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…
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Return to Bordeaux
A group of five gathered for another night of double blind (at least for four of us) wines à Maison Steefel in the quiet hills of Moraga. The theme: red Left Bank Bordeaux from 1996, a chance for me to see how many of the wines I sampled in a horizontal about 7 years ago were doing. This was almost like a homecoming for me, since I have been tasting relatively few Bordeaux in the last year or so as my attention has shifted to mostly Burgundy, with the occasional foray into southern Rhone and northern Italian wines. Young Bordeaux no longer holds a great deal of interest for me, not because they are not enjoyable wines given the right circumstances, but because I know pretty much what to expect from them. But I was hoping the 1996 Bordeaux would show at least a slight turn to secondary characteristics, and with it, some potential for surprises. With an aged wine, slight differences in their aging curves can result in wines that show distinct aroma or flavor profiles, and I think this was borne out in our tasting.
Prior to sampling the five reds, we tasted a 2005 Smith Haut Lafitte Pessac-Leognan Blanc, a rich sappy wine that showed its Sauvignon Blanc character in spades, with a floral nose of freshly mown hay, faint tropical fruit, and an oak note that grew with time in the glass. In the mouth, the grassy note was present as well as a brassy acidic element that dominated the finish. One could pick out perhaps the similarities to a very good Sancerre in the dominance of the Sauvignon Blanc here, but with an extra level of palate-coating richness lending the wine a hedonistic, almost exotic character.
On to the reds, which were introduced double blind for all but myself. It didn’t take long for the group to zero in on the Left Bank in Bordeaux, but several seem to slightly underestimate the age of the wines, perhaps due to some lack of familiarity with the glacial aging pace of the Medoc wines. Top honors, however, went to Board Member Lou Rittenhouse, who identified the Pichon Lalande in the lineup double blind as its telltale Petit Verdot green floral element emerged with time in the glass.
The 1996 Pontet Canet Pauillac showed well from the very beginning, with dark rich cassis nicely balanced with aromas of slightly green tobacco leaf. About half way through the tasting we noted that the green leaf on it almost gave it a Cabernet Franc aromatic profile, although the palate always struck me as more classically Cabernet Sauvignon sweetened by a healthy dose of Merlot. This is still very much a Cabernet dominated wine, however, with its firm tannins and emphatically stated structure—not the most complex wine of the night, but one of the best balanced with its rich core of sweet fruit softening the Pauillac steel.
The second wine in the lineup was the 1996 Pichon Longueville Baron Pauillac, which turned in a creditable if less than outstanding performance. Certainly a solid example of Pauillac in its overall balance, minerality, the aromatic profile and overall palate impression were just a little bit less powerful than that of the Pontet Canet. I bought this bottle at the Chateau, where I had tasted the 1996 up against the absolutely outstanding 2000, and the 1996 had suffered in comparison. The mid-palate richness is just not there at the same level in the 1996, and this seemed to be more subtly the case in the present company as well.
Third in the lineup was the 1996 Ducru-Beaucaillou St. Julien, which showed a distinctive nose of soy and mushrooms merged with rich ripe cassis fruit that I seem to recall even in a bottle of Ducru-Beaucaillou from 1982. One is tempted to label this as faint oxidation, but it never gets any stronger with time and simply seems to be part of the aromatic profile. Despite the softer aromas on the wine (which I recall also from an early tasting of the 1996 DB), the palate was still quite firm, but with a rounder aspect that distinguished it from the Pauillac in the lineup. The fine tannins here are nicely balanced by a rich, almost velvety mouthfeel that seems to grow in power on the finish. The wine seemed to ebb and flow over the course of the tasting, now losing some of its extravagant nose, now regaining it with a slightly different character by the end of the tasting.
Fourth up was the 1996 Pichon Lalande Pauillac, which had shown extremely well when tasted about seven years ago. Well, the performance was repeated here as the wine slowly evolved over the course of the evening, gradually expanding and unfolding to reveal new layers of complexity. The distinctive Pichon Lalande nose, which Lou Rittenhouse was able to recognize, only emerged clearly after about 45 minutes in the glass, appearing almost magically as if from some great unseen depth. I can only describe its nose as floral, although I cannot for the life of me think of what flower presents these rich, slightly green aromas, but it is very different in style from the green leaf aspect displayed by the Pontet Canet, for example. While the nose was slow in emerging, the power and finesse of the wine on the palate was apparent immediately, with the considerable but quite fine tannins buffered by a great depth of material—no bottom to be seen here. And its depth was matched by its length, with the half life for decay of the finish longer than some of the radionuclides targeted for disposal in Nevada. Yes, la Comtesse still rules…
Fifth in the lineup was the 1996 Sociando-Mallet Haut Medoc, which perhaps surprisingly seemed the wine that was most nearly ready to drink. Displaying an expressive menthol-tobacco nose, this wine was a little more workaday on the palate, with a finish that seemed a tad shorter than the other 1996 in the lineup.
