The number of reports of prematurely oxidized (premox) Fevre Chablis is becoming worrisome considering how many I have in the cellar. It seems difficult to completely discount all of the reports of premox Fevre coming in given the wide range of wine tasters/geeks reporting it. Still, one's own experience has to be the most reliable, given that one can compare results of wines stored under the same conditions and then sampled with the same palate.
My own first indication that something was going on was this past summer when I drank one of my stash of 2002 Fevre Vaillons, a Premier Cru that in the past had performed quite well, even if not at maturity. The wine is marked by a viscous oily palate expression that shows distinct aromas of petrol, almost like a Riesling transplanted to Kimmeridgian soil. When immature, the wine is characterized by a bracing citrus core, that while fatter than many a classical Chablis, still represents accurately the terroir. This past summer, however, the Vaillons seemed to have taken a significant leap forward on the aging curve, with floral and tropical fruit aromas appearing along with nutty flavors and a marked softening of the palate. Actually drinking quite well in its style, but one would have to conclude that it was either at peak, or slightly past it.
Another bottle of 2002 Fevre Vaillons this fall showed a similar character, although it was not so far along the aging curve. The petrol notes on the nose seem to have given way to honeysuckle floral aromas, and the sharp citrus edge is rounding out. Again a nice bottle, maybe losing a little bit of its nervosite, but drinking well nontheless. But the accelerated aging here is hard not to notice.
Then a bottle of 2002 Fevre Preuses (Grand Cru Chablis) at Lou Rittenhouse's place. I thought the initial nose showed the slightest touch of premox, but since the signal did not strengthen with time in the glass, I wouldn't hold to that opinion. But the wine was soft and accessible, maybe just this side of maturity, without any of that hard citrus/mineral edge that the purists always look for in their Chablis. In fact, the wine was quite reserved and subdued, a real sleeper wine with submerged complexity, that some might have called dilute or watery. In fact, it reminded me a bit of a 2002 Fevre les Clos tasted at our Rubicon offline a few years back, which was missing the power and the emphatic signature one usually finds in bottles of les Clos. The conclusion there was that the wine was just sleeping, but it was interesting to see something of that same signature in the Preuses. Rather than sounding negative on this wine, I should point out that the Grand Cru complexity was lurking there--I was glad to see those signature Preuses tidal pool aromas and that saline bite had survived the aging process. But I don't know long-lived this wine is going to be. ...
Another 2002 sampled last week was the 2002 Fevre Bougros, a Grand Cru from low on the slope below Preuses. I think of this as a second tier Grand Cru--in 2006, for example, it did not show quite as well as the 2006 Fevre Fourchaume Vaulorent, although that may be partly because the Bougros will take longer to come around. But it does not normally have quite the complexity of the top Grand Cru (e.g. Preuses, Clos, Bougros Cotes des Bouguerots,...), even if the power is there. However, on this Friday the 2002 Fevre Bougros was showing very well, replete with vibrant energy conveyed by the citrus core, which is now softened and rounded slightly relative to how it showed when young. The round palate here is viscous, almost sappy, and a distinct petroleum note emerges on the nose, very similar in style to the Vaillons when younger. So not a great Grand Cru, but still performing quite well at its level--a bit more power and structure than the Premier Cru Vaillons from across the river, and another step up in viscosity. We had another bottle on Monday at Five Restaurant that was slightly corked, and the fruit was clearly muted compared to the Friday bottle.
So while I don't think it is time to drink all of your Fevre Chablis, one would do well to keep closer track of them. In particular, the 2002 seem to be aging fast, which is perhaps in keeping with their ripe, somewhat more accessible style (as compared, for example, to a Dauvissat).
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Cult California Cabs
The usual suspects and then some convened for a tasting of California Cabs from a couple of different eras: Flight 1 2005-2006, Flight 2 2001-2002, and then in Flight 3 1994-1995. An impressive lineup, and maybe a few too many wines compared to my usual tasting approach, but we hunkered down to see where things stood. I should comment that I am not normally a big California Cab fan, and the alert reader will of course detect this in what follows. Still…
White Wines to Start
We started with 3 white wines, clearly Chardonnay, but served single blind (the ringer was double blind).
