Chablis Terroir Fest

A long-planned investigation in to the role of soils and “geochemical terroir” finally took place with a group of Earth Scientists at Penn State. The goal was to take a single vintage (2006) and a single producer (William Fèvre) to eliminate at least the gross differences associated with winemaker and growing season, even if subtle differences in exposure cannot be eliminated. Otherwise, the intent was to focus on the differences that soil made in the character of the wine in this particular vintage, although even here both the physical (drainage) and chemical properties come into play.

The intent also was to compare a Petit Chablis grown on Portlandian soil, but the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board was unable to deliver these despite having ordered them 3 weeks in advance, so we opted for a quick buy of a 2006 Drouhin Chablis Premier Cru, presumably actually derived from 1er Cru vineyards, but made in a dramatically different (and inferior) style to the Fèvre Chablis.

The Wines

100% Chardonnay, all grown on Kimmeridgian (Jurassic)-derived soil, in most cases consisting of clay, marl, and oyster shells. Exposure varies, with the Grand Cru having the most direct southerly exposure (full sun). The Premier Cru grown to the southwest of the river (Montmains and Vaillons) face southeast. 

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Montmains
A Premier Cru vineyard that faces southeast, grown on a deep soil that mixes marl and clay on top of a Kimmeridgian subsoil. Apparently this blends three different vineyards from the same slope, with one of them including slightly later maturing fruit. Pale yellow-green in color. Initially, very subdued aromas of citrus and crushed chalk, but the wine takes on a spicier floral note with some time in the glass. This tastes initially like a 1:1 mixture of fruit and soil, but given some time, the fruit fleshes out and the mouthfeel becomes sappier and sweeter. This needs some time in the glass to show its suave character, at which point tropical fruit and floral nuances begin to appear. Classic Chablis, this really combines 1er Cru power and minerality. 

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Vaillons
A Premier Cru vineyard that faces southeast, grown on a soil dominated by limestone rather than clay and resting on a hard, fractured limestone bed. Primary citrus aromas dominate along with a subtler note of chalk dust, but these components don’t strike me as integrated at least at the moment In the mouth this comes across as slightly tart without the buffering evident in the Montmains. In our tasting back in California after an hour, this came across as nearly ordinary Chardonnay, although still head and heels above the Drouhin tasted at Penn State. This just did not have the sappiness, spiciness, or underlying complexity of the more slowly evolving Montmains. What role does the lower clay content (and corresponding ion exchange capacity) of this soil profile have? In any case, I think the critics have over-rated this wine by a couple of points, and this strikes me as a step down from the Fèvre Vaillons in 2002.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Fourchaume 
A Premier Cru tasted only in California, I decided to substitute the Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent for this one at Penn State. South-southwest exposure with a marl-rich topsoil of variable thickness. On the nose, this wine is much more expressive right out of the gate than the two preceding Premier Cru, with both tropical fruit and floral notes emerging. On the palate, the wine is sappy and round, but it seems to become less delineated and precise with time, finally losing some of its early power. After an hour or so, I thought that the Montmains was showing as the marginally better (or more interesting) wine.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent
A Premier Cru, but separated from the Grand Cru Preuses by a footpath. South-southwest exposure, with dense, compact clay-rich soil resting on a limestone bed. On the nose, a more extravagant citrus, tropical fruit, and white flower notes infused by minerality. In the mouth, this is much richer and has much better volume than the Premier Cru from the other side of the river, but also showing much greater clarity and sustainability of expression than the basic Fourchaume. This was a big step up from the foregoing wines, and I was pleased to see that quite a few of the tasters at Penn State noticed this. This is definitely Grand Cru quality.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Bougros
A southwest-exposed Grand Cru located just down the hill from Preuses, which is just to the east of Fourchaume. Some of the production is from relatively low-lying ground near the river where the drainage is perhaps not quite as good. Fèvre says this is grown on clay-rich topsoil. This was perhaps the most reserved of the noses that we encountered, with citrus and distant chalk dust as the main expressions of the aromatic profile caught early in its evolutionary development. This wine struck me as more linear than the other Fèvre Chablis (with the exception of the Vaillons)—while it had good underlying power and volume, it was not yet showing those evanescent fruit and floral notes of the best of the other Fèvre. I would put this wine a notch below the Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent, at least at this point.

