I stepped in late at Ming San's residence, running into Ming San, Hee Hon and the house maids trying to get Princess, the Alsatian, into Ming San's SUV for an emergency trip to the vet. A chicken bone apparently found itself into Princess' tooth/gum(?) just minutes prior to my arrival. Ming San told me to join the rest of the gang and enjoy the wine in the meantime.
I was greeted with a delicious, blind (white) bottle which had a somewhat heady toasty aromas and ripe high-toned pineappley kind of flavours. The finish was strongly acidic however, in a manner I was not too familiar with. The midpalate was lacking, perhaps even slightly dilute (reminded me of Ramonet's less than stellar attempts in 1999 and 2000 vintage here). Some suggested this was a villages Meursault. I thought this was a little bit more like a Chassagne, though to be honest this was quite Meursault like on the nose too -- but I was quite sure this was a 2000. And then someone else suggested this might even be an Aligote. Right on... It was Coche-Dury Bourgogne Aligote 2000, fruit source unknown.
We started the dinner with a duo Puligny-Montrachet 1er les Perrieres 2000 from Carillon and Sauzet. Both whites were served out of decanter, semi-blind. The first one had an exotic nose, mixing almost tropical fruits with lemon tea and oak. This wine was also quite warm though was quite generous in the mouth. Again, like most 2000 whites I've had of late, this was rather evolved. An easygoing, crowd-pleasing wine. This turned out (expectedly) to be Louis Carillon's example.
The other Perrieres (Sauzet) was immediately firmer and structured even going by the nose. Bracing and penetrating hints of lemon skins in the nose and quinine at the finish, this wine had an almost painful intensity and excellent penetration in the mouth. It also developed and became richer as time moved on. A powerful wine with palate staining finish yet still retains its Puligny delicacy. Lovely, and improving.
The second flight comes in the form of two premier crus. Henri Gouges Nuits St. Georges les Pruliers 2000 had an intriguing mix of crushed raspberries and spices, rather sauvage nose. The same wildness was detected in the mouth, which otherwise it would have been quite Chambolle-like. Finished off with slight rusticity. I liked the linearity of flavour this wine sported. Lightweight as it might be this was a serious wine, and a rather elegant Nuits. I like it!
Les Gaudichots has an illustrious heritage. It is believed (deductively) that Nicolas Potel purchased his Gaudichots grapes from Domaine de la Romanee-Conti since the latter still owns a parcel of this prized land which over time had been gradually annexed to La Tache. A poor man's La Tache? Well, not exactly, mostly because the price of les Gaudichots bottling isn't exactly within a poor man's reach... Nonetheless, the Potel Vosne Romanee les Gaudichots 2000 initially gave off a brett-inflected nose which fortunately cleared up after some aeration. Obvious stemmy and pungent meaty character at first leading to a plush, dense, generous dark fruits and a slightly alcoholic finish. This wine showed breed and volume but I found the oak treatment did not allow it to carry its flavours cleanly to the finish. While this was obviously classier than the preceding wine, I just didn't find it to be quite as 'honest' as Gouges' les Pruliers... But then again, we're comparing apples vs. oranges here.
We moved on to the next flight of the 'ubiquitous grand crus' -- a phrase I realise is an oxymoron. Nonetheless, when we are considering Clos Vougeot and Echezeaux, is that not quite true? Well, generally speaking yes, but when one looks at these two producers we are really talking about the exception to the norm.
Hudelot-Noellat Clos Vougeot 2000 gave off an earthy, meaty nose initially which very quickly led off to a classy icy, candied and briary nose of black cherries and plums. Square and dense in the mouth with bright dark fruits to boot. An impressive Clos Vougeot, but like even in the best examples, of which this is clearly one of them, this was rather charmless, and I honestly thought this was a function of its terroir more than anything else.
Georges Jayer Echezeaux 2000 is Henri Jayer's wine ultimately as he oversees the winemaking at this estate, and every wine by Jayer is a rare treat. This one is no exception. Delicate dark cherries, and textural linearity that brought me to my knees. This is a perfect marriage of delineation of flavours, straight-line entry-midpalate-finish-innermouth-perfume, and utterly cool, satiny texture. Very penetrating yet unbelievably gentle. The most elegantly rendered spicy Vosne fruits with nobility and unsurpassed gentleness. (I know, I know, I keep saying that this wine is gentle. But this is precisely what makes it so special.) Cleansing, highly perfumed finish that wouldn't quite and literally weightless in the mouth. A humbling experience. (I pitied Noellat's Clos Vougeot put side by side this wine, not that it was even bad to start with!)
