Pinot-Blanc-ish this one is.
The next pair was Gevrey-Chambertin Cuvee l'Abeille 1999 and 2000. Hands down these are very different wines, even by the looks of it. At one glance the 2000 had a more advanced, browning, orangey colour. The 1999 still had a deep ruby to a point of purple hue. Both didn't show the Gevrey tell-tale nose. But in the palate, upon coaxing, the 2000 showed a rather stewey, soupy raspberry fruits with hints of stems. The 1999 however was a different animal. While the 2000 had a frontal sweetness which fell flat at the finish, the 1999 was immediately clearer, brighter and more concentrated. The freshness lends a more detailed expression of fruits, but both wines came across rather round and lacked the definitive Gevrey-iron cut. (That said, the 1999 was showing a reticent hints of the iron elements...)
This was followed by a pair of 1er cru of Chambolle-Musigny les Charmes 2000 and 2001. Now both wines showed a more typical nose of the appellation -- combining ripe candied raspberries with cream (more obvious with the 2001). The 2000 seemed to suffer from latent corked-syndrome -- not apparent in the nose but in the finish it was discernible. Otherwise, the wines showed bright and polished palate of dense red-fruits. The case was particularly magnified with the 2001 sample, which showed higher pitched, more midpalate sweetness as well as density and brightness. Both wines came across as round and gentle -- a tell-tale Ponsot style perhaps? Nonetheless, clearly showing 1er cru class as compared to the simpler precedence.
Griotte-Chambertin 1997 and 1999 pair followed next. My experience with Ponsot's 1997s were positively positive (pardon the redundant statement). Its Clos de la Roche VV 1997 was perhaps my best 1997 grand cru tasted besides Roty's Charmes-Chambertin (a different -- but nonetheless excellent -- animal altogether). And so with great anticipation I awaited the 1997 Griotte... and it did not disappoint. This was at once a lot more voluminous and full of energy as one should expect out of any grand cru. Roasted raspberries and other red-fruits tinge dominate the cushy and cosy palate. Delicious. And clearly a grand cru class. The 1999 bettered this with its brighter, more intense and sappier expression of the same core of fruits. Sadly, after tasting the 1999 the 1997 clearly lacked the midpalate sweetness and earthy, oily untuosity that the best of the 1999 always seemed to offer, like this one....
The last duo of the 'best' wines of the domaine, the Clos de la Roche cuvee Vieilles Vignes, came from vintages 2003 and 1999 respectively. True to form, the 2003 was very dark and showed candied dark raspberries which turned curranty later on interspersed with milk chocolates and hints of violets and licorice. It was so ripe and dark-fruited yet managed to steer away from being downright new-worldish. For what it was, it was delicious and quite balanced, although the roundness of the wines of this domaine somewhat made it less 'bearable' than the other very ripe vintages, say, 2000 . The 1999 was therefore a breath of fresh air, with its very complex aromas of vitamin (B), bacon fats and dark raspberries. It possessed the quintessential grand cru attributes of volume, intensity, earthy complexity and texture. It was bright yet oily, meaty yet fruity and other weird juxtapositions one can think of. Methinks this was the wine of the night. Period.
The last wine was Chapelle-Chambertin 2001 and was excellent. This showed the pointed accuracy of flavours the best wines of this vintage could bring. Of all the Gevrey wines tonight, this one showed immediate typicity right from the start -- the nose showed the minerality, iron-tinged red berries fruits so typical of the commune. This wine possessed an excellent high pitch and minerality details -- but is still round somewhat in shape -- and unfortunately overshadowed by the CdlR VV 1999 in terms of complexity and breed. It is an admirable effort -- fully typical and very convincing.
The aperitif was quite delicious. It was a Simonnet Chablis 1er cru Mont de Milieu 2000. Very ripe and honeyed at first, but gave way to firm and razor-like acidity later on at the finish. Quite nice.
The (only) Ponsot white, the Clos de Monts Luisants 2000 showed a very ripe and toasty nose. In the palate it showed almost an overt oiliness with melons and toast (again) and spices. It was in a way rather monolithic and square in the mouth. It needed food. The finish initially was warm and reticent of acids. Later on, it showed better integration and in spite of the cooked aromas, put on more freshnesh at the back. Andy was right, rather Pinot-Blanc-ish this one is.
The next pair was Gevrey-Chambertin Cuvee l'Abeille 1999 and 2000. Hands down these are very different wines, even by the looks of it. At one glance the 2000 had a more advanced, browning, orangey colour. The 1999 still had a deep ruby to a point of purple hue. Both didn't show the Gevrey tell-tale nose. But in the palate, upon coaxing, the 2000 showed a rather stewey, soupy raspberry fruits with hints of stems. The 1999 however was a different animal. While the 2000 had a frontal sweetness which fell flat at the finish, the 1999 was immediately clearer, brighter and more concentrated. The freshness lends a more detailed expression of fruits, but both wines came across rather round and lacked the definitive Gevrey-iron cut. (That said, the 1999 was showing a reticent hints of the iron elements...)
This was followed by a pair of 1er cru of Chambolle-Musigny les Charmes 2000 and 2001. Now both wines showed a more typical nose of the appellation -- combining ripe candied raspberries with cream (more obvious with the 2001). The 2000 seemed to suffer from latent corked-syndrome -- not apparent in the nose but in the finish it was discernible. Otherwise, the wines showed bright and polished palate of dense red-fruits. The case was particularly magnified with the 2001 sample, which showed higher pitched, more midpalate sweetness as well as density and brightness. Both wines came across as round and gentle -- a tell-tale Ponsot style perhaps? Nonetheless, clearly showing 1er cru class as compared to the simpler precedence.
Griotte-Chambertin 1997 and 1999 pair followed next. My experience with Ponsot's 1997s were positively positive (pardon the redundant statement). Its Clos de la Roche VV 1997 was perhaps my best 1997 grand cru tasted besides Roty's Charmes-Chambertin (a different -- but nonetheless excellent -- animal altogether). And so with great anticipation I awaited the 1997 Griotte... and it did not disappoint. This was at once a lot more voluminous and full of energy as one should expect out of any grand cru. Roasted raspberries and other red-fruits tinge dominate the cushy and cosy palate. Delicious. And clearly a grand cru class. The 1999 bettered this with its brighter, more intense and sappier expression of the same core of fruits. Sadly, after tasting the 1999 the 1997 clearly lacked the midpalate sweetness and earthy, oily untuosity that the best of the 1999 always seemed to offer, like this one....
The last duo of the 'best' wines of the domaine, the Clos de la Roche cuvee Vieilles Vignes, came from vintages 2003 and 1999 respectively. True to form, the 2003 was very dark and showed candied dark raspberries which turned curranty later on interspersed with milk chocolates and hints of violets and licorice. It was so ripe and dark-fruited yet managed to steer away from being downright new-worldish. For what it was, it was delicious and quite balanced, although the roundness of the wines of this domaine somewhat made it less 'bearable' than the other very ripe vintages, say, 2000 . The 1999 was therefore a breath of fresh air, with its very complex aromas of vitamin (B), bacon fats and dark raspberries. It possessed the quintessential grand cru attributes of volume, intensity, earthy complexity and texture. It was bright yet oily, meaty yet fruity and other weird juxtapositions one can think of. Methinks this was the wine of the night. Period.
The last wine was Chapelle-Chambertin 2001 and was excellent. This showed the pointed accuracy of flavours the best wines of this vintage could bring. Of all the Gevrey wines tonight, this one showed immediate typicity right from the start -- the nose showed the minerality, iron-tinged red berries fruits so typical of the commune. This wine possessed an excellent high pitch and minerality details -- but is still round somewhat in shape -- and unfortunately overshadowed by the CdlR VV 1999 in terms of complexity and breed. It is an admirable effort -- fully typical and very convincing.
06 January, 2006
Dry (but not high) and a mini-vert of Geantet-Pansiot Charmes
The past Christmas break was uncharacteristically domesticated for me. I found myself manning many-a-household duty from which I learned that operating a household is indeed a task for no mere mortals...