2005 Aubert Chardonnay Ritchie Vineyard
I had previously had the 2004 Aubert Ritchie and loved it, and this one showed many of the same characteristics: big, rich, and yeasty, with crispy orchard fruits. Unlike the 2004, however, the finish is a little harder and more bitter, leading Taster Lou to downgrade this one, but this was still a crowd pleaser with its emphatic flavors and almost swashbuckling palate expression. While this is a big wine, I still find the delineation to be good, perhaps in part due to the healthy dose of acidity. Still a fantastic wine in my book and clearly one of the top Chardonnays out there in California these days.
2005 Bouchard Meursault Perrières
I should have guessed this one double blind, since I have had it in the past. On the nose, perfumed, even floral, with delicate citrus flavors that are almost weightless on the palate. Good precision, even better in this department than the Aubert Ritchie, and a finish that builds slowly without losing any resolution. Excellent!
2005 Pride Chardonnay
This wine would have fared better in different company, but sandwiched between the powerful, personality-rich Aubert and the elegant, perfumed Bouchard Meursault Perrieres, it came across as a bit workaday, although clearly a good bottle of wine. The acidity and ripe fruit flavors are nicely balanced here, just needs a bit more character to shed its anonymity.
2005-2006 Cabernets (plus ringers)
2005 Araujo Estate Cabernet Sauvignon Eisele Vineyard
Dusty nose with some faint oak aromas merging with bright cassis. On the palate this is dense and sappy, with just a touch of heat, but overall showing impeccable balance from initial entry to finish. The wine is showing some significant tannins, paling only in comparison with a couple that follow, along with some sweet caramel notes on the finish. This is some impressive and classy juice.
2005 Pride Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
Here a faint green note shows up on the nose along with heady dark fruit aromas. On the palate the wine shows excellent density, but also a very firm structure along with perhaps the fiercest tannins of the evening. Great length on the finish, but this needs some time to come around, since this is not presently for the faint of heart.
2005 Schrader Cabernet Sauvignon CCS Beckstoffer to Kalon
A faint green cedar note makes it first appearance here, with lemon thyme (which I don’t normally associate with Cabernet Sauvignon) and green olive aromas on the nose. Similarly distinctive on the palate, with green almost asparagus-like flavors that are still successfully buffered by the abundance of ripe cassis flavors. Not quite the length of the Araujo and Pride in this flight, but a wine with character.
2006 Quilceda Creek Cabernet Sauvignon (Washington)
That this was a ringer was pretty clear, although I cannot say that anybody had an inkling that they were drinking a Washington wine. The nose is subdued and dusty, with ripe red berry dominating the round, sappy palate. A good dose of heat, along with those telltale sweet (to me) glycerol notes that come with elevated alcohol, shows up on the finish. Perhaps because it was a ringer in this lineup of structured and tannic California Cabs, I found this wine to be less and less interesting as it spent time in the glass, to the point where it came across as almost simple by the end of the flight. In any case, nothing to me like the wine that Tanzer described recently—certainly not much like a California Cab, given our ease in identifying it blind.
2006 Pride Reserve Claret
Dusty green tobacco nose, with a sweet and slightly hot palate that is at present still well buffered by the intense flavors of dark fruit. If I had to guess, I would say this had the highest alcohol of the flight.
Flight 2: 2001-2002
Despite the high quality of the wines that follow in this flight, I don’t seem to find these nearly as pleasurable as many tasters do. The alcohol is bit high in all of them for my taste, and the extraction so powerful here that they come across as slightly monolithic in my view, even though their fundamental structure is apparent. Maybe in a few years these will show a bit more of the complexity that they are capable of…
2001 Pride Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
I have had this wine a couple of times before and the profile was recognizable. Some heat emerging on the nose, but also a hefty wallop of dark fruit that seems to be taking on a floral character with the passing of time. On the palate this is extraordinarily dense and sweet, with excellent length and minerality, but still a bit overwhelming. Still, I don’t have too much trouble seeing why people are impressed with this wine.