The battle of the titans? Well, almost. We're seeing a Chambertin Clos de Beze shootout between Armand Rousseau and Louis Jadot next, served semi blind out of the decanter. The first wine had a very candied and red fruited generosity in the nose. It was creamy, had slight confectionery and deceptive fruity simplicity but I sensed a brooding reserve underneath. It finished with soy-like finish and oily texture emerged after extended aeration. This was a spicy and classy Chambertin which was already approachable. I wonder what it would be like in a few years time. I believe there'd be some upside. And most got it right: this was Armand Rousseau Chambertin Clos de Beze 2000. I liked it, but this just didn't have the pitch, cut and formidability of his Le Chambertin (one of my best burgundy experience I must confess).
Jadot's rendition couldn't have been more different. (Again, tonight it seemed we were playing a game of contrasts in flights of similar wines... How fun!) High-pitched, enclosed, oily, very complex and minerally Gevrey on the nose (although more rounded than the typical examples -- but then again, this was a Clos de Beze). In the mouth, intense deep red fruits with an aristocratic structure, velvety texture, cleansing and sweet. I revisited this wine many times over that night (there was quite a lot left in the decanter, so I presume this couldn't have been the favourite of the table), and close to an hour later, this put on that Jadot-esque savoury, meaty and slightly minty aftertaste. As Darth Vader would say, "Impressive... Most impressive..." Wonderful juice and one that I thought about a lot afterwards.
Phew... And now we're going to the hallowed moment where we would compare the incomparable Musigny from the house of Comte de Vogue and J.F. Mugnier. Again, in semi blind. The first wine sported the tell-tale Chambolle nose of creamy raspberries but with some oaky density which was all rendered in class and finesse. Voluminous in the mouth but not quite as focussed and pristine as the... second wine, which also had a creamy raspberry flavours and a very transparent spine of fruits. Very sweet on the verge of (but short of) stickiness, this continued to showcase admirable luminosity and high-pitched minerality in its fruits. There was a sense of plush royal presence that was unmistakably... Musigny. This second wine had a purity of fruits that the first wine could not overcome. Musigny wine #1 was de Vogue and #2 was Mugnier. I suppose when wines like these were put side by side can one begin to appreciate the difference in the details that the domaines impart or highlight to their wines. While de Vogue's Musigny had every right to be a le Musigny, so to speak, it was more massive and less transparent and delineated than Mugnier's. Having said this, I know de Vogue's Musigny is a strange beast, in that in the typical burgundy tradition, they would put on more clarity and expand its layers several years afterwards. It was highly likely that we were not catching this 2000 in its upcurve slope yet. Having said that, regardless of the potentials, Mugnier's Musigny was something else. His approach of purity of fruits above all else, and a standard treatment of skinny percentage of new oak even at this level had produced an expression that was entirely lovely yet regal, and ultimately an ultimate Chambolle-Musigny wine -- lush, structured, commanding, seductive, rich, minerally, and, to say the least, the complete burgundy. I shudder to think what he could have released in the other more favourable vintages...
Ming San cracked another bottle open for the fun of it. This one was certainly aged. Unfortunately -- I don't know if it was the cold temperature of the wine, or the fact that there was some sediment disturbance -- this wine came across as rather lean and ungiving. It was nicely structured however, but should have come from a hot vintage, probably a less illustrious one. Meatstock aromas with stemmy acidity and fairly persistent. I guessed '7os... probably '78 Gevrey but premier cru? I mean, I had no idea about this decade, and so I just took that shot. He said it was an '83, which he thought now behave quite similarly to the '76s, and it's a grand cru from Vosne. It was Gros Frere et Soeur Richebourg 1983.
And so the night ended and I had a lot of fun just sitting there, sipping, and thinking about each wine as I savoured them. All the wines showed typicity of its communes and well deserved their cru standing. There was no disappointment, as even the 'weaker' wines displayed its origin and its flaws weren't unexpected (e.g., Carillon's). This is a tasting I contemplate often after the event for the sheer education it afforded me, and I am still thinking about it even as I write this.......................
23 February, 2006
Humbert Freres - An Introduction
This tasting was done courtesy of Auric Pacific, the newly appointed distributor of this domaine, and Vins Divins at our group's old favorite Chinese haunt,
Sharing the same family heritage as the Dugat cousins gave me a certain sense of unease initially. I had been less excited by Dugat's wines of late (though I must maintain I was once totally blown away by his 1998 humbler wines), and had not been able to fully appreciate all the muscles and size of Dugat-Py wines. For sure I had hoped Humbert's wines would not fit in either mold.
Boyer Martenot's Meursault-Charmes 2001 was served as aperitif -- a very lovely wine. Very elegant nose and decidedly Meursault from this front. Pineappley fruits in the mouth. At this point still quite youthful and rather uncomplicated. While not especially dense this had a very good volume and intensity in the mouth. Some oak traces but very pretty and healthy. It looks increasingly clear that 2001 whites are turning out to be more sound than the rapidly declining 2000 in spite of contrary initial buzzes and hisses.