2006 William Fèvre Chablis Bougros Côtes des Bouguerots
A Grand Cru from a direct south-facing slope of nearly 30% grade, apparently a fault scarp. The thinnest soils of all of the Grand and Premier Cru, consisting of clay and pebbles, this makes it hard to grow the vines. Whoa doggie, this one delivered everything one could expect and more--if anybody at the Penn State tasting was starting to slow down, this one jerked by the lapels and announced itself as Grand Cru. This one had all the floral and faint tropical fruit nuances of the Fourchaume Vignoble de Vaulorent, but with an extra dimension of what I can only refer to as “muscle”—it presents a powerful, sappy mid-palate that complements the nonlinear notes (faint notes of a distant tropical isle, a stony white flower-filled grotto) that arise on the long, high Reynolds Number finish. I was again pleased to see that quite a few of the tasters (including some neophytes) realized what they were tasting here.

2006 Drouhin Chablis Premier Cru
When the PLCB failed to deliver the Petit Chablis, we grabbed a few bottles of this as a comparison, but it barely registered as the same varietal for me. Thin, acidic, this seemed to be missing anything resembling ripe fruit at its core. The contrast with the Fèvre wines was dramatic. Still, at least a few people (perhaps hammered at this stage) rated this as their favorite. 

Epilogue
My own order for the Fèvre Chablis would be the Bougros Côtes des Bouguerots as the top wine, followed by the Fourchaumes Vignoble de Vaulorent, then the Bougros, then the Montmains or Fourchaume, with the Vaillons a step down from the others. The connection to soil remains speculative (one cannot of course doubt the importance of exposure), but I am developing some speculative hypotheses for the role of clay (and its ion exchange content) in combination with the highly soluble carbonate of the oyster shells in the Kimmeridgian. More data is needed, but we did have a Program Officer from the U.S. National Science Foundation there, although she only laughed when it was suggested that she needed to fund more research in “geochemical terroir”.

Last offline before the cataclysm?

LAST OFFLINE BEFORE THE CATACLYSM - (10/7/2008)

We thought this might be the last offline before the financial cataclysm has all of the wine geeks roaming the streets like so many dispossessed waifs in a novel by Cormac McCarthy. So we (myself, DrWine2001, Darvid, and Lou Rittenhouse) were hoping for the best with a first flight of 2000 white Burgundies followed by a couple of 1990 Corton. While the white Burgundies showed well, and mostly in keeping with expectations and previous experiences, the Corton were a big disappointment, with a Jadot Corton Pougets apparently flawed and an Ambroise Corton Rognet showing the unflattering effects of big-time overextraction. Well, the Ambroise helped to answer my post of several years ago about how highly extracted wines evolve, although I have certainly had other data points upon which to base my rapidly firming conclusions.

• 2000 François Raveneau Chablis 1er Cru Montée de Tonnerre - France, Burgundy, Chablis, Chablis 1er Cru
  Very pale straw yellow, this wine showed very similarly to a previous bottle, with perhaps a bit less punch in the mid-palate than I recalled from that one. On the nose, a fading lemon note inflected by soil, with a bitter note (that showed up on the palate as well) that suggested quinine at least to me. In the mouth, a distinctly saline, briney note appears that had me thinking about the typical Chablis cliches--it really wasn't hard to think of this wine as being influenced by its oyster shell soil. As with previous 2000 Raveneau MdT, and the slightly more powerful (but also more aged) 1990 MdT from Raveneau, this wine is delicate, detailed, and all about finesse.
• 2000 Domaine Latour-Giraud Meursault 1er Cru Les Perrières - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Meursault 1er Cru
  Bright medium yellow, this wine offered an interesting contrast with the less powerful Raveneau Montee de Tonnerre of the same vintage. The nose was dominated initially by a distinct sulfur note, which we treated (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) with a copper penny, but time in the glass seemed to reduce these aromas. Peeking through the sulfur haze were aromas that seem to have transitioned from citrus to red apple and pear, with a yeasty pain grille note suggested in the background. In the mouth this is impressively full bodied and balanced, with a powerful core of citrus and orchard fruit melded with the underlying minerality of the wine. I think we caught this one a little early, but this should evolve into a complete wine with a couple of more years in the bottle.