2001 Shafer Hillside Select Cabernet Sauvignon
My favorite of the flight, this showed even higher tannins and more structure than the 2001 Pride, which is saying a lot. Again, dusty dark fruit with some heat on the finish, but also an abundance of dry extract and minerality that provide the impressive length here. As with the 2001 Pride, one can only shake one’s head at the way in which the winemakers have made a wine with such density and depth while maintaining a very firm structure. I could see giving this one 96 points…
2002 Shafer Hillside Select Cabernet Sauvignon
My initial notes on this wine were not complimentary, but perhaps they were swayed by the mineral monsters that preceded this and the next wine. This came across as a high alcohol, almost port-like wine despite the good structure and underlying minerality that were apparent. I found my impressions of the wine, however, improved as the wine spent time in the glass (we spent a good 20 minutes on this flight of wines). Eventually, the overall balance of the wine asserted itself, as did the depth of fruit and seamlessly merged structure. Perhaps this improves on the 2001 Shafer HSS for its more modest and integrated tannins, although I still miss the minerality and length here that one finds on the 2001. No doubt a very well made wine, but one would have to particularly like this style of wine (big, dense, port-like) to give it 100 points. Again, one can hope that a few more years in the bottle will bring out more of the complexity that the wine is capable of.
2002 Pride Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
I have also had this wine before and I think overall that my impressions here were consistent with the previous tasting. Rich dark fruit, with a sappy super-ripe palate that does not improve with time in the glass (or in my mouth). I found the finish on the wine to be alcoholic and cloyingly sweet. Again, a well made wine in its style, but this one crossed over my alcohol threshold.
Flight 3: 1994-1995
Some interesting wines here showing more aromatic complexity and less heat than the 2001 and 2002 wines. The 1995 Pride Reserve in particular is almost austere in its presentation.
1994 Abreu Cabernet Sauvignon Madrona Ranch
This wine kept improving with time as I and several other tasters came back to it over the 30 minutes we tasted the flight. On the nose there is a powerful fragrance of cedar with perhaps a note of green olive that seemed to dance around in the glass. On the palate the wine is strikingly less dense and sappy than those 2001 and 2002 monsters, but also perhaps easier to appreciate for its shape-shifting nuances as the complex notes reverberated between the palate and the nose.
1994 Pride Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
It seems that Pride did not quite hit its stride with this wine, which shows modest length on the finish and a soft palate without that hallmark almost searing tannins, structure, and minerality of the later Reserve Cabs. Maybe this wine has faded a bit, hard to say without trying another bottle.
1994 Latour Pauillac
Well, not much trouble spotting that we had a ringer here. The faint Brett on the nose, along with the sharper tobacco aromas, gave this away as a Bordeaux. The nose was probably the best part of this wine—funky, super-ripe, with decadent jammy aromas. The palate was a different story, however—almost watery after all those dense Cabernets, but also distinctly short on the finish. What can you say? It’s the 1994 vintage in Bordeaux…
1995 Colgin Cabernet Sauvignon Herb Lamb Vineyard
An interesting wine that showed olive, camphor, and a touch of bell pepper on the nose. The palate is medium bodied and slightly sweet, and the finish a tad short, but the wine held its own over the course of the flight. I think that I came back to this one and the Abreu more than the others because of their aromatic complexity.
1995 Pride Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
A fragrant dark berry nose tips us off that this is a Pride, much more in the style of the later Pride Reserves than the 1994. The wine has good density (even if not up to the 2001 and 2002) and a fair measure of tannins, with absolutely zero fat on the palate to the point where it comes across as a bit austere. Impressive nonetheless…
White Wines to Start
We started with 3 white wines, clearly Chardonnay, but served single blind (the ringer was double blind).
2005 Aubert Chardonnay Ritchie Vineyard
I had previously had the 2004 Aubert Ritchie and loved it, and this one showed many of the same characteristics: big, rich, and yeasty, with crispy orchard fruits. Unlike the 2004, however, the finish is a little harder and more bitter, leading Taster Lou to downgrade this one, but this was still a crowd pleaser with its emphatic flavors and almost swashbuckling palate expression. While this is a big wine, I still find the delineation to be good, perhaps in part due to the healthy dose of acidity. Still a fantastic wine in my book and clearly one of the top Chardonnays out there in California these days.
2005 Bouchard Meursault Perrières
I should have guessed this one double blind, since I have had it in the past. On the nose, perfumed, even floral, with delicate citrus flavors that are almost weightless on the palate. Good precision, even better in this department than the Aubert Ritchie, and a finish that builds slowly without losing any resolution. Excellent!
2005 Pride Chardonnay
This wine would have fared better in different company, but sandwiched between the powerful, personality-rich Aubert and the elegant, perfumed Bouchard Meursault Perrieres, it came across as a bit workaday, although clearly a good bottle of wine. The acidity and ripe fruit flavors are nicely balanced here, just needs a bit more character to shed its anonymity.