Next was a very little known (in fact never knew this existed till now) premier cru called les Craipillot. By the sheer fact that no other domaine produces this wine (at least not labelled so), very old vines (60+ years old) and the miniscule production size (600-700 bottles), the sense of expectation out of this exclusivity was indeed high. This turned out to be a very pretty, discrete wine. The Gevrey 1er Craipillot 2003 sported vitamin-B, shaved ham flakes, dark cherries and plums on the nose. In the mouth, vintage influence or not, there was a confectionery like element. Dense yet reticent, this finished remarkably elegant for the vintage. A brooding wine of understated breed. I like this very much -- and earn my first high score for the 2003 red burgundy I've tasted to-date.
The Gevrey 1er Petite Chapelle 2003's character was quite different. Shy aromas which was lower-pitched than the Craipillot, it was sweet, four-square and rather simple. This reminded me more of a higher-pitched version of Cote-de-Beaune, but a worthy 2003 still. This apparently lies in the south-eastern part of the combe lavaut in Gevrey-Chambertin where the wines purportedly sport lower pitch, clarity and overall exquisiteness. Not an inaccurate generalization considering what I noted about this wine if this were representative at all...
The next flight was a trio of another lesser known 1er cru called les Poissenots. This also happened to be the apple of Humbert's eyes although he does make other 'grand' wines such as Estournelles St. Jacques and the grand cru Charmes-Chambertin (which actually contains Mazoyeres grapes). The Gevrey 1er les Poissenots 2001 had a slightly more advanced grilled peanut-shavings and meats on the nose. There were minerals in abundance here, and the sense of persistence and penetrating qualities were obvious. Finished off with a tell-tale Gevrey-earth finish. A structured, almost too stiff wine. Quite impressive.
The 2002 had a nose that literally would take your breath away. This I figured must be a complete wine -- and that's judging from smell alone. And more often than not, I am seldom wrong when such strong intuitions overcome me. Definitively funky Gevrey earth and soy with high-pitched cherries on the nose followed by a broad and linear mouthfeel dominated by red fruits that had what I would call a "spine of fruits" in the midpalate -- at once dense, gripping, intense, persistent and balanced. This is almost a perfect marriage of massive fruits with generous earthiness. Very savoury. Very special... Almost grand cru in size, but already a grand cru in balance and substance.
I knew it would be impossible to upstage the 2002 with the 2003. After tasting the '03, I _know_ that's largely true. Having said that, the 2003 impressed me with the same vitamin-B funk I got with the 01 version, along with earth and minerals. A touch of sweet tea leaves and plums emerged later on. On the palate this has right about the same volume as the preceding two wines and for an '03, an incredible penetrating quality. Finished off very cleanly, turning slightly sticky with extended aeration -- but this wasn't at a disturbing level at all. A highly competent 2003.
What an esoteric sounding name, "Estournelles St. Jacques". The 2003 version, hot on the heels of the Poissenots 2003, had the group divided as to which was their preferred '03 wine. Expectedly, the opinion was nicely divided (except for me, and I'd tell you later which '03 I liked best afterwards...) The Estournelles' nose was more serious than the Poissenots, more commanding if you will. Dark cherries fruits predominate here with a faultless density and sweetness. In the mouth, consequently this had more presence and authority of flavours. Fairly compact and backward in the context of the vintage.
(Grand cru, grand cru, where are you?) And now we move on to Charmes-Chambertin. Two wines were presented -- not sure if this was intentional, but they were totally different from each other -- 2001 and 2003.
The size enlargement of moving up to grand cru was evident when we tasted the Charmes-Chambertin 2003. This was huge and dense, replete with black fruits and plums. However, this had the strongest vintage signature so far -- it had a cloying sweetness and clumsiness that made it easy to guess which year it came from. A disappointing show after a string of refreshingly atypical 2003 tonight.
The 2001 Charmes-Chambertin served right after seemed eager to make up for its younger brother's shortcomings. And a stellar try it was indeed. In contrast, the minerality of this wine seemed to jump right out of the glass, with a typicity that SCREAM Gevrey(!!) Intense, penetrating with high-toned dark cherries that were plush, dense and velvety. An earnest and very hardworking wine but, in my humble opinion, did not show itself better than its lesser 1er cru siblings did.
In closing, Andy blinded us a bottle to compare with the 2001 Charmes -- this turned out to be Mazoyeres-Chambertin from Henri Perrot-Minot 2001 since Humbert's Charmes is technically a Mazoyeres. This wine was quite minerally and had a deep, reserved but rather wild, almost gamey, Gevrey-earth aromas. Quite dense, but rather one-dimensional to me. (Actually I guessed it was a premier cru... but then again I've been so wrong so often in blind, I had already expected another mistake.)