We finished our dinner with a beautiful mousse au chocolat paired with a half bottle of the 2001 Chateau Suduiraut Sauternes. While this wine was delicious, with rich, sweeping sweet fruit flavors, I missed something of the almost symphonic clash of sugar, racy acids, and botrytis that had made an earlier bottle of the Suduiraut absolutely spectacular. Perhaps the pairing with chocolate was wrong, but more likely this wine is simply going in to a shell, and now needs some few years (maybe 10?) for its full potential to re-emerge.
Prior to sampling the five reds, we tasted a 2005 Smith Haut Lafitte Pessac-Leognan Blanc, a rich sappy wine that showed its Sauvignon Blanc character in spades, with a floral nose of freshly mown hay, faint tropical fruit, and an oak note that grew with time in the glass. In the mouth, the grassy note was present as well as a brassy acidic element that dominated the finish. One could pick out perhaps the similarities to a very good Sancerre in the dominance of the Sauvignon Blanc here, but with an extra level of palate-coating richness lending the wine a hedonistic, almost exotic character.
On to the reds, which were introduced double blind for all but myself. It didn’t take long for the group to zero in on the Left Bank in Bordeaux, but several seem to slightly underestimate the age of the wines, perhaps due to some lack of familiarity with the glacial aging pace of the Medoc wines. Top honors, however, went to Board Member Lou Rittenhouse, who identified the Pichon Lalande in the lineup double blind as its telltale Petit Verdot green floral element emerged with time in the glass.
The 1996 Pontet Canet Pauillac showed well from the very beginning, with dark rich cassis nicely balanced with aromas of slightly green tobacco leaf. About half way through the tasting we noted that the green leaf on it almost gave it a Cabernet Franc aromatic profile, although the palate always struck me as more classically Cabernet Sauvignon sweetened by a healthy dose of Merlot. This is still very much a Cabernet dominated wine, however, with its firm tannins and emphatically stated structure—not the most complex wine of the night, but one of the best balanced with its rich core of sweet fruit softening the Pauillac steel.
The second wine in the lineup was the 1996 Pichon Longueville Baron Pauillac, which turned in a creditable if less than outstanding performance. Certainly a solid example of Pauillac in its overall balance, minerality, the aromatic profile and overall palate impression were just a little bit less powerful than that of the Pontet Canet. I bought this bottle at the Chateau, where I had tasted the 1996 up against the absolutely outstanding 2000, and the 1996 had suffered in comparison. The mid-palate richness is just not there at the same level in the 1996, and this seemed to be more subtly the case in the present company as well.
Third in the lineup was the 1996 Ducru-Beaucaillou St. Julien, which showed a distinctive nose of soy and mushrooms merged with rich ripe cassis fruit that I seem to recall even in a bottle of Ducru-Beaucaillou from 1982. One is tempted to label this as faint oxidation, but it never gets any stronger with time and simply seems to be part of the aromatic profile. Despite the softer aromas on the wine (which I recall also from an early tasting of the 1996 DB), the palate was still quite firm, but with a rounder aspect that distinguished it from the Pauillac in the lineup. The fine tannins here are nicely balanced by a rich, almost velvety mouthfeel that seems to grow in power on the finish. The wine seemed to ebb and flow over the course of the tasting, now losing some of its extravagant nose, now regaining it with a slightly different character by the end of the tasting.
Fourth up was the 1996 Pichon Lalande Pauillac, which had shown extremely well when tasted about seven years ago. Well, the performance was repeated here as the wine slowly evolved over the course of the evening, gradually expanding and unfolding to reveal new layers of complexity. The distinctive Pichon Lalande nose, which Lou Rittenhouse was able to recognize, only emerged clearly after about 45 minutes in the glass, appearing almost magically as if from some great unseen depth. I can only describe its nose as floral, although I cannot for the life of me think of what flower presents these rich, slightly green aromas, but it is very different in style from the green leaf aspect displayed by the Pontet Canet, for example. While the nose was slow in emerging, the power and finesse of the wine on the palate was apparent immediately, with the considerable but quite fine tannins buffered by a great depth of material—no bottom to be seen here. And its depth was matched by its length, with the half life for decay of the finish longer than some of the radionuclides targeted for disposal in Nevada. Yes, la Comtesse still rules…
Fifth in the lineup was the 1996 Sociando-Mallet Haut Medoc, which perhaps surprisingly seemed the wine that was most nearly ready to drink. Displaying an expressive menthol-tobacco nose, this wine was a little more workaday on the palate, with a finish that seemed a tad shorter than the other 1996 in the lineup.