And so despite the one-and-a-half-week or so of no office work, I was quite untainted vinously speaking. There were however some bottles shared over a few lunches which provided some entertainment and education.
As my friend Arif was in town we did a mini-vertical of Geantet-Pansiot's Charmes-Chambertin. 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2002 were featured. Incidentally, I also consumed my last bottle of 2001 just two nights prior to this lunch -- a task I regretted, for its addition to this impromptu tasting would have made it a more complete vertical -- and it was, as always with Pansiot's wines, delicious.
The Charmes from Pansiot are always accessible, striking a nice balance between the senses and intellectual interest, although I must add it's more about pleasure. Short of writing a whole bunch of tasting notes, suffice it to say, the 1999 did the trick for me. It is also after this tasting that reminded me of the greatness the greater wines of this vintage could achieve and I pondered subsequently whether the wines of this vintage are finally awakening from their deep slumber these past few years. The 99 Charmes in my opinion showed the most typicity (alongside with the 96 and 01 version, which I had earlier). It was a perfect combination -- at least in the context of Pansiot's style -- of power, minerality, elegance and ripeness. To me, the appearance of oily fatness in very bright red fruits and penetrating gentle sweetness -- features I prize so much in the best Burgundies -- made the wine almost complete. Frankly, I am seriously revisiting 1999 reds now which IMHO is the most complete vintage of the 1990s...
A few more highlights included the Arnaud Ente's Meursault Clos des Ambres 2002 (ultra high-pitched, bright and intense for a villages), Deux Montilles' Corton-Renardes 03 (very atypically elegant and not-overripe for a 03) and the Bruno Clair's Cazetiers 96 (not particularly the wine per se, but more so the Clair's style, which clearly shows its brooding, serious, introspective strides only close to 10 years after the vintage).
Come to think of it, not too dry a break after all. Hmmm...
And so despite the one-and-a-half-week or so of no office work, I was quite untainted vinously speaking. There were however some bottles shared over a few lunches which provided some entertainment and education.
As my friend Arif was in town we did a mini-vertical of Geantet-Pansiot's Charmes-Chambertin. 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2002 were featured. Incidentally, I also consumed my last bottle of 2001 just two nights prior to this lunch -- a task I regretted, for its addition to this impromptu tasting would have made it a more complete vertical -- and it was, as always with Pansiot's wines, delicious.
The Charmes from Pansiot are always accessible, striking a nice balance between the senses and intellectual interest, although I must add it's more about pleasure. Short of writing a whole bunch of tasting notes, suffice it to say, the 1999 did the trick for me. It is also after this tasting that reminded me of the greatness the greater wines of this vintage could achieve and I pondered subsequently whether the wines of this vintage are finally awakening from their deep slumber these past few years. The 99 Charmes in my opinion showed the most typicity (alongside with the 96 and 01 version, which I had earlier). It was a perfect combination -- at least in the context of Pansiot's style -- of power, minerality, elegance and ripeness. To me, the appearance of oily fatness in very bright red fruits and penetrating gentle sweetness -- features I prize so much in the best Burgundies -- made the wine almost complete. Frankly, I am seriously revisiting 1999 reds now which IMHO is the most complete vintage of the 1990s...
A few more highlights included the Arnaud Ente's Meursault Clos des Ambres 2002 (ultra high-pitched, bright and intense for a villages), Deux Montilles' Corton-Renardes 03 (very atypically elegant and not-overripe for a 03) and the Bruno Clair's Cazetiers 96 (not particularly the wine per se, but more so the Clair's style, which clearly shows its brooding, serious, introspective strides only close to 10 years after the vintage).
Come to think of it, not too dry a break after all. Hmmm...
19 December, 2005
Confrerie 6th anniversary dinner @ Raffles Hotel Dec-18
It's always a privilege to taste with the Chevaliers. This is a grand dinner, formal and well organized. The whole atmosphere was fun-filled and full of camarederie. Lots of singing, generous food and good wine. A very merry bunch indeed!
As far as the wines go, there were quite a number of less than stellar appearances, but the whole experience was very educational nonetheless. I also question the fact that in such a dinner where almost a whole case of wines are presented each round, whether the luck factor of having a less-than-pristine bottle is the main factor for the lesser experience. It might well have been...
We started with two whites, both Chassagne 1er crus. The 2001 Bachelet-Ramonet Chassagne-Montrachet Morgeot has a deep golden hue to it. Ripe nose with figs and pears. On the palate it's straightforward and finishes with rather honeyed taste and texture. Too advanced for its age in my opinion. The 1999 Vincent Girardin Chassagne-Montrachet la Romanee has a distinctly flinty nose. Nicely structured, enters sweet and light at its feet. Over time, the acidity carries the finish nicely long and focussed. Good. Both wines work quite nicely with the Guinea fowl and truffle dish, particularly the Girardin as it had more cut and length.
The next course of Oeufs Meurette (which was very tasty and heartily creamy) was paired with Bachelet-Ramonet Batard-Montrachet 1985, a wine which -- at least per what I had -- sounded a lot more promising that it did deliver. Rather tired and cheesy nose (too young to be cheesy?!) with a plain and nondescript palate. Very little fruits left, although on the nose it still had that honeyed hint, just a hint, typical of a more mature white burgundy. Disappointing, coming from such a famed grand cru and vintage.
(A fourth unofficial white was added later -- 1999 Vincent Girardin Puligny-Montrachet les Truffieres. This wine has plenty of volume and punch in the mouth. Ripe, forward yet balanced. From a technical standpoint, this was actually the best wine, although I did enjoy the la Romanee's penetrating finish more...)
The veal-cheek with Sarawk pepper and sweet potato mash dish (the veal was overdone and too tough) was paired with a duo of 1981 Lamarche Clos de Vougeot and 1985 Raphet Charmes-Chambertin. The Clos Vougeot was rather stinky and disturbed, giving off a hefty stale meat nuance in the nose at first. With some aeration, the wine turned sweeter and the frame nicely held its own for the next half-hour or so. By the end of the dinner, the wine was astringent and green. A sign of the weaker vintage if not anything else. Quite well made... The Charmes was immediately cleaner and more lush on the nose. Rather plush and brightly coloured when compared to the preceding wine too. Very ripe dark cherries I could find here, but the structure somewhat just did not highlight the fruits. Finishes rather dusty and stalky.
At this juncture, I was almost jaded, hoping against hopes that the last two wines would somewhat save the night. Indeed, a nice turnaround! The cheese platter was served with two vintages of Clos des Lambrays: 1988 and 2002. The 1988 had such deep red hue so typical of hardcore vintages. Nicely perfumed with damp earth, sweet mushrooms, intense black fruits and a very nice pitch. This wine was very nicely balanced -- not showy, not hugely concentrated, with just an adequate intensity. What it lacked in sweetness and volume (in typical grand cru wines) it made up for in terms of elegance and penetrating structure (oh-so-important in aged wines!) This wine in fact survived the night so well it hardly changed a bit two hours later... The 2002 was in contrast very much more berry-scented. Very red fruited, with a ripe sappiness not uncharacteristic of the vintage. It comes across as quite modern too, with a fruit-forward simplicity -- which I personally think was very deceptive. The finish has a sleek yet discreet minerally lift and, despite the candied raspberries sweetness, is actually quite light on its feet. I sense an upside in this wine. It's just too simple at this point, and well, no, it did not displace the 1988 as my wine of the night...
Oh yes, before I forget, this was the night that I was inducted into the confrerie too along with five other distinguished members. The whole proceedings were fun and meaningful. And the wine of the induction ceremony? A certain vintage's Potel Romanee-St.-Vivant... Nice, but would be even better if we've had it in a glass!
As far as the wines go, there were quite a number of less than stellar appearances, but the whole experience was very educational nonetheless. I also question the fact that in such a dinner where almost a whole case of wines are presented each round, whether the luck factor of having a less-than-pristine bottle is the main factor for the lesser experience. It might well have been...