2005-2006 Cabernets (plus ringers)
2005 Araujo Estate Cabernet Sauvignon Eisele Vineyard
Dusty nose with some faint oak aromas merging with bright cassis. On the palate this is dense and sappy, with just a touch of heat, but overall showing impeccable balance from initial entry to finish. The wine is showing some significant tannins, paling only in comparison with a couple that follow, along with some sweet caramel notes on the finish. This is some impressive and classy juice.
2005 Pride Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
Here a faint green note shows up on the nose along with heady dark fruit aromas. On the palate the wine shows excellent density, but also a very firm structure along with perhaps the fiercest tannins of the evening. Great length on the finish, but this needs some time to come around, since this is not presently for the faint of heart.
2005 Schrader Cabernet Sauvignon CCS Beckstoffer to Kalon
A faint green cedar note makes it first appearance here, with lemon thyme (which I don’t normally associate with Cabernet Sauvignon) and green olive aromas on the nose. Similarly distinctive on the palate, with green almost asparagus-like flavors that are still successfully buffered by the abundance of ripe cassis flavors. Not quite the length of the Araujo and Pride in this flight, but a wine with character.
2006 Quilceda Creek Cabernet Sauvignon (Washington)
That this was a ringer was pretty clear, although I cannot say that anybody had an inkling that they were drinking a Washington wine. The nose is subdued and dusty, with ripe red berry dominating the round, sappy palate. A good dose of heat, along with those telltale sweet (to me) glycerol notes that come with elevated alcohol, shows up on the finish. Perhaps because it was a ringer in this lineup of structured and tannic California Cabs, I found this wine to be less and less interesting as it spent time in the glass, to the point where it came across as almost simple by the end of the flight. In any case, nothing to me like the wine that Tanzer described recently—certainly not much like a California Cab, given our ease in identifying it blind.
2006 Pride Reserve Claret
Dusty green tobacco nose, with a sweet and slightly hot palate that is at present still well buffered by the intense flavors of dark fruit. If I had to guess, I would say this had the highest alcohol of the flight.
Flight 2: 2001-2002
Despite the high quality of the wines that follow in this flight, I don’t seem to find these nearly as pleasurable as many tasters do. The alcohol is bit high in all of them for my taste, and the extraction so powerful here that they come across as slightly monolithic in my view, even though their fundamental structure is apparent. Maybe in a few years these will show a bit more of the complexity that they are capable of…
2001 Pride Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
I have had this wine a couple of times before and the profile was recognizable. Some heat emerging on the nose, but also a hefty wallop of dark fruit that seems to be taking on a floral character with the passing of time. On the palate this is extraordinarily dense and sweet, with excellent length and minerality, but still a bit overwhelming. Still, I don’t have too much trouble seeing why people are impressed with this wine.
2001 Shafer Hillside Select Cabernet Sauvignon
My favorite of the flight, this showed even higher tannins and more structure than the 2001 Pride, which is saying a lot. Again, dusty dark fruit with some heat on the finish, but also an abundance of dry extract and minerality that provide the impressive length here. As with the 2001 Pride, one can only shake one’s head at the way in which the winemakers have made a wine with such density and depth while maintaining a very firm structure. I could see giving this one 96 points…
2002 Shafer Hillside Select Cabernet Sauvignon
My initial notes on this wine were not complimentary, but perhaps they were swayed by the mineral monsters that preceded this and the next wine. This came across as a high alcohol, almost port-like wine despite the good structure and underlying minerality that were apparent. I found my impressions of the wine, however, improved as the wine spent time in the glass (we spent a good 20 minutes on this flight of wines). Eventually, the overall balance of the wine asserted itself, as did the depth of fruit and seamlessly merged structure. Perhaps this improves on the 2001 Shafer HSS for its more modest and integrated tannins, although I still miss the minerality and length here that one finds on the 2001. No doubt a very well made wine, but one would have to particularly like this style of wine (big, dense, port-like) to give it 100 points. Again, one can hope that a few more years in the bottle will bring out more of the complexity that the wine is capable of.
2002 Pride Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
I have also had this wine before and I think overall that my impressions here were consistent with the previous tasting. Rich dark fruit, with a sappy super-ripe palate that does not improve with time in the glass (or in my mouth). I found the finish on the wine to be alcoholic and cloyingly sweet. Again, a well made wine in its style, but this one crossed over my alcohol threshold.