We finished our dinner with a beautiful mousse au chocolat paired with a half bottle of the 2001 Chateau Suduiraut Sauternes. While this wine was delicious, with rich, sweeping sweet fruit flavors, I missed something of the almost symphonic clash of sugar, racy acids, and botrytis that had made an earlier bottle of the Suduiraut absolutely spectacular. Perhaps the pairing with chocolate was wrong, but more likely this wine is simply going in to a shell, and now needs some few years (maybe 10?) for its full potential to re-emerge.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Burgundy 2007
I had to amend the title of this thread after reading Wilfried van Gorp’s post about his visit to les Troisgros and the host of great Grand Cru Burgs that he and the GJE crowd consumed there—nothing we had was quite at that scale. But we really did drink and eat remarkably well on our recent visit to Burgundy. In addition to the quality of the cuisine for a reasonable price (typically a 30-35 Euro menu was available), we also drank very well, especially when it came to the village and 1er Cru Burgs that were available at the local restaurants. Most of the restaurants did not have many older Burgs (pre-1999), except at very high prices if at all, and the Grand Cru from 1999 and onward are mostly not ready to drink. So one is left with the village wines in particular as the best value, both in terms of their price and their drinkability at this stage.
We began our trip to Burgundy in Auxerre, with a quick visit to the Fevre tasting room in the center of Chablis. We tasted a couple of very promising 2006 Fevre Chablis that suggested that the vintage was quite successful there. Also a 2005 Fevre Bougros Cotes des Bouguerots that was the most mineral-driven, nicely acidic Bouguerots that I have had—a brilliant wine. Dinner was at Barnabet in Auxerre, a more classical and formal restaurant that still offered an excellent 35 Euro menu that went quite nicely with our wines, a 1996 Dauvissat les Clos and a 2001 Rousseau Gevrey Chambertin Lavaux St. Jacques. The 1996 R&V Dauvissat Chablis les Clos was about the oldest recognizable (to me) Chablis available—a 1996 Dauvissat Chablis les Preuses was on the list for the same price, but when I tried to order it, I was informed that some guy named “Stuart” had consumed la dernière bouteille. But we were not disappointed by the Dauvissat Clos, a nearly perfect bottle that brought tears to my eyes, a wine now at its drinking peak with subtle honey and nut notes that infuse the white flower aromas, while still retaining the crisp acidity and delicate nuance on the palate that is a hallmark of the successful white Burgundies of the vintage. What a great wine, a real epiphany for me that is certain to define the standard in Chablis (at least for me) for some time to come! The 2001 Rousseau Lavaux St. Jacques was an impressive young Burgundy, even if sampled a few years before its time. This middle weight wine was not quite as concentrated as some of the other wines tasted in the week, but I suspect some more bottle age would fatten it up further.
Next up was Chassagne, where we enjoyed another ~35 Euro menu that was easily at the 1 Michelin star level. This was arguably our finest meal in Burgundy, although the dinner at Chez Guy was not far behind. We began with a bottle of 1996 Bernard Morey Puligny-Montrachet les Truffières, that seems in retrospect to have been a bit more advanced in its evolution than it should have been. The tropical fruit notes seemed to dominate the aromas of the wine and soft fruit notes defined the palate. While an enjoyable wine, particularly as it was sampled at close to its peak (or slightly after), it came across as slightly four square, especially as compared to the Dauvissat Clos of the evening before. Well, we followed this wine that was slightly past its prime with another that needed another ten years, the 1999 Robert Arnoux Clos Vougeot, a strongly tannic, backward wine with a mostly buried core of sweet dense ripe fruit. My dinner companions had some problems with this wine mainly due to its substantial tannins (one asked me why I ordered it), but I think this was actually one of the best wines of the entire trip—I would love to resample it in ten years. The great power and flavor intensity of this wine on the finish left a real impression on me. My only slight criticism of Chassagne was that it would be good to be able to talk to an older, more knowledgeable waiter (ours seemed to be about university age and didn’t seem to know much about wine)—otherwise, this is a great destination in Burgundy that should be on everybody’s list to visit at least once. The wine list is great and reasonably priced.