We started with two whites, both Chassagne 1er crus. The 2001 Bachelet-Ramonet Chassagne-Montrachet Morgeot has a deep golden hue to it. Ripe nose with figs and pears. On the palate it's straightforward and finishes with rather honeyed taste and texture. Too advanced for its age in my opinion. The 1999 Vincent Girardin Chassagne-Montrachet la Romanee has a distinctly flinty nose. Nicely structured, enters sweet and light at its feet. Over time, the acidity carries the finish nicely long and focussed. Good. Both wines work quite nicely with the Guinea fowl and truffle dish, particularly the Girardin as it had more cut and length.
The next course of Oeufs Meurette (which was very tasty and heartily creamy) was paired with Bachelet-Ramonet Batard-Montrachet 1985, a wine which -- at least per what I had -- sounded a lot more promising that it did deliver. Rather tired and cheesy nose (too young to be cheesy?!) with a plain and nondescript palate. Very little fruits left, although on the nose it still had that honeyed hint, just a hint, typical of a more mature white burgundy. Disappointing, coming from such a famed grand cru and vintage.
(A fourth unofficial white was added later -- 1999 Vincent Girardin Puligny-Montrachet les Truffieres. This wine has plenty of volume and punch in the mouth. Ripe, forward yet balanced. From a technical standpoint, this was actually the best wine, although I did enjoy the la Romanee's penetrating finish more...)
The veal-cheek with Sarawk pepper and sweet potato mash dish (the veal was overdone and too tough) was paired with a duo of 1981 Lamarche Clos de Vougeot and 1985 Raphet Charmes-Chambertin. The Clos Vougeot was rather stinky and disturbed, giving off a hefty stale meat nuance in the nose at first. With some aeration, the wine turned sweeter and the frame nicely held its own for the next half-hour or so. By the end of the dinner, the wine was astringent and green. A sign of the weaker vintage if not anything else. Quite well made... The Charmes was immediately cleaner and more lush on the nose. Rather plush and brightly coloured when compared to the preceding wine too. Very ripe dark cherries I could find here, but the structure somewhat just did not highlight the fruits. Finishes rather dusty and stalky.
At this juncture, I was almost jaded, hoping against hopes that the last two wines would somewhat save the night. Indeed, a nice turnaround! The cheese platter was served with two vintages of Clos des Lambrays: 1988 and 2002. The 1988 had such deep red hue so typical of hardcore vintages. Nicely perfumed with damp earth, sweet mushrooms, intense black fruits and a very nice pitch. This wine was very nicely balanced -- not showy, not hugely concentrated, with just an adequate intensity. What it lacked in sweetness and volume (in typical grand cru wines) it made up for in terms of elegance and penetrating structure (oh-so-important in aged wines!) This wine in fact survived the night so well it hardly changed a bit two hours later... The 2002 was in contrast very much more berry-scented. Very red fruited, with a ripe sappiness not uncharacteristic of the vintage. It comes across as quite modern too, with a fruit-forward simplicity -- which I personally think was very deceptive. The finish has a sleek yet discreet minerally lift and, despite the candied raspberries sweetness, is actually quite light on its feet. I sense an upside in this wine. It's just too simple at this point, and well, no, it did not displace the 1988 as my wine of the night...
Oh yes, before I forget, this was the night that I was inducted into the confrerie too along with five other distinguished members. The whole proceedings were fun and meaningful. And the wine of the induction ceremony? A certain vintage's Potel Romanee-St.-Vivant... Nice, but would be even better if we've had it in a glass!
27 November, 2005
BurgFest 2005 Vol.III -- 2001 Gevrey-Chambertin Grand Crus
The lineup as we knew it prior:
There were fabulous whites too. We had two as aperitifs: 2002 Chandon de Briailles Corton Blanc and 1998 Rapet Corton-Charlemagne. I'm beginning to sense that coincidentally or not, we're beginning to skew towards Corton whites as aperitifs for our formal burg tasting events. Hmmm... Hey, I have no issues with that.
The Corton blanc was fat and textured, with an almost oily viscosity. I noticed that although it was round and full in the mouth, the finish was sort of clipped, and lacked the acid lift I would expect from a 2002. Fortunately this was temporary. A few minutes of airing and the wine put on length and a green apple like acid finish later on. Nice and quite delicious. Reminded me a bit of 2000 whites.
The Corton charlie smelled evolved on the outset. In the palate it was noticeably sweeter and more lacy than the preceding wine. However, the palate was certainly more youthful than the nose. The nose developed later and put on more freshness. Interesting. Again, apple skins and lime oils are featured here. Accessible and ready.
And now the reds.
#1 - Reticent in the nose at first, but in the palate all-cherry explosion with charming floral expression. With aeration, soy and earthy flavours emerged. Sweetness due to wood was detected but the wine was very well-pitched. The nose turned flinty afterwards. Lots of delicious fruits. I thought it was a Latricieres, but it was Magnien's Clos de Beze.
#2 - Explosive crunchy sweet red fruits on the nose. In the palate, no different. The fruits were almost raspberry, but with a coolness that only Gevrey could do. It was all soft and sexy. Unfortunately the fruits receded later on and some traces of wood began to show later. I thought this was very Griotte because of its rather flamboyant, all-charming character and the lack of apparent structure. Shoots! No, it's Clair's Clos de Beze.
#3 - Nothing but reticent woodspice at first. Very closed, very structured, unyielding. Promises solid materials though... Later on, classic Gevrey aromas and unmistakable minerality. Almost salty, soil-taste with metallic sheen and lengthy palate stanining finish. Impressive. Could it be the Ruchottes? No. Jadot's Chapelle-Chambertin.
#4 - Slightly floral stemmy nose. Rather simple in the mouth, and an obvious dusty finish. Sweet but rather soupy in texture. Some lightness and lift, and a sweet-tea-like aromas came on subsequent visits. Roumier's Ruchottes-Chambertin.
#5 - Very dark red, almost purplish. Decidedly modern, very ripe and very big. Toasty and curranty. I am not sure I like it. Some Gevrey tell-tale in the nose but other than that very hard to place the origin of this wine. Dugat-Py Mazis-Chambertin.
#6 - Immediately shouts "Gevrey!" on the nose. Slightly stewey, but high-pitched. Very sweet, bright with persistent black cherries on the palate. Smoky and flinty aromas with deep and pungent minerality. The breed is apparent here. Superb. I was quite convinced this was Clair's Clos de Beze because of the pungent minerality. Nope... Trapet's Latricieres-Chambertin. Very good show.
#7 - High-toned, fleshy crushed dark raspberries nose but with solid Gevrey minerality nuances. Very sweet and rather extracted. Viscous and decidedly very ripe. Sweet and long finish, sappy but rather cloying. Impressively built and a bit over-the-top to my taste. Roty's Charmes-Chambertin.
#8 - This is hard to miss: bacon-fat. This fatty, oily Gevrey nose is quite special. Delicious on the palate, yet rather simple at this juncture. A lush wine but lacking in apparent lift and grip. Somewhat the sweetness is shy and not quite as expressively long as the others...? Rousseau's Chambertin.
#9 - Very creamy and powerful nose of black cherries. Rather sappy and quite massive in the mouth. Spherically textured, no angle whatsoever. Sweet and nicely pitched, and not cloying at all. Very nice and a showstopper. I thought this was the Roty as the built was almost unmistakable. Wrong! Dugat's Griotte-Chambertin.
#10 - This is a very deceptive wine. It appears rather modern and straightforward. But beneath there's plenty of layers and it constantly evolved. Very ripe yet still Gevrey nose. Rather oaky but sheds this quickly to reveal lots of minerality. The fruits unfold slowly but surely to a very nicely pitched, if not rather monolithic but classy wine dominated by red fruits. I thought this was Rousseau's Chambertin. Half-right only -- Charlopin-Parizot's Chambertin.