Flight 3: 1994-1995
Some interesting wines here showing more aromatic complexity and less heat than the 2001 and 2002 wines. The 1995 Pride Reserve in particular is almost austere in its presentation.
1994 Abreu Cabernet Sauvignon Madrona Ranch
This wine kept improving with time as I and several other tasters came back to it over the 30 minutes we tasted the flight. On the nose there is a powerful fragrance of cedar with perhaps a note of green olive that seemed to dance around in the glass. On the palate the wine is strikingly less dense and sappy than those 2001 and 2002 monsters, but also perhaps easier to appreciate for its shape-shifting nuances as the complex notes reverberated between the palate and the nose.
1994 Pride Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
It seems that Pride did not quite hit its stride with this wine, which shows modest length on the finish and a soft palate without that hallmark almost searing tannins, structure, and minerality of the later Reserve Cabs. Maybe this wine has faded a bit, hard to say without trying another bottle.
1994 Latour Pauillac
Well, not much trouble spotting that we had a ringer here. The faint Brett on the nose, along with the sharper tobacco aromas, gave this away as a Bordeaux. The nose was probably the best part of this wine—funky, super-ripe, with decadent jammy aromas. The palate was a different story, however—almost watery after all those dense Cabernets, but also distinctly short on the finish. What can you say? It’s the 1994 vintage in Bordeaux…
1995 Colgin Cabernet Sauvignon Herb Lamb Vineyard
An interesting wine that showed olive, camphor, and a touch of bell pepper on the nose. The palate is medium bodied and slightly sweet, and the finish a tad short, but the wine held its own over the course of the flight. I think that I came back to this one and the Abreu more than the others because of their aromatic complexity.
1995 Pride Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
A fragrant dark berry nose tips us off that this is a Pride, much more in the style of the later Pride Reserves than the 1994. The wine has good density (even if not up to the 2001 and 2002) and a fair measure of tannins, with absolutely zero fat on the palate to the point where it comes across as a bit austere. Impressive nonetheless…
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Tasting at Societa Agricola Caprai
We finally found the Caprai winery near Montefalco after coming into town along smaller roads on the advice of our navigation system. We were stoked for the visit since we had had two bottles of the 2005 Caprai Sagrantino Collepiano a couple of days earlier with dinner at the Villa Montali restaurant south of Lake Trasimeno. By the way, this restaurant is highly recommended—in my opinion, the best meal we had in Italy. And very reasonably priced wines.
We tasted through the 2005 Caprai collection on our visit, which included:
2008 Caprai Grecante Grechetto Colli
This is 100% Grechetto juice and shows a surprisingly intense citrus palate, with faint tropical fruit notes on the nose overwhelmed by slightly bitter citrus aromas, almost a quinine character. The wine shows fine balance, with a healthy dose of acidity. I really cannot remember why I didn’t buy any of this, but it must have been my limited luggage space…
2006 Caprai Montefalco Rosso (70% Sangiovese, 15% Merlot, 15% Sagrantino)
The new oak in this wine was pretty prominent on both the nose and the palate, but had a enough tannic structure that the effect was not overwhelming. Still this showed more Merlot character than I care for, giving it a slightly “international” or amorphous style that leaves me cold, or at least unimpressed.
2005 Caprai Rosso Outsider
According to the lady serving us, this wine spends 18 months in barrique. This 50% Merlot, 50% Cabrnet Sauvignon wine shows a healthy dose of new oak on the palate as you might expect, but the delineation and structure is much more evident here, especially as compared to the Rosso. On the nose, dusty aromas with a touch of toast probably reflect the time in barrique. I can certainly see somebody like Robert Parker or Jeff Leve liking this wine with its excellent depth and length,--this would give many a Bordeaux a run for the money.
2005 Caprai Sagrantino de Montefalco Collepiano
As good as the 2005 Rosso Outsider was, this wine trumped that wine ultimately through sheer force of character and originality. The wine shows a distinct floral character on the nose, with aromas of lavender and violet emerging as if from some great depth. The bottles we had at dinner a couple of nights earlier were even showier, perhaps because of the pairing with the truffle ravioli in a Sagrantino reduction. A beautifully balanced wine that, while still primary, is quite drinkable now if one can handle firm and authoritatively structured wines.