• 1990 Louis Jadot Corton-Pougets - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Corton Grand Cru
  Volatile vegetal nose with a note of harsh lemon thyme. On the palate, really not much better--a sweet attack, that might be due to chapitalization as DrWine2001 suggested, since the finish on the wine was astringent. Certainly a disjointed wine, this seemed to be going in five different directions at once, and none of them pleasurable. In fact, this sweet note on the palate seemed to fade with time in the glass and we were left with a medium-bodied hard edged wine that gives no pleasure. My guess is that this was stored at a bit too high a temperature for some years (75F) and disparate elements diverged rather than integrated with time, but this is speculation. One is tempted perhaps to blame it all on poor storage, but I am not even convinced that the individual elements in this wine are all that attractive, since even the fruit core of the wine comes across in an unflattering way. NR (flawed)
• 1990 Maison Bertrand Ambroise Corton-Rognet - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Corton Grand Cru
  Dark ruby red to almost purple, the nose on this wine only reluctantly shows anything beyond a hint of the massive dark fruit that underlies it. On the palate, this is concentrated, but also very tannic, with a hard and drying edge to the tannins on the finish. The fruit, while concentrated, is impenetrable--I don't believe I would have guessed this as Pinot Noir at all. Presumably we are drinking this too soon, but I can't believe this has the potential to do anything but soften up a bit with time, although the tannins as they are will never disappear. This seems to me to be Exhibit A of what happens when you over-extract a wine. You make a big monolithic wine that has no potential to evolve into anything better.
• 1995 Domaine de Montille Volnay 1er Cru Champans - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Volnay 1er Cru
  Medium-bodied, with a cool Pinot nose that offers a refreshing contrast to the forgoing 1990 Corton monsters. This wine is not quite ready yet, with a reserved dark fruited palate that probably needs another 5 years to really blossom, but the raw materials are there in what seems to be the proper balance and good detail. Should be interesting to resample with some more bottle age.

Posted from CellarTracker

2000 Chateauneuf du Pape

Here was another chance to check out the 2000 CdP, in this case the Pegau Reservee up against the 2000 Janasse Vieilles Vignes. A very interesting contrast in style, with the signature Janasse VV style clearly on display, very dark sweet cherry and underbrush balanced by fine tannins and an almost buried acidity. The 2000 Pegau Reservee showed mostly as expected, with the typical Pegau balance of acidity and spiciness making for a very well balanced drink.

• 2006 Domaine William Fèvre Chablis 1er Cru Les Lys - France, Burgundy, Chablis, Chablis 1er Cru
  Very pale straw yellow, this started out a bit warm, but as the wine cooled down and took on some air, it sharpened up into a 1er Cru quality driink as the citrus and mineral-dominant gained some urgency and breadth and the gradually expanding nose showed white flower and sea brine aromas with time in the glass. My first experience with this particular 1er Cru, this seems to be a touch less rustic than the Fevre Vaillons and better structured than the typical Fevre Montmains, so it is worth following.

• 2000 Domaine du Pégaü Châteauneuf-du-Pape Cuvée Réservée - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Châteauneuf-du-Pape
  That trademark Pegau spiciness and acid balance is here, with a restrained nose of garrigue and dark fruit, this turned out to be an interesting contrast with the 2000 Janasse Vieille Vignes showing a very different style of CdP (sweet dark cherry). I don't clearly see the raw materials for the Pegau to involve in to a strikingly more complex wine, but it is drinking very nicely now.
• 2000 Domaine de la Janasse Châteauneuf-du-Pape Vieilles Vignes - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Châteauneuf-du-Pape
  Very dark ruby red, this made for a very interesting contrast with the 2000 Pegau. The Janasse VV style was clearly evident here, with a core of sweet viscous dark cherry balanced by very fine grained tannins and a backbone of acidity. This is similar in style to the 2001 Janasse VV, but well on its way to maturity, since the flavors are no longer completely primary. On the nose, the dark kirsch aromas are swept by a woodier element, perhaps some oak that is well integrated, but conveying now something much more like underbrush. The nose was more expressive than the 2000 Pegau, and the kirsch/dark cherry flavors currently more intense, this wine is aging very well. Demonstrates to me how well the Janasse VV can age...

Half Italian Night

Another day, another dollar, so it was time to try to put a dent in the Rittenhouse cellar, with some real treats on the list. The Zind-Humbrecht Brand was an epiphany for me, my first Zind as far as I recall, this was the perfect aperitif. I am not normally a big fan of Rieslings with much in the way of residual sugar, but this wine really carried it off. And that 1997 Scavino (my second bottle) was another standout, showing as distinctly more open and accessible than the backward, brooding monster I had tasted only a few months before.