#11 - Luscious red fruits with a certain sauvage character. This was what we thought we're looking for in a Mazis...? Wood is still rather obvious at this point but salvaged by a solid delineating acid-lift. A Mazis? No. Perrot-Minot Mazoyeres-Chambertin.
The wines were all excellent in my opinion, showing grand cru breed and the commune it came from. What was not easy to tell was the nuances that separate, say, the Charmes from the Latricieres from the Mazis -- not that this was ever easy to begin with. But it was particularly tricky tonight. I had none of my guess correct. Except for 1/2, that is, wine #10 was indeed a Chambertin, but wrong producer.
So what could have gone 'wrong'? Well, let's not worry about the scores of how many wines each person got correct for a moment. The fact is that there's nothing wrong with any of the wines. The key question to ask is this: is there a distinction between one wine to the next and can the distinction be related to the specific terroir? Recall now that we hold the vintage factor constant this time, and the commune too. Since Gevrey has relatively pronounced characteristic features, the overall flavour factor is also held somewhat constant. But this is a very large commune, and with 9 plots of grand crus. Being a burgundy, each must therefore be different, and represent something peculiar about its terroir. So the answer to the above question is yes, there are differences as noted in the tasting, and quite obvious in most cases too. Whether or not we could map these differences to just plain terroir is another completely different question altogether.
Again, as we fast forward to the results, and as I try to reconcile the outcome from the analyses from the semi-blind tasting, I can't help but make these observations:
Let's plan for the next Burgfest early next year!
- Chambertin, Armand Rousseau
- Chambertin, Philippe Charlopin-Parizot
- Chambertin-Clos de Bèze, Bruno Clair
- Chambertin-Clos de Bèze, Frédéric Magnien
- Ruchottes-Chambertin, Georges Roumier
- Mazis-Chambertin, Dugat-Py
- Chapelle-Chambertin, Louis Jadot
- Griotte-Chambertin, Claude Dugat
- Latricières-Chambertin, Jean et Jean-Louis Trapet
- Charmes-Chambertin, Joseph Roty
- Mazoyères-Chambertin, Perrot-Minot
There were fabulous whites too. We had two as aperitifs: 2002 Chandon de Briailles Corton Blanc and 1998 Rapet Corton-Charlemagne. I'm beginning to sense that coincidentally or not, we're beginning to skew towards Corton whites as aperitifs for our formal burg tasting events. Hmmm... Hey, I have no issues with that.
The Corton blanc was fat and textured, with an almost oily viscosity. I noticed that although it was round and full in the mouth, the finish was sort of clipped, and lacked the acid lift I would expect from a 2002. Fortunately this was temporary. A few minutes of airing and the wine put on length and a green apple like acid finish later on. Nice and quite delicious. Reminded me a bit of 2000 whites.
The Corton charlie smelled evolved on the outset. In the palate it was noticeably sweeter and more lacy than the preceding wine. However, the palate was certainly more youthful than the nose. The nose developed later and put on more freshness. Interesting. Again, apple skins and lime oils are featured here. Accessible and ready.
And now the reds.
#1 - Reticent in the nose at first, but in the palate all-cherry explosion with charming floral expression. With aeration, soy and earthy flavours emerged. Sweetness due to wood was detected but the wine was very well-pitched. The nose turned flinty afterwards. Lots of delicious fruits. I thought it was a Latricieres, but it was Magnien's Clos de Beze.
#2 - Explosive crunchy sweet red fruits on the nose. In the palate, no different. The fruits were almost raspberry, but with a coolness that only Gevrey could do. It was all soft and sexy. Unfortunately the fruits receded later on and some traces of wood began to show later. I thought this was very Griotte because of its rather flamboyant, all-charming character and the lack of apparent structure. Shoots! No, it's Clair's Clos de Beze.
#3 - Nothing but reticent woodspice at first. Very closed, very structured, unyielding. Promises solid materials though... Later on, classic Gevrey aromas and unmistakable minerality. Almost salty, soil-taste with metallic sheen and lengthy palate stanining finish. Impressive. Could it be the Ruchottes? No. Jadot's Chapelle-Chambertin.
#4 - Slightly floral stemmy nose. Rather simple in the mouth, and an obvious dusty finish. Sweet but rather soupy in texture. Some lightness and lift, and a sweet-tea-like aromas came on subsequent visits. Roumier's Ruchottes-Chambertin.
#5 - Very dark red, almost purplish. Decidedly modern, very ripe and very big. Toasty and curranty. I am not sure I like it. Some Gevrey tell-tale in the nose but other than that very hard to place the origin of this wine. Dugat-Py Mazis-Chambertin.
#6 - Immediately shouts "Gevrey!" on the nose. Slightly stewey, but high-pitched. Very sweet, bright with persistent black cherries on the palate. Smoky and flinty aromas with deep and pungent minerality. The breed is apparent here. Superb. I was quite convinced this was Clair's Clos de Beze because of the pungent minerality. Nope... Trapet's Latricieres-Chambertin. Very good show.
#7 - High-toned, fleshy crushed dark raspberries nose but with solid Gevrey minerality nuances. Very sweet and rather extracted. Viscous and decidedly very ripe. Sweet and long finish, sappy but rather cloying. Impressively built and a bit over-the-top to my taste. Roty's Charmes-Chambertin.
#8 - This is hard to miss: bacon-fat. This fatty, oily Gevrey nose is quite special. Delicious on the palate, yet rather simple at this juncture. A lush wine but lacking in apparent lift and grip. Somewhat the sweetness is shy and not quite as expressively long as the others...? Rousseau's Chambertin.
#9 - Very creamy and powerful nose of black cherries. Rather sappy and quite massive in the mouth. Spherically textured, no angle whatsoever. Sweet and nicely pitched, and not cloying at all. Very nice and a showstopper. I thought this was the Roty as the built was almost unmistakable. Wrong! Dugat's Griotte-Chambertin.
#10 - This is a very deceptive wine. It appears rather modern and straightforward. But beneath there's plenty of layers and it constantly evolved. Very ripe yet still Gevrey nose. Rather oaky but sheds this quickly to reveal lots of minerality. The fruits unfold slowly but surely to a very nicely pitched, if not rather monolithic but classy wine dominated by red fruits. I thought this was Rousseau's Chambertin. Half-right only -- Charlopin-Parizot's Chambertin.
#11 - Luscious red fruits with a certain sauvage character. This was what we thought we're looking for in a Mazis...? Wood is still rather obvious at this point but salvaged by a solid delineating acid-lift. A Mazis? No. Perrot-Minot Mazoyeres-Chambertin.
The wines were all excellent in my opinion, showing grand cru breed and the commune it came from. What was not easy to tell was the nuances that separate, say, the Charmes from the Latricieres from the Mazis -- not that this was ever easy to begin with. But it was particularly tricky tonight. I had none of my guess correct. Except for 1/2, that is, wine #10 was indeed a Chambertin, but wrong producer.
So what could have gone 'wrong'? Well, let's not worry about the scores of how many wines each person got correct for a moment. The fact is that there's nothing wrong with any of the wines. The key question to ask is this: is there a distinction between one wine to the next and can the distinction be related to the specific terroir? Recall now that we hold the vintage factor constant this time, and the commune too. Since Gevrey has relatively pronounced characteristic features, the overall flavour factor is also held somewhat constant. But this is a very large commune, and with 9 plots of grand crus. Being a burgundy, each must therefore be different, and represent something peculiar about its terroir. So the answer to the above question is yes, there are differences as noted in the tasting, and quite obvious in most cases too. Whether or not we could map these differences to just plain terroir is another completely different question altogether.