On Saturday night, we were at Les Tontons in Beaune on Francois Mauss’ recommendation. My entrees at this small, unpretentious place were mostly forgettable, but the main course was top notch, pairing beautifully with the wines we chose with the help of the knowledgeable proprietor. We began with a 2001 Pavelot Savigny-les-Beaunes les Guettes, a very very nice Savigny that is drinking quite well now. This medium weight, elegant wine is dominated by ripe red fruit that is balanced by good acidity and minerality that lend definition and detail to the wine. And at 39 or so Euros, a real steal. We followed this with another great bargain for about 50 Euros, a 2001 Robert Arnoux Vosne-Romanée, a village wine that IMO would be hard to distinguish from a 1er Cru when tasted blind. An 86 point wine from Tanzer?? OK, bring on those scores if they keep the price down. Unlike the Arnoux Clos Vougeot from the night before, this was much closer to being ready to drink, even if it would benefit positively from a few more years in the bottle. Fat, lush, almost creamy on the palate, with rich black and red fruits dominating the nose, this wine showed great Vosne typicity, and at a bargain price. Needless to say, I ransacked every wine store in Beaune the next day looking for bottles of this wine to take home (found some empty bottles at one store, but that was it). I would recommend this restaurant to others for its very nice, well priced wine list and its excellent if simpler cuisine.
Sunday night included a visit to Chez Guy in Gevrey-Chambertin, where we dined at a level only very slightly below Chassagne. And again, an excellent, well-priced wine list. We began with the 32 Euro (talk about steals) 2005 J.C. Boisset Savigny-les-Beaunes les Serpentinières, an excellent wine that is eminently drinkable today. This wine showed remarkably good concentration and color, with black fruit notes accompanying the more typical red fruit notes of Savigny. A delicious wine, this was enjoyed by all at the table, as was evident from the rate at which it disappeared. Continuing our theme of Robert Arnoux wines (well, I guess it was “my theme”), we followed this with a superb 2000 Robert Arnoux Nuits-St-Georges, a wine perhaps just slightly below the quality level of the Arnoux village Vosne-Romanee, but making up for it on this particular night with its greater maturity. This was particularly evident on the nose, where the intoxicating black raspberry and cherry notes became markedly more expressive with time in the glass. Excellent stuff, I pulled the trigger on the 2005 Arnoux Nuits-St-George the next day without bothering with the critics’ reviews.
Last up in Burgundy was the required visit to Ma Cuisine. I had heard this place described as having “simple cuisine”, but I was not quite prepared for what I found. I suspect that anybody tasting the food here blind would mistake it for something served at a mid-level steak house somewhere. I had similar food in a café in the Netherlands a few days later. I have to think the reputation of this place is based on the depth of its wine list, which is impressive, even if not populated with a large number of older wines at this point. The pricing on the wine list is decent, but not quite as good as Chez Guy, for example. Well, the food was OK, but the wines again were very impressive, and the guidance provided by the proprietor Escoffier was very good. I told him I had a hankering for some good Volnay that particular evening, so he made a suggestion of the 2002 Boillot Volnay les Chevrets (the last 2001 had just disappeared from the cellar). This turned out to be an excellent suggestion, with the wine showing the positive characteristics of the 2002 vintage—full and round in the mouth, nicely balanced between the acidity of the wine and its core of sweet ripe fruit. This was really outstanding stuff and I am glad I pulled the trigger on a few of the Boillot Volnay 1er Cru in 2005. Then I told Escoffier that we (meaning I again) were up for a Vosne-Romanée, since I could not get those dark beauties of the preceding days (also tasted in the cellars at Jadot) out of my mind. He made the suggestion of the 2001 Grivot Vosne-Romanée les Beaux Monts, which turned out to be another superb wine that was only half a notch below the quality of the more backward Arnoux Clos Vougeot from a couple of nights before. Again, we got that Vosne-Romanée typicity (my real goal here) in spades, with an extra dash of that dark, beautifully extracted fruit that seems to characterize the better Beaux Monts (which we had sampled earlier in the day in the form of the 2005 Dujac Vosne-Romanée les Beaux Monts). Too bad the price on the 2005 les Beaux Monts seems to have gone through the roof.
So to reiterate, excellent food and wine seems to abound in Burgundy at reasonable prices. The wine lists at places other than Les Troisgros don’t seem to run back much to the older vintages (even Barnabet has Chablis mostly from 1996 and younger), so the best bargains seem to be the village wines from the better producers in 1999-2002, and the more accessible 1er Cru from the same years.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Double, then Single Blind Barolos
We started with the wines double blind, just a table of half-filled wine glasses looking ever so much like jewels on huge necklace laid out before us. It was impossible not to feel a surge of excitement with the constellation of mystery wines in front of us.