• 1999 Zind-Humbrecht Riesling Brand - France, Alsace, Turckheim, Alsace Grand Cru AOC
  A sweet viscous attack, then a wave of fine acidity sweeps through and transforms this wine on the finish--delicate, intricately detailed, and a good 30 seconds in length. Sort of like those firework displays where the big initial explosion is followed by a scintillating shower of sparks that settles slowly to the ground. This wine is all about its finish, where the Grand Cru status I suspect would be obvious even to the complete neophyte. A musky nose offers up notes of soil and honey that infuse the floral aromas, maybe something like what a bee picks up when it zeroes in on its target. I think this was my first Zind-Humbrecht and I became an instant believer. (94 pts.)

• 2007 Bruno Giacosa Roero Arneis - Italy, Piedmont, Alba, Roero DOC
  Straw yellow, with lively aromas of mineral-laden citrus and a lurking floral element currently dominating the nose. In the mouth, the wine really struck me as almost racy, at least not the lush and full-bodied palate that Antonio Galloni describes, but then my experience with Arneis is minimal. And I might have been influenced by the decadent Zind-Humbrecht Grand Cru we had just finished. A bracingly good drink, I need to find some of these... (91 pts.)

• 1997 Paolo Scavino Barolo Bric dël Fiasc - Italy, Piedmont, Langhe, Barolo
  The second bottle tasted within the space of a couple of months, this one didn't show the same backwardness and reserve--in fact, the wild brambly dark cherry aromas cascade out of the glass, skillfully melded with spicy oak notes that seem to have transformed to something more like underbrush on the sweeping finish. In the mouth the wine shows dense and deeply pitched flavors of dark cherry and plum, with surprising liveliness that is conveyed by the deeply seated tannins and acidity that provide a scaffolding for the wine. As before, there is great depth to this wine and a long and bright future if anybody has any bottles resting... (94 pts.)

• 2003 Château La Tour Blanche - France, Bordeaux, Médoc
  From a 375 ml bottle, I still find this one of the more attractive of the 2003 Sauternes that I have tried, although I am not a big fan of the vintage. Very dense and sweet in the mouth, the wine comes across as well-balanced even at this relatively early stage, although a touch more acidity would still have provided some additional structure and space for additional complexity to develop. (91 pts.)

Catching a wine as it transforms

I have had the opportunity recently to catch a couple of my wines just as they seem to be transforming from primary to at least secondary characteristics, starting the climb up to that "plateau of maturity" where presumably they will drink at their best. But the transformation time is in its own way equally exciting, as if watching a child slide into adolescence or adulthood.

My recent experiences along these lines have included the 1998 Pegau Reservee, the last bottle of which really struck me as having turned the corner, with the primary fruit giving way to a much subtle and complicated interplay of almost Burgundian themes on the nose and the palate. Another example was the 2000 Fevre Bougros Cotes des Bouguerots, maybe a little less far along, but showing the first signs of shedding those raw citrus and nervous minerality notes in favor of a more seamless integration of the two, the appearance of a more prominent floral character, and a sappier, rounded mouthfeel.

My most recent example was the other evening, a 2000 Vieux Donjon Chateauneuf du Pape, a bottle I was a little worried about given some of my own and other people's experiences with the 2000 Chateauneuf. But this one was in beautiful shape, with those primary "fruity" flavors having apparently just given way to an aromatic and palate profile in which ripe fruit is only one of the components. The result ultimately is a wine with much greater intensity of flavor, a distinct enhancement of spice, and a deeper and more layered nose. This is still far from a legendary wine, but it seems to be fulfilling its initial promise, making the best of the raw materials with which it is endowed.  If I had bought only a couple of bottles of this wine, I probably would never have caught this fleeting transformation...

Post Cellar Reorg Tasting

We finished reorganizing my cellar, so it was time for a modest celebration. We started with a 2006 Vincent Dauvissat Chablis la Forest. This wine is normally about as reliable as any out there today and the 2006 was no exception. Pale yellow, with plenty of mineral-laden citrus notes on the nose and a powerful presence on the palate, its only real problem at this point is its age (or lack of it) I think—the delineation and clarity is not quite there yet, as if a low level of white noise was blurring things on the palate. Tasted by itself, one might have dismissed these impressions, but followed by a 2000 Fevre Bougros Côtes des Bouguerots, its relative youth and perhaps its 1er cru status were apparent. Still, should be quite good in five to eight years…