2005 Caprai Sangrantino de Montefalco 25 Anni
Another step up, similar in overall character to the Collepiano, but with another level of structure, nuance, and detail on both the nose and palate. The deeply pitched, fragrant nose has one thinking that they have stumbled into a violet patch. Slightly sweeter, deeper, and rounder in the mouth than the Collepiano, the long finish is positively palate staining, with newly found nuances emerging even on the diminuendo.
We tasted through the 2005 Caprai collection on our visit, which included:
2008 Caprai Grecante Grechetto Colli
This is 100% Grechetto juice and shows a surprisingly intense citrus palate, with faint tropical fruit notes on the nose overwhelmed by slightly bitter citrus aromas, almost a quinine character. The wine shows fine balance, with a healthy dose of acidity. I really cannot remember why I didn’t buy any of this, but it must have been my limited luggage space…
2006 Caprai Montefalco Rosso (70% Sangiovese, 15% Merlot, 15% Sagrantino)
The new oak in this wine was pretty prominent on both the nose and the palate, but had a enough tannic structure that the effect was not overwhelming. Still this showed more Merlot character than I care for, giving it a slightly “international” or amorphous style that leaves me cold, or at least unimpressed.
2005 Caprai Rosso Outsider
According to the lady serving us, this wine spends 18 months in barrique. This 50% Merlot, 50% Cabrnet Sauvignon wine shows a healthy dose of new oak on the palate as you might expect, but the delineation and structure is much more evident here, especially as compared to the Rosso. On the nose, dusty aromas with a touch of toast probably reflect the time in barrique. I can certainly see somebody like Robert Parker or Jeff Leve liking this wine with its excellent depth and length,--this would give many a Bordeaux a run for the money.
2005 Caprai Sagrantino de Montefalco Collepiano
As good as the 2005 Rosso Outsider was, this wine trumped that wine ultimately through sheer force of character and originality. The wine shows a distinct floral character on the nose, with aromas of lavender and violet emerging as if from some great depth. The bottles we had at dinner a couple of nights earlier were even showier, perhaps because of the pairing with the truffle ravioli in a Sagrantino reduction. A beautifully balanced wine that, while still primary, is quite drinkable now if one can handle firm and authoritatively structured wines.
2005 Caprai Sangrantino de Montefalco 25 Anni
Another step up, similar in overall character to the Collepiano, but with another level of structure, nuance, and detail on both the nose and palate. The deeply pitched, fragrant nose has one thinking that they have stumbled into a violet patch. Slightly sweeter, deeper, and rounder in the mouth than the Collepiano, the long finish is positively palate staining, with newly found nuances emerging even on the diminuendo.
A much smaller wine group, whittled down by the recession and other competing duties, got together chez Steefel to explore Chambolle terroir in the form of some 2006 wines from Barthod. Our preference was to try something older, but planning started too late to source anything beyond the 2004 and 2006. The nod went to the 2006 because of the favorable reports on their floral character at Barthod, and because we did not want to have to face the issues of whether 2004 was a suitably typical vintage or not.
The Barthod were tasted double blind by two of us, single blind by the other two. As far as I can tell, this would otherwise be similar to a Grand Jury Europeen format (all wines tasted at the same time blind), although we restricted ourselves to just four bottles. All were tasted at the same time from the same type of glasses, all at the same temperature. Bottles were opened about two hours in advance of the tasting, double decanting about 40 minutes in advance.
First up as a warmup was a 2006 Rochioli Sauvignon Blanc, always a great quaffer that pushes the quality envelope, challenging the likes of many of the white Bordeaux and Loire SB in my opinion. This was as lively as ever, showing aromas of freshly mown grass and fainter brassy citrus notes, and a firm, almost petillant palate that seemed to balance perfectly between fresh fruit and acidity.
2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Beaux Bruns
This slightly dark ruby red wine showed excellent depth both on the palate and on the nose, perhaps more than I had expected. Aromas of strawberry and underbrush merged with the floral notes of violet on the nose. On the palate, the flavors are intense, if slightly less elegant in presentation than those of the other wines in the lineup. This shows the strongest tannic finish of any of those tasted, perhaps the tannins here are a bit more coarse-grained, although this is relative. There is good depth of material here and I can’t help but feel that this wine was slightly underrated by some critics…
2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Baudes
On night one, this was probably the least impressive wine, with a markedly reticent nose only reluctantly giving up aromas of soil and red Pinot fruit. Still, there was an airy, almost ethereal quality to the aromas that suggested that this wine might just be sleeping. On the palate the acidity is higher and the fruit slightly leaner than the other Chambolle in the lineup, so it comes across as a bit more tart than than the others. On night 2, the wine seems to have gained some muscle, although still no fat—my guess is that it just needs some time to flesh out…
2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Cras
I had expected a somewhat leaner, more airy nose on this wine, similar perhaps in style to the Baudes. Instead we were greeted with a waft of quite ripe red Pinot fruit, with exuberant strawberry that emerged on the rich almost creamy palate as well. Some fainter coffee notes suggested an oak influence to some, but I am not so sure myself that it wasn’t just a faint hint of torrefaction emerging from the rich ripe fruit. This was a big wine, perhaps not perfectly balanced at the moment, but time should bring it around.