So, the tasting begins. Hmmm, let’s see—a deep ruby color verging on purple, on the nose a volatile character with notes of black cherry, maybe a touch of violet. On the palate, some very firm acidity, but balanced by a great depth of dark fruit in a finely structured, distinctly aristocratic package. There was no doubt that we were in the presence of something special. Well, the signature of acidity and dark fruit gave it away for everybody—a Nebbiolo from Barolo or Barbaresco.
Our host and Board member Lou Rittenhouse gave us a series of tasting notes from Robert Parker, plus one from Steve Tanzer, and then a series of communes and their descriptors. We were also asked to classify the wines as “Traditional”, “Mid-level Modern/Traditional”, or “Modernist”. We were also given the names of five Barolo producers, with one additional producer that we were to guess. As we tasted, it became clear to most (well, to me at least) that all of the wines were very similar in style, with the exception of wine #2. My guess also was that they were all of similar age, or very nearly so. Here are my notes:
Wine 1: A subtle nose of black cherry, with finely structured detail in the mouth, very classical in style. This wine became increasingly massive with time in the glass, losing none of its energy or its slightly daunting acidity and tannin as the evening progressed. Not your friendliest wine, still this uncompromising wine continued to grow on me, showing much better in fact when the pork tenderloin with the balsamic vinegar reduction was served. This might just be the finest wine in the bunch with some bottle age.
Wine 2: I originally lumped this in with the other Barolos because of the firm acidity on the palate, but with time the differences begin to emerge here. The nose showed a hotter, more alcoholic finish, with an extravagant cherry liqueur/kirsch character that if anything intensified with time. This was either a clear New World style, or maybe even a ringer from the New World, although the acidity on the palate was still not what I normally associate with California. Maybe less impressive than the rest given the rigorous standards of the Barolo, still this was drinking very well.
Wine 3: Many of the tasters voted this as their Number 2 wine of the night. The nose showed a touch of barnyard, with kirsch on the nose, but in a subtler, less in-your-face style than Wine #2. This is made again in what seemed a classical Barolo style, with some massive tannins and high acidity, but also showing a multi-layered character that combined power and detail. Very impressive, aristocratic juice here.
Wine 4: This was probably my least favorite of the classical Barolos at the tasting, with its massive structure and abundant tannins dominating the profile. Perhaps the most backward of the wines along with Wine #1, this presented a volatile acidity on the nose that came across as less friendly for the taster. Still one could not fail to be impressed by the combination of power, the range of flavors, and its detailed structure.
Wine 5: This wine, which like all of them had been open for about six hours before the tasting, showed the most obviously fragrant, floral nose. In the mouth, the character is distinctly friendlier on this multi-layered wine, as if those forbidding and demanding tannins had been brought under some measure of control. The only thing negative I could say is that the wine did not continue to strengthen in the glass the way some of the others did (Wine 1 and 3 especially). Still, many of the tasters considered this Wine of the Night.
Once we had tasted and recorded our notes, we found out what we were drinking:
So, the tasting begins. Hmmm, let’s see—a deep ruby color verging on purple, on the nose a volatile character with notes of black cherry, maybe a touch of violet. On the palate, some very firm acidity, but balanced by a great depth of dark fruit in a finely structured, distinctly aristocratic package. There was no doubt that we were in the presence of something special. Well, the signature of acidity and dark fruit gave it away for everybody—a Nebbiolo from Barolo or Barbaresco.
Our host and Board member Lou Rittenhouse gave us a series of tasting notes from Robert Parker, plus one from Steve Tanzer, and then a series of communes and their descriptors. We were also asked to classify the wines as “Traditional”, “Mid-level Modern/Traditional”, or “Modernist”. We were also given the names of five Barolo producers, with one additional producer that we were to guess. As we tasted, it became clear to most (well, to me at least) that all of the wines were very similar in style, with the exception of wine #2. My guess also was that they were all of similar age, or very nearly so. Here are my notes:
Wine 1: A subtle nose of black cherry, with finely structured detail in the mouth, very classical in style. This wine became increasingly massive with time in the glass, losing none of its energy or its slightly daunting acidity and tannin as the evening progressed. Not your friendliest wine, still this uncompromising wine continued to grow on me, showing much better in fact when the pork tenderloin with the balsamic vinegar reduction was served. This might just be the finest wine in the bunch with some bottle age.
Wine 2: I originally lumped this in with the other Barolos because of the firm acidity on the palate, but with time the differences begin to emerge here. The nose showed a hotter, more alcoholic finish, with an extravagant cherry liqueur/kirsch character that if anything intensified with time. This was either a clear New World style, or maybe even a ringer from the New World, although the acidity on the palate was still not what I normally associate with California. Maybe less impressive than the rest given the rigorous standards of the Barolo, still this was drinking very well.