Again, as we fast forward to the results, and as I try to reconcile the outcome from the analyses from the semi-blind tasting, I can't help but make these observations:
- One thing I note about Gevrey wines in particular is that as one moves up the cru hierarchy, the wines tend to become more sleek and understated. The measure of richness of a Gevrey grand cru is not found in concentration and opulence of the fruits, but instead one must work hard to look out for texture in the midpalate, depth and unique inner-mouth perfume -- not at all an easy task. And these are the very qualities the wines are very shy to show in its youth. A Chambertin is a good example. When one expects that Chambertin is a masculine and powerful wine, this statement should not to be taken at 'face' value. There is nothing in-your-face about a Chambertin and its masculinity is not about structure and grip. Rather it's about the shape of the wine in the mouth -- a Chambertin almost always tastes square in the mouth (whereas Clos de Beze tends to be sexier and more briary). In its youth it tends to appear simple, but the evolving fruits have an immense reserve and depth. But these are all very inward qualities that need to be searched hard.
- I often wonder about the effect of decanting on burgundies. In the past I have always resisted the idea of decanting red burgundies to open up the wine. However, recently, I am experimenting more. Some young wines are just impossibly massive and tight-fisted without extended aeration (Roty's Charmes and Comte Armand's Clos des Epeneaux as an example) and my experiences tasting them out of decanter after one or two hours had been quite positive as the wines thereafter showed more layers than just straight out of the bottle. I do notice too, however, that the sweetness of decanted burgundies tend to have a slightly waxy sappiness to it at the finish. However, this flaw, if you will, taken against the prospect of a clammed monolith seems rather forgivable in comparison. Tonight, almost all the wines were double decanted -- though for only less than an hour -- except for two, Clair's Clos de Beze and Perrot-Minot's Mazoyeres. It would remain difficult to judge if the decanting had irreversibly altered the wines' palate profiles -- it certainly had an impact -- but for certain wines which I thought I knew quite well, e.g., Roty's Charmes and Rousseau's Chambertin, my memory of the past bottles had just been aerated in-bottle certainly was better pitched and its nuances were more clear and obvious.
- The winemaking style of the domaine almost always adds a significant effect to the wines. Some, in my opinion, were detrimental, such as the case with Dugat-Py. While the wine was not bad, the winemaking choices had made the wine lose its sense of origin -- wood, overripeness, extraction... Some others were quite a revelation. For example, I had always been skeptical with Charlopin's winemaking style in the past -- in my opinion, decidedly new world. Several examples, such as his Charmes and Echezeaux left me with disappointing conclusions. Tonight, his Chambertin was one of my picks for the night. There are several possibilities. Either he had moderated his winemaking style, or for this particular cuvee he's just done a significantly different piece of work. Whichever is the case, I have now learnt to never ever write off a producer and be ever ready to taste objectively and as widely as possible.
Let's plan for the next Burgfest early next year!
18 October, 2005
Redefinition
Tonight I'm taking time to recall wines which redefined my understanding of the terroir it came from. These are the wines that expressed the most individualistic and uncharted heights of the vineyards... They have typicity yet atypical in the aspects of greatness they've achieved... They are an uncommon blend of extreme intelligence of the winemaker and the deep soul of the vineyards... They are straightforward delicious yet mind-bogglingly complex... Here are some of those which I can remember vividly:
- Comte Armand Pommard Clos des Epeneaux 02 redefined Pommard to me
- Henri Jayer redefined Echezeaux to me
- Marquis d'Angerville Volnay Clos des Ducs 90 redefined Volnay to me
- Joseph Roty Charmes-Chambertin TVV 97 redefined Charmes-Chambertin to me
- Coche-Dury Meursault Perrieres 96 redefined Meursault to me
- Didier Dagueneau Silex 02 redefined Pouilly-Fume to me
- Henri Bonneau Chateauneuf du Pape Reserve des Celestins (any vintage) redefined CDP and grenache-based wines to me
- Radio-Coteau Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast "Hellenthal" 02 redefined new world pinot noir to me
- Trimbach Clos Ste Hune 90 Riesling redefined dry Riesling to me
25 September, 2005
Salvation Army charity dinner @ Ming San's (Red Burgundy 1998 Grand Crus)
Most hospitable hosts Ming San and his wife are. The proceeds of this tasting are strictly for charity to the children's funds of Salvation Army -- which, I was told, would be very significant for them. God bless them all... Anyway, both the food and the wines were fantastic! A very satisfying dinner on all counts. I went home a very happy man, and let me tell you one of the reasons: the wines.
We started the night with two Corton Charlies. Before I proceed, let me admit that I have a certain fondness for Corton Charlemagne. For most people, they are four-square, impressive but rather charmless whites. But to me they combine the structural austerity of the best Chablis with the voluminous density of a Cote-de-Beaune grand cru. Make no mistake, they not very expressive, friendly wines, hence not so easily appreciated. Nonetheless, the Bonneau du Martray 1996 we had was fabulous. It had a mixed reticence of lime skin and slightly cheesy aromas (at first) but gave way to a rather generous, fruit-front, almost oily-textured palate framed with energetic lemony acids. It was at once voluminous and penetrating, and had an almost spherical texture in the mouth. Deliciously good.
The Rollin 1996 Corton Charlie however was quite different. Andy said there was an aroma of 'rubber' -- which I understood. To me there was a rather chemical-solvent like aromas interspersed with pear. Minerally oyster shells were discerned on the palate. The wine entered very linearly in the mouth, promising a good cut but seriously lacked both volume and penetration for a wine of such calibre. Although the acid angle was there, it ended short with a bitter tinge on the finish. Now, on to the reds...
1998 Drouhin-Laroze Bonnes-Mares had a lightish, very translucent colour. On the nose, green grape stems and cooked cherries. It was equally green on the palate. Besides, this wine lacked depth, sweetness and volume. Over time it gave off slightly cheesy aromas and the stemminess became slightly floral. Too bad the palate and finish were both hollow, grainy and short.
Potel's 1998 Bonnes-Mares was a big contrast to the previous wine. Although it also had that stemmy edge on the nose, this wine had a full-on dark fruits approach to it. There was, however, a certain stink that I found in a lot of southern Rhone wines -- something slightly brett-like (I tend to mistake this for reductive-ness, but this one is also present in the palate, hence can't be reduction). This wine is quite sweet, rich and voluminous. It's no doubt a well-made, albeit rather full-on wine. Finishes rather dry-edged and powdery.
Taking a more sedate turn, I appreciate the next wine: Clos de Lambrays 1998. On the nose it already showed the regal expansiveness and depth befitting its cru -- at once refined and sweet. Deep, bright red, it showed dark cherries and raspberries in a very elegant frame. Dense, plush, sweet entry that gently persisted to the finish, this is a delicious mouthcoating wine that was gripping from start to finish. I liked the slightly saline tastiness that developed over extended aeration. It's got the 'dirt' factor! Turned firmer at the very end. Excellent.
Talking about full-on, take-no-prisoners wine, the next wine is close to it. The 1998 Clos de Tart came immediately as a massive, wooded-style burgundy. The wine is powerful and the fruits came across as almost roasted. The wealth of fruits was at this point still overshadowed by a chocolatey and fine-grained oaky sweetness. Too frontal for my taste although the overall showmanship was quite impressive. I'd have appreciated more depth and cooler fruits in my burgundies.
Bruno Clair's wine is not easy to appreciate. Clair's wines are contemplative in nature and, especially in a comparative tasting, tend to be underwhelming compared to its peers. This might explain why some of our table-mates had a preference on Groffier's interpretation of the Chambertin Clos de Beze 1998 flight. Unmistakably Gevrey metallic red-fruits nose, Clair's Chambertin Clos de Beze had crushed cherries and ripe strawberries. In the mouth it too was shyly sweet but had a certain inner-mouth minerally pungency which I associate with Clair's wines -- an attribute which is not easily discernible, but an important one that gives it its uniqueness. Subtle saline minerality is found in the palate framed with a backward tannic spine. Still, I had hoped for more cut and angle at the finish. Otherwise this is a serious, understated and pure wine. Very good.