All in all, this is a major discovery for me. I have not been thrilled by a set of burgundies from a single domaine for a long time, and this experience would long be remembered. These wines had a linear, clean and transparent approach to it. They are definitely not old school, but the wines were distinct from each other, and they have typicity and class. Moreover, without a doubt, these were the best 2003 red burgundies I've had to-date. The pitch, brightness and details each 2003 wine tonight displayed were mind-boggling. Some even showed a sense of reserve and restraint. At this point, I feel I must mention that the most special '03 tonight was the Craipillot, but overall the runaway champion must be the Poissenots 2002 -- a complete wine inside out and head to toe with an effortless sense of breed and funky complexity.
Tasting Notes: Lost and Found (a Saturday night out with the boys and Indo friends in town)
Goodness gracious... Again, after the fateful Clos des Lambrays incident in which I lost my newly christened wine tasting notepads complete with its gadget-pen sidekick in the same week, I thought I did it again at this event.
In honour of our beloved Indo friends, Arif and Jonathan, and our tireless thirst for all things burgundy, the gang got together at Crystal Jade Golden Palace restaurant to do a mixture of (i) the usual BYO blind tasting, (ii) a semi-blind of a couple of related wines Andy supplied, and (iii) a mini Bonnes-Mares shootout 2002 between Frederic Magnien and Comte de Vogue. The wines, as usual, came fast and furious...
Aperitif came in the form of Coutoux's Meursault 1er les Genevrieres 2000. This bottle again regretfully proved my theory that a majority of the 2000 white burgundies are going south. Fatigued, spirity nose was followed with semi-retired palate supported by rather lowish acid. For what the critics thought it's worth when they were released, I found nothing special, and everything worrisome about this bottle. Not dead though not far from it...
Chris volunteered his bottle to be presented first, thinking that it might be a tad lighter than the semi-blind flight bottles. Once poured, there's undeniably an aged aroma but the pitch was clearly Cote de Nuits. The wine was soft in the palate and finished with a distinctly cool finish. Quite delicious. I thought this was a poorly stored Gevrey from, say, 1998 -- but grand cru calibre no less. Turned out to be Robert Arnoux's Echezeaux 1996. Now this is _very_ different from all the other bottles I've had before. Arnoux's Ech almost always have the meatstock elements and this is particularly evident in 1996 (most deserving 1996s should show such earthy characteristics at this point in life), yet I found none of this. I also did not find the steeliness and acid-bite typical of the vintage. When he revealed half-way that this was a Vosne (well, for convenience, the group usually categorizes Ech and Grands-Ech into Vosne) my thoughts went into Romanee-St-Vivant due to its softness and femininity. Nonetheless this is a wine I spend some time thinking about well after the last drop as it defied the pictures it's set in my mind per my past experiences.
Chee Wee's came next and this wine too was soft and all feminine. It was more minerally than the first wine -- in fact Gevrey like -- and easygoingly sweet. The density might suggest it was a grand cru . Again I guessed the commune wrong (I thought Gevrey) as this was a Chambolle(!) At this point I was immediately inclined to think this was a 1er -- Chambolle only had two grand crus and this resembled neither IMHO. Vintage wise I thought this was not too far back, coming from a rather hot and ripe, easygoing vintage such as 2000 or 1997, but I was more inclined toward 2000. It turned out to be Frederic Mugnier's Bonnes-Mares 1997. If I spent time thinking about the previous wine, this one I contemplated on it a whole deal longer... It was undoubtedly delicious, showing a good deal of transparency and red fruits (both very Mugnier on hindsight), but I had trouble reconciling the fact that it was a Bonnes-Mares. So either my understanding on Bonnes-Mares had been wrong, or I was just plain lucky to find a new dimension/expression of it. I think the second reason is more like it. In any case, it is indeed true therefore that Mugnier always does not try to hide the characteristics of the vintage. FWIW, this is quite 1997 in character. What an education.
The flight of the semi-blinds was next. A quick run-down...
The first bottle had a meaty and somewhat minerally nose, and raspberry tinged flavour. A grand cru, I thought. While it seemed rather solid initially, this collapsed rather quickly revealing aged tea-like flavours later on. Hudelot-Noellat Clos Vougeot 1997.
The next had a somewhat formidable yet aged character on the nose, revealing punchy and dense red and black fruits with a somewhat oily (oak-influenced) texture. Another grand cru for sure. Louis Jadot Chambertin Clos de Beze 1988.
Again, meats and slightly advanced aromas which were not minerally (and so it ruled out Gevrey for me). Quite stemmy red fruits flavours leaving some residual sweetness and slight warmth at the back. Coche-Dury Volnay 1er Cru 1998.