Wine 3: Many of the tasters voted this as their Number 2 wine of the night. The nose showed a touch of barnyard, with kirsch on the nose, but in a subtler, less in-your-face style than Wine #2. This is made again in what seemed a classical Barolo style, with some massive tannins and high acidity, but also showing a multi-layered character that combined power and detail. Very impressive, aristocratic juice here.
Wine 4: This was probably my least favorite of the classical Barolos at the tasting, with its massive structure and abundant tannins dominating the profile. Perhaps the most backward of the wines along with Wine #1, this presented a volatile acidity on the nose that came across as less friendly for the taster. Still one could not fail to be impressed by the combination of power, the range of flavors, and its detailed structure.
Wine 5: This wine, which like all of them had been open for about six hours before the tasting, showed the most obviously fragrant, floral nose. In the mouth, the character is distinctly friendlier on this multi-layered wine, as if those forbidding and demanding tannins had been brought under some measure of control. The only thing negative I could say is that the wine did not continue to strengthen in the glass the way some of the others did (Wine 1 and 3 especially). Still, many of the tasters considered this Wine of the Night.
Once we had tasted and recorded our notes, we found out what we were drinking:
- Wine 1: 1997 Paulo Scavino Bric del Fiasc Castiglione Falletto
- Wine 2: 2003 Palmina Nebbiolo Sisquoc Vineyard, Santa Maria
- Wine 3: 1997 Bartolo Mascarello, Barolo
- Wine 4: 1997 Massolino Vigna Rionda Riserva, Serralunga
- Wine 5: 1997 Ceretto Brunate, La Morra
Chablis, how I love thee
Apparently I went through a period in which I didn’t drink much Chablis, or what I had did not make much impression on me. So it was with real pleasure to come back to a few bottles and be reminded exactly why I love them.
First up was a wine that I have posted on before, but I put it here again for some context. This was the 2000 V. Dauvissat Forest, which is well on its way to full maturity, although I don’t think the plateau here will be short. The wine was pale straw yellow in color, with a surprisingly delicate nose of quinine, finely comminuted rock dust, and a touch of white flower just beginning to emerge. The quinine (or others might call it a bitter citrus note) was there on the palate as well, merging nicely with the delicate mineral character on the finish. Not a blockbuster wine, in fact more feminine (if I can use that descriptor) and elegant in style, I thought this was great and ready to go.
Less ready for prime time was the 2000 Raveneau Montée de Tonnerre, which showed a more reserved nose of quinine and briny mineral dust than the Dauvissat Forest from the same year, but also another dimension of power and complexity. However, the wines were perhaps less different than I might have thought they would be, with the Raveneau MdT showing also a graceful, detailed, almost lacy texture that seems to distinguish it in at least some years from the more powerful Grand Cru. In fact, this wine struck me as a younger version of the 1990 Raveneau Montée de Tonnerre I tried a few years back at a Chablis offline—very elegant, detailed, and complex, but without the sheer power and almost metallic structure that the Grand Cru can show.
Last up, and by no means ready to drink at all (but we did anyway) was the 2001 Vincent Dauvissat les Clos. Wow, this was mouthful of vibrant acid, with a distinctly metallic note on the palate that reminded (literally) of the taste of stainless steel—these notes were even more prominent than the mineral notes. And the acidity! You could almost feel those etch pits on the teeth nucleating, and I found myself wishing I had brought along a portable pH meter. Still, this had real class and power, a clear step up from the 1er Crus. This will great in five or so years—don’t think of drinking one sooner. I have to say that this seems to show quite a bit more potential than the 2001 Fevre les Clos (if anybody is comparing).
First up was a wine that I have posted on before, but I put it here again for some context. This was the 2000 V. Dauvissat Forest, which is well on its way to full maturity, although I don’t think the plateau here will be short. The wine was pale straw yellow in color, with a surprisingly delicate nose of quinine, finely comminuted rock dust, and a touch of white flower just beginning to emerge. The quinine (or others might call it a bitter citrus note) was there on the palate as well, merging nicely with the delicate mineral character on the finish. Not a blockbuster wine, in fact more feminine (if I can use that descriptor) and elegant in style, I thought this was great and ready to go.
Less ready for prime time was the 2000 Raveneau Montée de Tonnerre, which showed a more reserved nose of quinine and briny mineral dust than the Dauvissat Forest from the same year, but also another dimension of power and complexity. However, the wines were perhaps less different than I might have thought they would be, with the Raveneau MdT showing also a graceful, detailed, almost lacy texture that seems to distinguish it in at least some years from the more powerful Grand Cru. In fact, this wine struck me as a younger version of the 1990 Raveneau Montée de Tonnerre I tried a few years back at a Chablis offline—very elegant, detailed, and complex, but without the sheer power and almost metallic structure that the Grand Cru can show.