In contrast, Groffier's Chambertin Clos de Beze was a more lush and expressive version. Ripe raspberries and hints of caramels on the nose and similar profile on the palate. This wine is generous and sappy, and technically very competent, albeit rather oak-driven. However, the overall impression is that of breadth and waxy sweetness, not depth and layered complexity. A crowd-pleaser, actually my basic issue with this wine is its lack of typicity. Blind me and I'd guess Chambolle-Musigny -- and should it be such, I question, especially when this is supposed to have hailed from one of the two most renowned grand cru plots in Gevrey-Chambertin?
The next flight was Vosne-Romanee's grand crus. Robert Arnoux's Romanee St. Vivant 1998 had that tell-tale Arnoux meatstock aromas with a very Vosne-like spicy black fruits supporting it. This wine reminds me of a classier version of his Suchots -- every bit as complex and completely stuffed with black and red fruits, but with more elegance and depth, and one which is texturally silkier. This had an almost confectionery like sweetness in the mouth kept lively without undue palate weight. Excellent.
Domaine de la Romanee Conti's Romanee St. Vivant 1998 is a very different interpretation. Immediately classier and cooler right from the nose, it had an almost minty lift with sweet cherries and beetroot hints (stems?) What hit me was its transparency and nonchalant elegance. Although at this point the Arnoux is more stuffed and complete, I liked DRC's cool complexity. Holding its own in the glass, it put on even more sweetness over time but remain weightless in the mouth. There are layers here, again, just waiting to unfold. Classy juice. Excellent.
I recalled being taken aback by Domaine Dujac's Echezeaux 1998 when it was first released. I had always enjoyed Dujac's wines for its flirtatious femininity and aromatic seductiveness. But he seemed to be marching to a different beat in 1998. Even tonight, I noted the same tomato, roast coffee and chocolates in the palate as I had years ago. Its fruit profile hints at sur-maturite, and with a saline impression of extract (not to be confused with saline minerality here...) Alcohol impression was not shy either. This is again a very frontal wine: unabashedly luscious but devoid of midpalate sweetness which I seek in a good burgundy. New-worldish and shallow. Disappointing.
The good thing tonight is that for every less favourable turn, the next wine always came up refreshingly and genuinely good. And so was George et Henri Jayer's Echezeaux 1998 which followed on Dujac's out-of-whack showing. This wine was compact and massive -- perhaps too youthful tonight -- but no doubt had tremendous upside ahead of it. While the Dujac could have come from everywhere (new world included), one sniff of this and this could only be a Vosne-Romanee. Warmly enveloping, cosy nose of black cherries and redcurrants jump amidst hints of creme brulee backdrop. Implosive in the mouth with pungent smoky minerality of the best of Gevrey and the candied sappy sweetness of a charming Chambolle on the midpalate. This is one of the rare occassion where you could taste the shape of the wine: it was utterly spherical in the mouth. Despite the size, it's thoroughly balanced. I wonder when this baby is ready what the layers expression would become... Special.
The last wine was served blind. It had a seductively cool, candied, creamy, caramelly redcurrants and raspberries with violet hints on the nose. Gosh, this was complex... At once I thought of a Chambolle a la de Vogue. The otherwise deep, penetrating, bright and luscious red fruits interestingly had a very steely nervous backbone of uncommon minerality especially for a Chambolle. There were complication nuances of dark chocolates, but the core remained bracingly structured and minerally fresh. A complete wine. It can only be a Le Musigny. No wonder they call it one of the most profound piece of 'dirt' in Cote d'Or -- Comte de Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes 1998. Special.
Before we called it the night we took some time to plot possible future events. A riesling dim sum luncheon? A 1996 white burgundy comparative? A vertical of Comte de Vogue's Musigny? Well, all sounds good to me! You can't blame me if I already look forward to the next occasion(s)...
We started the night with two Corton Charlies. Before I proceed, let me admit that I have a certain fondness for Corton Charlemagne. For most people, they are four-square, impressive but rather charmless whites. But to me they combine the structural austerity of the best Chablis with the voluminous density of a Cote-de-Beaune grand cru. Make no mistake, they not very expressive, friendly wines, hence not so easily appreciated. Nonetheless, the Bonneau du Martray 1996 we had was fabulous. It had a mixed reticence of lime skin and slightly cheesy aromas (at first) but gave way to a rather generous, fruit-front, almost oily-textured palate framed with energetic lemony acids. It was at once voluminous and penetrating, and had an almost spherical texture in the mouth. Deliciously good.
The Rollin 1996 Corton Charlie however was quite different. Andy said there was an aroma of 'rubber' -- which I understood. To me there was a rather chemical-solvent like aromas interspersed with pear. Minerally oyster shells were discerned on the palate. The wine entered very linearly in the mouth, promising a good cut but seriously lacked both volume and penetration for a wine of such calibre. Although the acid angle was there, it ended short with a bitter tinge on the finish. Now, on to the reds...
1998 Drouhin-Laroze Bonnes-Mares had a lightish, very translucent colour. On the nose, green grape stems and cooked cherries. It was equally green on the palate. Besides, this wine lacked depth, sweetness and volume. Over time it gave off slightly cheesy aromas and the stemminess became slightly floral. Too bad the palate and finish were both hollow, grainy and short.
Potel's 1998 Bonnes-Mares was a big contrast to the previous wine. Although it also had that stemmy edge on the nose, this wine had a full-on dark fruits approach to it. There was, however, a certain stink that I found in a lot of southern Rhone wines -- something slightly brett-like (I tend to mistake this for reductive-ness, but this one is also present in the palate, hence can't be reduction). This wine is quite sweet, rich and voluminous. It's no doubt a well-made, albeit rather full-on wine. Finishes rather dry-edged and powdery.
Taking a more sedate turn, I appreciate the next wine: Clos de Lambrays 1998. On the nose it already showed the regal expansiveness and depth befitting its cru -- at once refined and sweet. Deep, bright red, it showed dark cherries and raspberries in a very elegant frame. Dense, plush, sweet entry that gently persisted to the finish, this is a delicious mouthcoating wine that was gripping from start to finish. I liked the slightly saline tastiness that developed over extended aeration. It's got the 'dirt' factor! Turned firmer at the very end. Excellent.
Talking about full-on, take-no-prisoners wine, the next wine is close to it. The 1998 Clos de Tart came immediately as a massive, wooded-style burgundy. The wine is powerful and the fruits came across as almost roasted. The wealth of fruits was at this point still overshadowed by a chocolatey and fine-grained oaky sweetness. Too frontal for my taste although the overall showmanship was quite impressive. I'd have appreciated more depth and cooler fruits in my burgundies.
Bruno Clair's wine is not easy to appreciate. Clair's wines are contemplative in nature and, especially in a comparative tasting, tend to be underwhelming compared to its peers. This might explain why some of our table-mates had a preference on Groffier's interpretation of the Chambertin Clos de Beze 1998 flight. Unmistakably Gevrey metallic red-fruits nose, Clair's Chambertin Clos de Beze had crushed cherries and ripe strawberries. In the mouth it too was shyly sweet but had a certain inner-mouth minerally pungency which I associate with Clair's wines -- an attribute which is not easily discernible, but an important one that gives it its uniqueness. Subtle saline minerality is found in the palate framed with a backward tannic spine. Still, I had hoped for more cut and angle at the finish. Otherwise this is a serious, understated and pure wine. Very good.
In contrast, Groffier's Chambertin Clos de Beze was a more lush and expressive version. Ripe raspberries and hints of caramels on the nose and similar profile on the palate. This wine is generous and sappy, and technically very competent, albeit rather oak-driven. However, the overall impression is that of breadth and waxy sweetness, not depth and layered complexity. A crowd-pleaser, actually my basic issue with this wine is its lack of typicity. Blind me and I'd guess Chambolle-Musigny -- and should it be such, I question, especially when this is supposed to have hailed from one of the two most renowned grand cru plots in Gevrey-Chambertin?
The next flight was Vosne-Romanee's grand crus. Robert Arnoux's Romanee St. Vivant 1998 had that tell-tale Arnoux meatstock aromas with a very Vosne-like spicy black fruits supporting it. This wine reminds me of a classier version of his Suchots -- every bit as complex and completely stuffed with black and red fruits, but with more elegance and depth, and one which is texturally silkier. This had an almost confectionery like sweetness in the mouth kept lively without undue palate weight. Excellent.