2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Charmes
This wine showed a distinctive menthol note on the floral nose and an overtly spicy palate, giving it the most exotic character of any of the Barthod tasted. There is good density in the mouth and length on the finish, and a substantial structure that suggests a bright future for this wine that is already drinking well. This was perhaps the most balanced and complete wine we tasted, already showing precise detail that the others could only hope to achieve with some more time in the bottle. The WOTN for most of the tasters…
A couple of nights later, the big ripe character of the les Cras vineyard was apparent again in the 2002 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Cras. Another big whiff of quite ripe red Pinot fruit suggests at least some similarities in style to the 2006 example, although this is a denser, creamier wine on the palate. Once the initial ripe attack on the nose and palate had scaled back a bit, it became apparent that this was still a tightly wound wine that needed another 5-10 years to come around. Excellent raw materials again, however...
The tasting confirmed the general impression of the Barthod wines, that they are mineral-driven, elegant wines that need some significant bottle age to come around.
The Barthod were tasted double blind by two of us, single blind by the other two. As far as I can tell, this would otherwise be similar to a Grand Jury Europeen format (all wines tasted at the same time blind), although we restricted ourselves to just four bottles. All were tasted at the same time from the same type of glasses, all at the same temperature. Bottles were opened about two hours in advance of the tasting, double decanting about 40 minutes in advance.
First up as a warmup was a 2006 Rochioli Sauvignon Blanc, always a great quaffer that pushes the quality envelope, challenging the likes of many of the white Bordeaux and Loire SB in my opinion. This was as lively as ever, showing aromas of freshly mown grass and fainter brassy citrus notes, and a firm, almost petillant palate that seemed to balance perfectly between fresh fruit and acidity.
2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Beaux Bruns
This slightly dark ruby red wine showed excellent depth both on the palate and on the nose, perhaps more than I had expected. Aromas of strawberry and underbrush merged with the floral notes of violet on the nose. On the palate, the flavors are intense, if slightly less elegant in presentation than those of the other wines in the lineup. This shows the strongest tannic finish of any of those tasted, perhaps the tannins here are a bit more coarse-grained, although this is relative. There is good depth of material here and I can’t help but feel that this wine was slightly underrated by some critics…
2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Baudes
On night one, this was probably the least impressive wine, with a markedly reticent nose only reluctantly giving up aromas of soil and red Pinot fruit. Still, there was an airy, almost ethereal quality to the aromas that suggested that this wine might just be sleeping. On the palate the acidity is higher and the fruit slightly leaner than the other Chambolle in the lineup, so it comes across as a bit more tart than than the others. On night 2, the wine seems to have gained some muscle, although still no fat—my guess is that it just needs some time to flesh out…
2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Cras
I had expected a somewhat leaner, more airy nose on this wine, similar perhaps in style to the Baudes. Instead we were greeted with a waft of quite ripe red Pinot fruit, with exuberant strawberry that emerged on the rich almost creamy palate as well. Some fainter coffee notes suggested an oak influence to some, but I am not so sure myself that it wasn’t just a faint hint of torrefaction emerging from the rich ripe fruit. This was a big wine, perhaps not perfectly balanced at the moment, but time should bring it around.
2006 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Charmes
This wine showed a distinctive menthol note on the floral nose and an overtly spicy palate, giving it the most exotic character of any of the Barthod tasted. There is good density in the mouth and length on the finish, and a substantial structure that suggests a bright future for this wine that is already drinking well. This was perhaps the most balanced and complete wine we tasted, already showing precise detail that the others could only hope to achieve with some more time in the bottle. The WOTN for most of the tasters…
A couple of nights later, the big ripe character of the les Cras vineyard was apparent again in the 2002 Barthod Chambolle Musigny les Cras. Another big whiff of quite ripe red Pinot fruit suggests at least some similarities in style to the 2006 example, although this is a denser, creamier wine on the palate. Once the initial ripe attack on the nose and palate had scaled back a bit, it became apparent that this was still a tightly wound wine that needed another 5-10 years to come around. Excellent raw materials again, however...