Last up, and by no means ready to drink at all (but we did anyway) was the 2001 Vincent Dauvissat les Clos. Wow, this was mouthful of vibrant acid, with a distinctly metallic note on the palate that reminded (literally) of the taste of stainless steel—these notes were even more prominent than the mineral notes. And the acidity! You could almost feel those etch pits on the teeth nucleating, and I found myself wishing I had brought along a portable pH meter. Still, this had real class and power, a clear step up from the 1er Crus. This will great in five or so years—don’t think of drinking one sooner. I have to say that this seems to show quite a bit more potential than the 2001 Fevre les Clos (if anybody is comparing).
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
1990 Nuits St. Georges Shootout
After being shut down at Quince in our bid to bring in three Burgs, we made our way to the relatively new restaurant Nua in North Beach for a red Burgundy and whatever dinner with the usual suspects.
First up was a 2006 Vacheron Sancerre, extremely young and primary, but literally bursting with intense mineral and citrus flavors, a great way to get those taste receptors firing on full power. I am not sure this will ever develop in to a particularly complex wine, but I imagine it should drink very well for quite some years.
Next up was supposed to be a 2004 Saint Romain from Domaine Germain Pere et Fils on the recommendation of Sharon Bowman, but they had just sold out the day before. So we opted for a 2005 Weingut Bründlmayer Riesling Zöbinger Heiligenstein, which I thought was drinking beautifully already, with nicely balanced soft fruit and acidity on the palate and a delicately nuanced floral nose. As a follow-on to the brisk acidity of the Sancerre, this provided a nice transition to the more complex aged red Burgundies that came up next.
Next up was the 1990 Nuits St Georges shootout. Paired against the 1990 Faiveley Nuits St. Georges les Chaignots was an Ambroise Nuits St. Georges les Vaucrains. The Faiveley was showing very well, better in my opinion than a Hospice de Nuits NSG les St Georges Cuvee G. Faiveley from a couple of nights before. On the nose, notes of soy and mushroom, with delicate red berry aromas and a touch of saddle leather. A touch of oxidation seemed to lurk there, but never intensified, and the bottle showed as well with the last drop as it did at the beginning. Deeper, more powerful on the palate, with a higher level of tannin and minerality as well, was the 1990 Ambroise Nuits St Georges les Vaucrains. Very fresh and pure red berry aromas on the nose, just slightly blacker in character than the Chaignots, this just kept getting stronger and stronger with time in the glass. This should continue to improve with bottle age.
We also included a 1985 L. Latour Mazis-Chambertin, but it was oxidized, the red fruit on the palate seriously faded. A second bottle with the same provenance showed exactly the same oxidation, leading us to the following alert:
--------------------> CONSUMER ALERT <---------------------
Better pass on these...
As a substitute, we ordered a 2001 Fornacina Brunello di Montalcino off the list. Maybe not much of a match for the older Burgundies we were drinking, still this was showing quite well, with impressive depth and structure on the palate and surprisingly expressive nose of violets.
First up was a 2006 Vacheron Sancerre, extremely young and primary, but literally bursting with intense mineral and citrus flavors, a great way to get those taste receptors firing on full power. I am not sure this will ever develop in to a particularly complex wine, but I imagine it should drink very well for quite some years.
Next up was supposed to be a 2004 Saint Romain from Domaine Germain Pere et Fils on the recommendation of Sharon Bowman, but they had just sold out the day before. So we opted for a 2005 Weingut Bründlmayer Riesling Zöbinger Heiligenstein, which I thought was drinking beautifully already, with nicely balanced soft fruit and acidity on the palate and a delicately nuanced floral nose. As a follow-on to the brisk acidity of the Sancerre, this provided a nice transition to the more complex aged red Burgundies that came up next.
Next up was the 1990 Nuits St Georges shootout. Paired against the 1990 Faiveley Nuits St. Georges les Chaignots was an Ambroise Nuits St. Georges les Vaucrains. The Faiveley was showing very well, better in my opinion than a Hospice de Nuits NSG les St Georges Cuvee G. Faiveley from a couple of nights before. On the nose, notes of soy and mushroom, with delicate red berry aromas and a touch of saddle leather. A touch of oxidation seemed to lurk there, but never intensified, and the bottle showed as well with the last drop as it did at the beginning. Deeper, more powerful on the palate, with a higher level of tannin and minerality as well, was the 1990 Ambroise Nuits St Georges les Vaucrains. Very fresh and pure red berry aromas on the nose, just slightly blacker in character than the Chaignots, this just kept getting stronger and stronger with time in the glass. This should continue to improve with bottle age.