A shift into youthfulness and deeper colour marked the next wine. Deep purplish red this carried almost roasted fruits. Oily textured and quite extracted. This had a tinge of some raw rice akin to a Sangiovese. Slightly dry and monodimensional in the mouth. Comte Armand Pommard Clos des Epeneaux 2002. (This is markedly different from the first bottle I had a couple of months back which convinced me it was the most special Pommard I'd ever had.)
The next wine was decidedly stemmy and somewhat floral. Almost Vosne-like in the juiciness but otherwise doesn't have pointed characteristics beside those I've mentioned. Nicolas Potel Latricieres-Chambertin 2001.
Louis Jadot Clos Vougeot 1988 had a slightly tomato-ey nose with a suggestion of reduction. The colour is still dense and this had a notable meaty aroma. A somewhat muted performance, in my opinion.
The last of this flight was -- coincidentally or not -- very special. Vitamins, fresh meat and soft plush fruits. Though not huge in size nor especially complex, the whole charm of this wine was in the balance. This had sap and very high-pitched. I knew it was a Cote de Beaune but didn't expect it to be Louis Jadot Volnay Clos de la Barre 1996. Fabulous!
The next two wines were what I brought along. Bertagna's Corton les Grand Lolieres 2002 was candied and clearly modern schooled. This neither had the grandiose nor flavour clarity I would have expected from a Corton. In fact this seemed almost too rich and too ready for such a youthful Corton.
My early worries were confirmed for the Faiveley Chambolle-Musigny La Combe d'Orveau 2002 after I first opened it. It was tight as hell at first and it was still tight as hell. A Chambolle with a spine of steel -- this had everyone fooled (except one) of its origin. High-pitched, very pure, minerally and raspberry tinged fruits. Austere, unforgiving and so awkwardly lean at this point.
The evening concluded with a very nice bottle of Henri Bonneau Chateauneuf du Pape 1994. Not particularly a strong year, this wine demonstrated yet again what this maestro could do. Very few individuals manage to turn out stellar performances year after year. This wine was ready to drink, showing raspberry liqueur, garrigues and an ultra-cool finish. I shook my head as I reflect how many illustriously named producers continue to produce warmish CdPs even in the greatest vintages.
In honour of our beloved Indo friends, Arif and Jonathan, and our tireless thirst for all things burgundy, the gang got together at Crystal Jade Golden Palace restaurant to do a mixture of (i) the usual BYO blind tasting, (ii) a semi-blind of a couple of related wines Andy supplied, and (iii) a mini Bonnes-Mares shootout 2002 between Frederic Magnien and Comte de Vogue. The wines, as usual, came fast and furious...
Aperitif came in the form of Coutoux's Meursault 1er les Genevrieres 2000. This bottle again regretfully proved my theory that a majority of the 2000 white burgundies are going south. Fatigued, spirity nose was followed with semi-retired palate supported by rather lowish acid. For what the critics thought it's worth when they were released, I found nothing special, and everything worrisome about this bottle. Not dead though not far from it...
Chris volunteered his bottle to be presented first, thinking that it might be a tad lighter than the semi-blind flight bottles. Once poured, there's undeniably an aged aroma but the pitch was clearly Cote de Nuits. The wine was soft in the palate and finished with a distinctly cool finish. Quite delicious. I thought this was a poorly stored Gevrey from, say, 1998 -- but grand cru calibre no less. Turned out to be Robert Arnoux's Echezeaux 1996. Now this is _very_ different from all the other bottles I've had before. Arnoux's Ech almost always have the meatstock elements and this is particularly evident in 1996 (most deserving 1996s should show such earthy characteristics at this point in life), yet I found none of this. I also did not find the steeliness and acid-bite typical of the vintage. When he revealed half-way that this was a Vosne (well, for convenience, the group usually categorizes Ech and Grands-Ech into Vosne) my thoughts went into Romanee-St-Vivant due to its softness and femininity. Nonetheless this is a wine I spend some time thinking about well after the last drop as it defied the pictures it's set in my mind per my past experiences.
Chee Wee's came next and this wine too was soft and all feminine. It was more minerally than the first wine -- in fact Gevrey like -- and easygoingly sweet. The density might suggest it was a grand cru . Again I guessed the commune wrong (I thought Gevrey) as this was a Chambolle(!) At this point I was immediately inclined to think this was a 1er -- Chambolle only had two grand crus and this resembled neither IMHO. Vintage wise I thought this was not too far back, coming from a rather hot and ripe, easygoing vintage such as 2000 or 1997, but I was more inclined toward 2000. It turned out to be Frederic Mugnier's Bonnes-Mares 1997. If I spent time thinking about the previous wine, this one I contemplated on it a whole deal longer... It was undoubtedly delicious, showing a good deal of transparency and red fruits (both very Mugnier on hindsight), but I had trouble reconciling the fact that it was a Bonnes-Mares. So either my understanding on Bonnes-Mares had been wrong, or I was just plain lucky to find a new dimension/expression of it. I think the second reason is more like it. In any case, it is indeed true therefore that Mugnier always does not try to hide the characteristics of the vintage. FWIW, this is quite 1997 in character. What an education.