The tasting confirmed the general impression of the Barthod wines, that they are mineral-driven, elegant wines that need some significant bottle age to come around.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Bordeaux-California Cab Shootout (Double Blind)
We tasted two wines double blind next to each other—I wasted no time in identifying both as Cabernet Sauvignon dominated, but then had to decide whether both were Bordeaux (as I thought initially) or one was Bordeaux Left Bank and the other was California Cabernet.
Wine 1: Deeply pitched nose of black currant that keeps the rich notes of slightly green tobacco well under control. The nose here just strengthens with time, becoming denser and more fragrant as the wine sits in the glass. The palate offers up a similar experience, with rich, dense cassis flavors that still manage to remain weightless in the mouth. The purity of fruit, the structure that gradually unfolds, and the overall balance are impeccable. Despite the richness and purity of the fruit, however, the overall profile here is that of a structured, firm, classically made Cabernet Sauvignon dominated wine—no flabbiness here. This wine is drinking beautifully now, but should have many years of life ahead of it. The aromas and flavors here are no longer primary, so I had to guess that it was a wine with some bottle age on it.
Key descriptors (in my mind): Structured, classical balance, purity of fruit, some bottle age.
Wine 2: A slightly more hightoned nose than Wine 1, with airy aromas of damp soil, saddle leather, and underbrush seamlessly merged with the recognizable cassis aromas one expects from a Bordeaux. On the finish, the wine shows a touch of astringency and slightly dry tannins that are not all that rare in Bordeaux, but the vibrancy of the fruit makes these complicating notes rather than dominating characteristics of the wine. This one there is no doubt on, particularly on the finish—this has to be a Left Bank Bordeaux. The complexity, the multiple layers that shift over time are distinctive here and I should have identified this right away as a well-aged example.
Key descriptors (in my mind): Soil-driven, slightly austere finish balanced by vibrant fruit, tertiary aromas and flavors, complex shape-shifting profile typical of a wine with some bottle age...
I suppose my descriptions are not good enough for people to guess (and I never guessed the actual wine), but I was able to zero in a little bit...
Wine 1: Deeply pitched nose of black currant that keeps the rich notes of slightly green tobacco well under control. The nose here just strengthens with time, becoming denser and more fragrant as the wine sits in the glass. The palate offers up a similar experience, with rich, dense cassis flavors that still manage to remain weightless in the mouth. The purity of fruit, the structure that gradually unfolds, and the overall balance are impeccable. Despite the richness and purity of the fruit, however, the overall profile here is that of a structured, firm, classically made Cabernet Sauvignon dominated wine—no flabbiness here. This wine is drinking beautifully now, but should have many years of life ahead of it. The aromas and flavors here are no longer primary, so I had to guess that it was a wine with some bottle age on it.
Key descriptors (in my mind): Structured, classical balance, purity of fruit, some bottle age.
Wine 2: A slightly more hightoned nose than Wine 1, with airy aromas of damp soil, saddle leather, and underbrush seamlessly merged with the recognizable cassis aromas one expects from a Bordeaux. On the finish, the wine shows a touch of astringency and slightly dry tannins that are not all that rare in Bordeaux, but the vibrancy of the fruit makes these complicating notes rather than dominating characteristics of the wine. This one there is no doubt on, particularly on the finish—this has to be a Left Bank Bordeaux. The complexity, the multiple layers that shift over time are distinctive here and I should have identified this right away as a well-aged example.
Key descriptors (in my mind): Soil-driven, slightly austere finish balanced by vibrant fruit, tertiary aromas and flavors, complex shape-shifting profile typical of a wine with some bottle age...
I suppose my descriptions are not good enough for people to guess (and I never guessed the actual wine), but I was able to zero in a little bit...
The wines:
Wine #1: 1992 Ridge Monte Bello
Wine #2: 1986 Gruaud Larose
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Rhys Vineyards Tour
I had the good fortune to tag along on a tour of the Rhys Vineyards in the
Saturday, November 1, 2008
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.
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”.
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”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)