The Dauvissat went too fast, so we cracked a second Chablis, a 2000 Fevre Chablis Bougros Côtes des Bouguerots. Wow, this one really did put the youngster Forest in its place. The slight blurring of the Forest was replaced by precise delineation here, with fainter citrus notes infused with white flowers and chalk dust. On the palate, a downright sappy mouthfeel with a distinct lemon oil character and a minerality that seems to come from great depth but yet remains in a supporting role compared to some of the other Chablis Grand Cru one might encounter, as if the minerality was fully dissolved rather than colloidal. Despite the evident viscosity of the wine, it has great energy, sweeping from back to front of the palate (yes, that direction) on the long and perfectly balanced finish. I have heard some tasters whose opinion I respect question whether the Fevre Bouguerots were quite up to Grand Cru status, but this one certainly was. This wine seems to be on a perfect aging trajectory, with the start of the maturity plateau about four years off.

Now for what was supposed to be the pièce de résistance, a 1975 Chateau Haut Brion. I had had an earlier bottle with David Sankaran and crew some years back and I was impressed enough to go out and buy a couple of these. The bottle looked to be in great shape, with a very high neck fill, so I was optimistic. On the nose the wine was expressive, but not particularly powerful, with high-toned notes of slightly green minty wood smoke and tobacco. The smoky notes that we expect from an old Haut Brion seemed shallow and quickly vanished compared to the deep, shape-shifting charcoal notes of the first bottle. In the mouth the wine’s breeding was apparent, but the depth of dark fruit and multiple layers were not there as they had been in the first bottle. While this was still an enjoyable bottle, I could not help but feel that it did not scale the heights that I expected it to. Let’s hope for the next (and last) bottle…

Last up was a 2001 Sauternes that it turns out I have quite a few bottles of, the 2001 Sigalas Rabaud Sauternes. Bright yellow-gold in color, with very rich peach, apricot, honey and fainter floral aromas on the nose. In the mouth the impression is of viscosity and an almost exotic sweetness that is combined with a healthy acidity as a counterpoint. All the ingredients were there from the start, but at least initially the wow factor was not there—but with about 30 minutes of air (basically glass #2), the components seem to ignite and we had blastoff. The botrytis and the acidity seem to take charge at this point and the wine moved to a whole new level. The modest beginning followed by the late stage blossoming makes me think this wine needs a few more years in the bottle, but then watch out…

Two Brilliant Chateauneufs

We assembled at one of the East Bay’s better kept secrets (well, maybe not for long), Wood Tavern of Oakland, for dinner on Friday. It was a grueling week of trying to write by committee a big proposal on storing CO2 deep in the Earth. So perhaps my notes are a bit skewed, but they seemed to check out against the impressions of Board member Lou Rittenhouse.

First up was a 2005 Maison Deux Montille Soeur et Frère Montagny Coères 1er a lively, steely white Burg that pretty much everyone would label as “sans flab”. Steely, I said, but still with plenty of brisk notes of citrus and apple to provide a sweet core. This is the kind of wine to reawaken the senses after a long week.

Next up were two Chateauneuf du Papes that could only be described as brilliant. I had had one previous great bottle of 1989 Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape, which seriously upstaged a slightly off bottle of 1998 Pegau Cuvée Laurence. This bottle of Beaucastel was even better, with a touch of that signature Brett that was firmly under control, merging beautifully with aromas of ripe cherries, underbrush, and leather. The beautifully balanced aromatics didn’t quite prepare me for what followed on the palate though—a profusion of lively sweet and spicy cherry flavors rolling from front to back as a viscous wave. This seemed to be a case where “explosion” was just about the right phrase, with the original detonation on the palate followed by a long scintillating finish. What a great wine!!

Well, the 1998 Pegau Cuvée Laurence may have been shown up last time, but this time the 1998 Pegau Cuvée Reservée held its own, especially if you take into account its younger age. This was the best 1998 Pegau I have had, and the wine really seems to be hitting its stride now—I can only shake my head with regret over the previous bottles I drank too early. One whiff of the wine and I cracked a smile as a profusion of red currant berry, garrigue, and licorice cascaded out of the glass. On the complex palate it presents an interesting contrast with the Beaucastel, with the higher proportion of Grenache providing licorice notes in place of cherry. The flavors were classic Chateauneuf, but the wine is beginning to take on an almost Burgundian character in the way that multiple themes seem to set up and play out on the palate. Wow, two great wines in one night…