The flight of the semi-blinds was next. A quick run-down...
The first bottle had a meaty and somewhat minerally nose, and raspberry tinged flavour. A grand cru, I thought. While it seemed rather solid initially, this collapsed rather quickly revealing aged tea-like flavours later on. Hudelot-Noellat Clos Vougeot 1997.
The next had a somewhat formidable yet aged character on the nose, revealing punchy and dense red and black fruits with a somewhat oily (oak-influenced) texture. Another grand cru for sure. Louis Jadot Chambertin Clos de Beze 1988.
Again, meats and slightly advanced aromas which were not minerally (and so it ruled out Gevrey for me). Quite stemmy red fruits flavours leaving some residual sweetness and slight warmth at the back. Coche-Dury Volnay 1er Cru 1998.
A shift into youthfulness and deeper colour marked the next wine. Deep purplish red this carried almost roasted fruits. Oily textured and quite extracted. This had a tinge of some raw rice akin to a Sangiovese. Slightly dry and monodimensional in the mouth. Comte Armand Pommard Clos des Epeneaux 2002. (This is markedly different from the first bottle I had a couple of months back which convinced me it was the most special Pommard I'd ever had.)
The next wine was decidedly stemmy and somewhat floral. Almost Vosne-like in the juiciness but otherwise doesn't have pointed characteristics beside those I've mentioned. Nicolas Potel Latricieres-Chambertin 2001.
Louis Jadot Clos Vougeot 1988 had a slightly tomato-ey nose with a suggestion of reduction. The colour is still dense and this had a notable meaty aroma. A somewhat muted performance, in my opinion.
The last of this flight was -- coincidentally or not -- very special. Vitamins, fresh meat and soft plush fruits. Though not huge in size nor especially complex, the whole charm of this wine was in the balance. This had sap and very high-pitched. I knew it was a Cote de Beaune but didn't expect it to be Louis Jadot Volnay Clos de la Barre 1996. Fabulous!
The next two wines were what I brought along. Bertagna's Corton les Grand Lolieres 2002 was candied and clearly modern schooled. This neither had the grandiose nor flavour clarity I would have expected from a Corton. In fact this seemed almost too rich and too ready for such a youthful Corton.
My early worries were confirmed for the Faiveley Chambolle-Musigny La Combe d'Orveau 2002 after I first opened it. It was tight as hell at first and it was still tight as hell. A Chambolle with a spine of steel -- this had everyone fooled (except one) of its origin. High-pitched, very pure, minerally and raspberry tinged fruits. Austere, unforgiving and so awkwardly lean at this point.
The evening concluded with a very nice bottle of Henri Bonneau Chateauneuf du Pape 1994. Not particularly a strong year, this wine demonstrated yet again what this maestro could do. Very few individuals manage to turn out stellar performances year after year. This wine was ready to drink, showing raspberry liqueur, garrigues and an ultra-cool finish. I shook my head as I reflect how many illustriously named producers continue to produce warmish CdPs even in the greatest vintages.
22 February, 2006
Where are my TASTING NOTES? (Domaine des Lambrays)
Darn me. I came back from Domaine des Lambrays tasting having taken notes of the wines that night (most of which I recall were not exceptional at all) and a few days later as I tried to squeeze some time to write this blog, I found that I lost the small new notebook with a snazzy little retractable pen.
Anyway, this tasting event with the Chevaliers took place in a very nice north Indian restaurant Rang Mahal. The food was excellent - I could still taste the smokiness of the chicken tandoori days after in my mouth, and the kadhai prawns was just delicious.
As my brain cells get fewer by the days (too much burg-bashing taking place), I regret to myself that I would not be able to write any notes regarding the wines that night. That said I could recall some impressions here and there about the general presentation of the evening.
The wines in general was, well, underwhelming... I believe it was the function of the selection for the evening as well as the increasingly modern winemaking style the domaine seems to have adopted. The white featured were surprisingly good. Some of the 2003s were very well made -- noticeably adjusted, but skillfully executed. Puligny les Folatieres 2002 and 2003 were presented, as well as Puligny Caillerets 2001 and 2003. The 2001, as expected, was already showing signs of tiredness, while the 2002 possessed the most complete and formidable make up of all the wines tonight.