Domaine de la Romanee Conti's Romanee St. Vivant 1998 is a very different interpretation. Immediately classier and cooler right from the nose, it had an almost minty lift with sweet cherries and beetroot hints (stems?) What hit me was its transparency and nonchalant elegance. Although at this point the Arnoux is more stuffed and complete, I liked DRC's cool complexity. Holding its own in the glass, it put on even more sweetness over time but remain weightless in the mouth. There are layers here, again, just waiting to unfold. Classy juice. Excellent.
I recalled being taken aback by Domaine Dujac's Echezeaux 1998 when it was first released. I had always enjoyed Dujac's wines for its flirtatious femininity and aromatic seductiveness. But he seemed to be marching to a different beat in 1998. Even tonight, I noted the same tomato, roast coffee and chocolates in the palate as I had years ago. Its fruit profile hints at sur-maturite, and with a saline impression of extract (not to be confused with saline minerality here...) Alcohol impression was not shy either. This is again a very frontal wine: unabashedly luscious but devoid of midpalate sweetness which I seek in a good burgundy. New-worldish and shallow. Disappointing.
The good thing tonight is that for every less favourable turn, the next wine always came up refreshingly and genuinely good. And so was George et Henri Jayer's Echezeaux 1998 which followed on Dujac's out-of-whack showing. This wine was compact and massive -- perhaps too youthful tonight -- but no doubt had tremendous upside ahead of it. While the Dujac could have come from everywhere (new world included), one sniff of this and this could only be a Vosne-Romanee. Warmly enveloping, cosy nose of black cherries and redcurrants jump amidst hints of creme brulee backdrop. Implosive in the mouth with pungent smoky minerality of the best of Gevrey and the candied sappy sweetness of a charming Chambolle on the midpalate. This is one of the rare occassion where you could taste the shape of the wine: it was utterly spherical in the mouth. Despite the size, it's thoroughly balanced. I wonder when this baby is ready what the layers expression would become... Special.
The last wine was served blind. It had a seductively cool, candied, creamy, caramelly redcurrants and raspberries with violet hints on the nose. Gosh, this was complex... At once I thought of a Chambolle a la de Vogue. The otherwise deep, penetrating, bright and luscious red fruits interestingly had a very steely nervous backbone of uncommon minerality especially for a Chambolle. There were complication nuances of dark chocolates, but the core remained bracingly structured and minerally fresh. A complete wine. It can only be a Le Musigny. No wonder they call it one of the most profound piece of 'dirt' in Cote d'Or -- Comte de Vogue Musigny Vieilles Vignes 1998. Special.
Before we called it the night we took some time to plot possible future events. A riesling dim sum luncheon? A 1996 white burgundy comparative? A vertical of Comte de Vogue's Musigny? Well, all sounds good to me! You can't blame me if I already look forward to the next occasion(s)...
11 September, 2005
BurgFest 2005 Vol.II -- Le Clos Vougeot
Tasting at Ember restaurant, Sept-9 2005. Wonderful people, wonderful food, great wine lineup! Here are my ramblings of the tasting...
The lineup is:
2002 Louis Jadot, Puligny-Montrachet,“ Clos de la Garenne” Domaine du Duc de Magenta
1999 Colin-Deleger, Puligny-Montrachet “ Les Demoiselles”
2002 Gros Frère et Soeur, Clos de Vougeot “Musigni”
2002 Méo-Camuzet, Clos de Vougeot
2002 Lucien le Moine, Clos de Vougeot
2001 René Engel, Clos-Vougeot
2000 Hudelot-Noëllat, Clos de Vougeot
1999 Jean Grivot, Clos de Vougeot
1998 Anne Gros, Clos Vougeot “Le Grand Maupertui”
1997 Faiveley, Clos de Vougeot
1995 Robert Arnoux, Clos de Vougeot
1991 Leroy, Clos de Vougeot
1990 Louis Jadot, Clos Vougeot
Ringers -- Domaine Drouhin Pinot Noir Oregon 1998 and Bannockburn Serre Pinot Noir Geelong 1999
Evening began with Jadot's Domaine du Duc de Magenta 2002. This wine reminded me once more why I love white burgundies. Discreet oak aromas (like pencil shavings), butter and green apples on the nose. Fruits of steel with lots of purity and slight nutty tinge. Although it's closed, the wine is textured and long, with very bright penetrating cut on the finish so typical of the vintage. Still, it came across as round and generous. Excellent.
Red #1 looked aged - with medium red and moderate bricking. Meaty aromas and black cherries. On the palate it is delicate, and showing some stemminess. Frankly this was rather warm in the mouth and carried the warmth through the back. Finishes with sour-cherries and rather hollow. Lacks true sweetness. With aeration, it put on a medicinal hint. I honestly thought this was one of the ringers (prematurely aged with alcohol to boot). Wrong. Faiveley 1987. Sometimes the most obvious answers are the right ones...
Red #2 is a different animal altogether. Sporting a much darker red hue, it had a very striking minerally, earthy and horsey stink -- almost Gevrey-like, except that it's not as high-pitched? Compared to #1, this was a lot more structured with gripping tannic and acid spine. Black cherries turning curranty on the palate and it got sweeter with air. Still, it was all closed up and many years await this wine to unfold its best. Robust wine. Louis Jadot 1990. Very good.
We broke for white. Colin-Deleger PM Les Demoiselles 1999 had a oxidative, madeira-tinged nose. On the palate, it was lush and round, but lacked definition and cut. Came across rather flabby thought the fruits are still alive with interesting hints of ginko nuts.
Red #3 had a nose I always find special - bacon fat. Dark cherries predominate, and the wine was steely and quite minerally. The fruits are all dark. Sweet and sappy, it gave a slight stemmy back notes. Quite extracted with generous amount of creamy oak, applied skillfully not to throw the wine off-balance, this is quite impressive on the midpalate as the sweetness builds persistently. Domaine Drouhin (Oregon) 1998. Quite impressive.
Red #4's nose was distinctive -- wet earth, beetroot and very stemmy. It was at once sweet and spicy on the entry, with rather stew-like texture in the mouth. Quite soupy but delicious nonetheless, interestingly it held out very cool in the mouth without pronounced alcohol. Delicious but outclassed. All of the table guessed it right -- Bannockburn Serre 1999. (I maintain that all should try the 2000 version, which in my opinion has more class and cut on the palate.)
Red #5 is a brooding monster. Right from the colour, which was deep crimson with purplish tinge, to the nose which was reductive at first but blew off to give a meaty curranty profile. On the palate, it was again very unyielding, with plenty of materials completely imploded unto itself. It could only be a 1999, I thought. With coaxing, the reticent flavours gave off a spicy edge with slight mint aftertaste. Very steely, very huge, very impenetratable and quite impressive. I was right - Jean Grivot 1999.
Red #6 had a euphoric confectionery nose with plenty of black cherries. The palate was consistent too with a black cherry liqueur hint but was exceptionally fresh and delineated. On the finish hints of creme brulees emerged but the impression of crunchy fruits remained. It had a Vosne-like aspect to it and I thought it had to be a Meo. Indeed -- Meo-Camuzet 2002. Very delicious, impressive, if atypical (for a Clos Vougeot, that is...)
Red #7 was full of redcurrants and quite spicy. It was quite pure with fruity yet minerally flavours. It had a good mix of both red and black fruits and the texture was quite delicate. Despite gentle tannins, the wine was still quite structured. Also delicious, if not a tad shy of attention. Hudelot-Noellat 2000.
Red #8 gave off classy oak scents with rich generous flavous of cherries and redcurrants. Plush and sweet, it also had a slightly oily mouthfeel to it. Finished with caramelly hints, and again, if this was not a Clos Vougeot tasting, I would have picked it as a Vosne. Still has plenty of life ahead of it as the midpalate was still quite unyielding. Quite classy. Robert Arnoux 1995.