The red selections was rather disappointing. The Morey 1er les Loups were presented in its 2002 and 2003 versions, while the domaine's eponymous flagships came in 2000 and 2003 versions. The les Loups 2002 was probably the most sound and elegant wine of the evening, while des Lambrays grand crus did not, in my opinion, reflect its exalted grand cru status. Many attendants actually liked the 2000, which in my opinion was hollow and rather coarsely textured. The 2003, despite obvious heat-inflected fruits and heavy-handed wood handling, was comparably more sleek and flavoursome in the midpalate. However both did not live up to my fond memories of the 1998 version, which in my opinion was lovely for its earthy and layered fruit expressions, nor the unshyly berry-scented 2002 version which in spite of the obvious makeups, had a very supple and reasonably dense midpalate which I would expect to layer out in time.
Anyway, this tasting event with the Chevaliers took place in a very nice north Indian restaurant Rang Mahal. The food was excellent - I could still taste the smokiness of the chicken tandoori days after in my mouth, and the kadhai prawns was just delicious.
As my brain cells get fewer by the days (too much burg-bashing taking place), I regret to myself that I would not be able to write any notes regarding the wines that night. That said I could recall some impressions here and there about the general presentation of the evening.
The wines in general was, well, underwhelming... I believe it was the function of the selection for the evening as well as the increasingly modern winemaking style the domaine seems to have adopted. The white featured were surprisingly good. Some of the 2003s were very well made -- noticeably adjusted, but skillfully executed. Puligny les Folatieres 2002 and 2003 were presented, as well as Puligny Caillerets 2001 and 2003. The 2001, as expected, was already showing signs of tiredness, while the 2002 possessed the most complete and formidable make up of all the wines tonight.
The red selections was rather disappointing. The Morey 1er les Loups were presented in its 2002 and 2003 versions, while the domaine's eponymous flagships came in 2000 and 2003 versions. The les Loups 2002 was probably the most sound and elegant wine of the evening, while des Lambrays grand crus did not, in my opinion, reflect its exalted grand cru status. Many attendants actually liked the 2000, which in my opinion was hollow and rather coarsely textured. The 2003, despite obvious heat-inflected fruits and heavy-handed wood handling, was comparably more sleek and flavoursome in the midpalate. However both did not live up to my fond memories of the 1998 version, which in my opinion was lovely for its earthy and layered fruit expressions, nor the unshyly berry-scented 2002 version which in spite of the obvious makeups, had a very supple and reasonably dense midpalate which I would expect to layer out in time.
15 February, 2006
Another excuse to hang out and drink more wines! (not all burgs)
The next evening, as Sylvie was around, Andy gathered a bunch of us for dinner at Golden Palace. I didn't join the gang for dinner, but dropped by for drinks, so to speak. As I understand it, they had been out the whole afternoon as well, imbibing, I am sure, a fair amount of vinous delights while poor me slogged out my mundane professional existence in my lonely office all day long. Duh...
A white burg was featured first. Pineappley, dense but with a somewhat aged colour, this wine turned out to be a Meursault villages "les Pellans" 2001. Good for what it is, and I enjoyed the nice clean finish of it although overall this was a rather odd package -- not saying in any way that it was flawed. It was advanced in sight and aromas but finished with some youthful bites. Nonetheless it was quite delicious so I'm not complaining!
Jamet's Cote-Rotie's 1988 was next. Meaty leathery nose with some barnyard-tinged high-toned blueberry fruits. The wine was struggling to stay awake, IMHO. It's not dead, but it was certainly drying up and was now very tired.
The next wine was clearly a burgundy. The nose hits with a confectionery element and suggestions of rather strong wood handling and extract. The palate was spicy with a warmish finish I would identify with wines from Cote-de-Beaune. What perplexed me was that for all the dressings it had, it lacked the middle core. I tended to think it was Volnay but couldn't be sure... A disappointing show of Lafon's Volnay Santenots du Milieu 2002 (I thought it was a 2000). This should have done better. His other vintages, despite the modern approach to winemaking, had better fruits density. Did he replant his old vines recently? or was his vineyard troubled by hail too? I was asking all these questions to myself...
A wine poured out of a decanter was next and it was obvious it was not a burg. Quite huge, with liqueur like raspberry sweetness and a chewy palate I would associate with southern rhone wines. Turned out to be a L'Oustal Blanc 2002 Minervois -- presumably made from predominantly grenache. For what it was selling for, I must say this was an excellent wine, although personally I found it rather outsized.
Ogier's Cote-Rotie "les Embruns" was most impressive. At once the nose screamed something special -- soy, earth, cranberry-pitched currants, very explosive and peppery. On the palate it was seamless, dense, yet light-footed. This wine vindicated all my sentiments regarding the northern rhone producing wines of more captivating interests than most regions in France (save for Burgundy of course).
This was followed by a massive Chateauneuf du Pape from Clos des Papes vintage 2003. Apparently this had been decanted for 10 hours beforehand. Right now the liqueur element and raisins are beginning to come out. Still clenched and quite fresh (beyond what I expected out of this vintage -- but then again I'm such a novice for Rhones). There were red fruits and no roastedness on the palate. Well built, but not my cup of tea.
The next wine was weird. It was guessed as having come from all over the place (all Cote de Nuits fortunately) but none got the place right -- it was a Clos Vougeot 1999 from Anne Gros. This was another example of extracted school of burgundy with a healthy dose of toast. Fortunately there was enough density at the midpalate. Nonetheless the sense of origin and details are lost still. Spicy, voluminous and meaty as it was, it was rather Vosne-like to me and there's just too much make up on this wine. Good but rather boring.
We ended the red flight with a blind bottle which Andy quickly identified as a Pegau CdP 1999 -- spot on. This too had a slightly funky mustiness to it, with lots of spirits and oldish fruits. I can understand why people liked it -- it was delicious and had a good breed -- but not exciting at all to me. I suppose it is just me...
A sip of Lafaurie-Peyraguey Sauternes 2001 capped off the vinous gathering. I'm not into stickies but this one was delicious, bright and clean. Very nice, I liked it.
A white burg was featured first. Pineappley, dense but with a somewhat aged colour, this wine turned out to be a Meursault villages "les Pellans" 2001. Good for what it is, and I enjoyed the nice clean finish of it although overall this was a rather odd package -- not saying in any way that it was flawed. It was advanced in sight and aromas but finished with some youthful bites. Nonetheless it was quite delicious so I'm not complaining!
Jamet's Cote-Rotie's 1988 was next. Meaty leathery nose with some barnyard-tinged high-toned blueberry fruits. The wine was struggling to stay awake, IMHO. It's not dead, but it was certainly drying up and was now very tired.
The next wine was clearly a burgundy. The nose hits with a confectionery element and suggestions of rather strong wood handling and extract. The palate was spicy with a warmish finish I would identify with wines from Cote-de-Beaune. What perplexed me was that for all the dressings it had, it lacked the middle core. I tended to think it was Volnay but couldn't be sure... A disappointing show of Lafon's Volnay Santenots du Milieu 2002 (I thought it was a 2000). This should have done better. His other vintages, despite the modern approach to winemaking, had better fruits density. Did he replant his old vines recently? or was his vineyard troubled by hail too? I was asking all these questions to myself...
A wine poured out of a decanter was next and it was obvious it was not a burg. Quite huge, with liqueur like raspberry sweetness and a chewy palate I would associate with southern rhone wines. Turned out to be a L'Oustal Blanc 2002 Minervois -- presumably made from predominantly grenache. For what it was selling for, I must say this was an excellent wine, although personally I found it rather outsized.
Ogier's Cote-Rotie "les Embruns" was most impressive. At once the nose screamed something special -- soy, earth, cranberry-pitched currants, very explosive and peppery. On the palate it was seamless, dense, yet light-footed. This wine vindicated all my sentiments regarding the northern rhone producing wines of more captivating interests than most regions in France (save for Burgundy of course).
This was followed by a massive Chateauneuf du Pape from Clos des Papes vintage 2003. Apparently this had been decanted for 10 hours beforehand. Right now the liqueur element and raisins are beginning to come out. Still clenched and quite fresh (beyond what I expected out of this vintage -- but then again I'm such a novice for Rhones). There were red fruits and no roastedness on the palate. Well built, but not my cup of tea.
The next wine was weird. It was guessed as having come from all over the place (all Cote de Nuits fortunately) but none got the place right -- it was a Clos Vougeot 1999 from Anne Gros. This was another example of extracted school of burgundy with a healthy dose of toast. Fortunately there was enough density at the midpalate. Nonetheless the sense of origin and details are lost still. Spicy, voluminous and meaty as it was, it was rather Vosne-like to me and there's just too much make up on this wine. Good but rather boring.
We ended the red flight with a blind bottle which Andy quickly identified as a Pegau CdP 1999 -- spot on. This too had a slightly funky mustiness to it, with lots of spirits and oldish fruits. I can understand why people liked it -- it was delicious and had a good breed -- but not exciting at all to me. I suppose it is just me...
A sip of Lafaurie-Peyraguey Sauternes 2001 capped off the vinous gathering. I'm not into stickies but this one was delicious, bright and clean. Very nice, I liked it.
11 February, 2006
Boyer-Martenot 2004 dinner with Sylvie Boyer
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.....
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.....
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