A nice mix of caramel and fresh raspberries on the nose, red #9, is again slightly atypical for the appellation. It was quite delicate and richly red-fruited on the palate, with a generous, plush mouthfeel. Still very youthful, again this has a vibrancy that can only be 2002. It was soft and round, and with extended aeration showed its un-shy oakiness. Can only be GF&S I thought... Right this time - Gros Frere et Soeur 2002.
After a string of plush wines, red #10 struck a totally different note. This wine is almost severe in its structure. Impressively built, this wine is stuffed to the brim with black cherries and raspberries, which turned curranty later. At once structured but entered and persisted in the midpalate with plenty of fresh sweetness. Velvety tannins hinted at the texture of dark chocolates. It's closed and steely today, but there is no doubt the sheer raw materials and balance will transform it into something more profound later. Excellent. Rene Engel 2001.
Red #11 is deeply coloured with an oily decidedly oaky aromas. Some steely elements can be detected. The wine is massive at the mouth and is quite tight-fisted. Sadly, it was all bells and whistles so far -- there was no sweetness in the midpalate. This wine is about apparent size, not depth. Quite disappointing. Lucien le Moine 2002.
Red #12 is sadly corked. I wanted quite badly to see how this wine would perform today. Anne Gros 1998.
Red #13 has a slightly evolved colour. Aromas of meats and aged beef, it was quite packed with spices, mint, stemmy aromas and meatstock. It was sweet, generous but the midpalate is still quite closed. Some tea leaves hint gave off toward the back. Leroy 1991.
The lineup is:
2002 Louis Jadot, Puligny-Montrachet,“ Clos de la Garenne” Domaine du Duc de Magenta
1999 Colin-Deleger, Puligny-Montrachet “ Les Demoiselles”
2002 Gros Frère et Soeur, Clos de Vougeot “Musigni”
2002 Méo-Camuzet, Clos de Vougeot
2002 Lucien le Moine, Clos de Vougeot
2001 René Engel, Clos-Vougeot
2000 Hudelot-Noëllat, Clos de Vougeot
1999 Jean Grivot, Clos de Vougeot
1998 Anne Gros, Clos Vougeot “Le Grand Maupertui”
1997 Faiveley, Clos de Vougeot
1995 Robert Arnoux, Clos de Vougeot
1991 Leroy, Clos de Vougeot
1990 Louis Jadot, Clos Vougeot
Ringers -- Domaine Drouhin Pinot Noir Oregon 1998 and Bannockburn Serre Pinot Noir Geelong 1999
Evening began with Jadot's Domaine du Duc de Magenta 2002. This wine reminded me once more why I love white burgundies. Discreet oak aromas (like pencil shavings), butter and green apples on the nose. Fruits of steel with lots of purity and slight nutty tinge. Although it's closed, the wine is textured and long, with very bright penetrating cut on the finish so typical of the vintage. Still, it came across as round and generous. Excellent.
Red #1 looked aged - with medium red and moderate bricking. Meaty aromas and black cherries. On the palate it is delicate, and showing some stemminess. Frankly this was rather warm in the mouth and carried the warmth through the back. Finishes with sour-cherries and rather hollow. Lacks true sweetness. With aeration, it put on a medicinal hint. I honestly thought this was one of the ringers (prematurely aged with alcohol to boot). Wrong. Faiveley 1987. Sometimes the most obvious answers are the right ones...
Red #2 is a different animal altogether. Sporting a much darker red hue, it had a very striking minerally, earthy and horsey stink -- almost Gevrey-like, except that it's not as high-pitched? Compared to #1, this was a lot more structured with gripping tannic and acid spine. Black cherries turning curranty on the palate and it got sweeter with air. Still, it was all closed up and many years await this wine to unfold its best. Robust wine. Louis Jadot 1990. Very good.
We broke for white. Colin-Deleger PM Les Demoiselles 1999 had a oxidative, madeira-tinged nose. On the palate, it was lush and round, but lacked definition and cut. Came across rather flabby thought the fruits are still alive with interesting hints of ginko nuts.
Red #3 had a nose I always find special - bacon fat. Dark cherries predominate, and the wine was steely and quite minerally. The fruits are all dark. Sweet and sappy, it gave a slight stemmy back notes. Quite extracted with generous amount of creamy oak, applied skillfully not to throw the wine off-balance, this is quite impressive on the midpalate as the sweetness builds persistently. Domaine Drouhin (Oregon) 1998. Quite impressive.
Red #4's nose was distinctive -- wet earth, beetroot and very stemmy. It was at once sweet and spicy on the entry, with rather stew-like texture in the mouth. Quite soupy but delicious nonetheless, interestingly it held out very cool in the mouth without pronounced alcohol. Delicious but outclassed. All of the table guessed it right -- Bannockburn Serre 1999. (I maintain that all should try the 2000 version, which in my opinion has more class and cut on the palate.)
Red #5 is a brooding monster. Right from the colour, which was deep crimson with purplish tinge, to the nose which was reductive at first but blew off to give a meaty curranty profile. On the palate, it was again very unyielding, with plenty of materials completely imploded unto itself. It could only be a 1999, I thought. With coaxing, the reticent flavours gave off a spicy edge with slight mint aftertaste. Very steely, very huge, very impenetratable and quite impressive. I was right - Jean Grivot 1999.
Red #6 had a euphoric confectionery nose with plenty of black cherries. The palate was consistent too with a black cherry liqueur hint but was exceptionally fresh and delineated. On the finish hints of creme brulees emerged but the impression of crunchy fruits remained. It had a Vosne-like aspect to it and I thought it had to be a Meo. Indeed -- Meo-Camuzet 2002. Very delicious, impressive, if atypical (for a Clos Vougeot, that is...)
Red #7 was full of redcurrants and quite spicy. It was quite pure with fruity yet minerally flavours. It had a good mix of both red and black fruits and the texture was quite delicate. Despite gentle tannins, the wine was still quite structured. Also delicious, if not a tad shy of attention. Hudelot-Noellat 2000.
Red #8 gave off classy oak scents with rich generous flavous of cherries and redcurrants. Plush and sweet, it also had a slightly oily mouthfeel to it. Finished with caramelly hints, and again, if this was not a Clos Vougeot tasting, I would have picked it as a Vosne. Still has plenty of life ahead of it as the midpalate was still quite unyielding. Quite classy. Robert Arnoux 1995.
A nice mix of caramel and fresh raspberries on the nose, red #9, is again slightly atypical for the appellation. It was quite delicate and richly red-fruited on the palate, with a generous, plush mouthfeel. Still very youthful, again this has a vibrancy that can only be 2002. It was soft and round, and with extended aeration showed its un-shy oakiness. Can only be GF&S I thought... Right this time - Gros Frere et Soeur 2002.
After a string of plush wines, red #10 struck a totally different note. This wine is almost severe in its structure. Impressively built, this wine is stuffed to the brim with black cherries and raspberries, which turned curranty later. At once structured but entered and persisted in the midpalate with plenty of fresh sweetness. Velvety tannins hinted at the texture of dark chocolates. It's closed and steely today, but there is no doubt the sheer raw materials and balance will transform it into something more profound later. Excellent. Rene Engel 2001.
Red #11 is deeply coloured with an oily decidedly oaky aromas. Some steely elements can be detected. The wine is massive at the mouth and is quite tight-fisted. Sadly, it was all bells and whistles so far -- there was no sweetness in the midpalate. This wine is about apparent size, not depth. Quite disappointing. Lucien le Moine 2002.
Red #12 is sadly corked. I wanted quite badly to see how this wine would perform today. Anne Gros 1998.
Red #13 has a slightly evolved colour. Aromas of meats and aged beef, it was quite packed with spices, mint, stemmy aromas and meatstock. It was sweet, generous but the midpalate is still quite closed. Some tea leaves hint gave off toward the back. Leroy 1991.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