We also included a 1985 L. Latour Mazis-Chambertin, but it was oxidized, the red fruit on the palate seriously faded. A second bottle with the same provenance showed exactly the same oxidation, leading us to the following alert:
--------------------> CONSUMER ALERT <---------------------
Better pass on these...
As a substitute, we ordered a 2001 Fornacina Brunello di Montalcino off the list. Maybe not much of a match for the older Burgundies we were drinking, still this was showing quite well, with impressive depth and structure on the palate and surprisingly expressive nose of violets.
Tasting at Nua
A group of six convened at Nua Restaurant in the North Beach section of San Francisco to sample various Burgundies. The wine service was spectacular for our group, and was matched by some top-notch cuisine that paired very nicely with the older and younger Burgundy fare being tasted.
First up were two white Burgundies that did nothing to allay my fears that I am becoming too uncritical with age. Both beautiful wines in my opinion, but quite different in style. The 2000 R&V Dauvissat Chablis la Forest was pale straw yellow in color, with a surprisingly delicate nose of quinine, finely comminuted rock dust, and a touch of white flower just beginning to emerge. The quinine was there on the palate as well (got my malaria treatment), merging nicely with the delicate mineral character on the finish. Not a blockbuster wine, in fact quite feminine and elegant in style, I thought this was great. The second bottle was the more full bodied 1999 Remi Jobard Meursault les Genevrières, distinctly darker in color than the Dauvissat Chablis, and with intense mid-palate flavors of citrus and apples lifted by the racy acidity. Faint tropical fruit notes show on the aromatic finish, along with an oxidative note (which nobody else at the table commented on) that remained in the background. Absolutely delicious wine. Tough to choose between these two wines (if you had to), both performing very nicely in their own different styles.
Next up were the reds, including a 1996 Arlaud Clos de la Roche Cuvée Unique, which started out spectacularly with a cascading nose of ripe red fruit. The palate was a bit less impressive, showing the slightly excessive acidity and austerity of some of the 1996s. Most also thought this wine did not hold up so well with time in the glass, as the ripe red fruit on the nose faded and the oak treatment and volatility of the wine moved to the foreground. By the end of the glass, I thought the oak treatment was excessive and the wine suffered as a result.
Next up were three Clos Vougeots: the 1990 and 1993 Anne Gros Clos Vougeot and the 1998 V. Girardin Clos Vougeot. The 1990 Anne Gros Clos Vougeot le Grand Monpertui showed an expressive but slightly volatile nose dominated by dark fruit and minerals. On the palate, the dark fruit presents itself in a slightly acidic, austere package that is not exactly what I expected given the general characteristics of the vintage. This should improve with further bottle aging, but the wine suffers a bit in comparison to the depth and roundness one finds in the 1993 Anne Gros Clos Vougeot le Grand Monpertui, the WOTN for most (maybe all) of the tasters present. Here we find another step up in both concentration and balance, with smoky spice notes, forest floor, and dark chocolate emerging on the slightly reserved but very pure nose dominated by black fruit. This wine held up beautifully with time in the glass, but really needs another five years or so to develop more fully. But the depth and incipient complexity are all there. Great stuff! Less impressive to my mind was the 1998 Girardin Clos Vougeot, which showed a sort of rough, grainy texture when first tasted, almost suggesting that it had not yet worked off all of its CO2. This black fruit-dominated wine improved with time in the glass as the rough edges faded (due to the loss of CO2?), but the mid-palate depth and balance was simply not there IMO, although some of the tasters ranked this as their 2nd wine of the night. Still, this might improve substantially with some additional age, so maybe final judgment should be reserved.
Last up among the red Burgundies was a 1990 Hospice de Nuits Nuits St. Georges les St Georges Cuvée Faiveley. We never did figure out whether this was really a Domaine wine, or negociant, but it showed quite well, with an impressive, very pure nose of red and black fruit and the most tannic profile of any of the wines we tasted. The concentration on the palate was noteworthy, but in a distinctly different style from the almost creamy, smoky 1993 Gros Clos Vougeot. With the Faiveley NSG les St Georges, the black and red fruit presents itself in an almost stern if not quite austere style, and in the end one has the sense of a sort of schoolmasterly style of wine that delivers the goods in a less than easy, forgiving fashion. Did this need more bottle age to show its stuff, or is it really just a mid-level wine?
First up were two white Burgundies that did nothing to allay my fears that I am becoming too uncritical with age. Both beautiful wines in my opinion, but quite different in style. The 2000 R&V Dauvissat Chablis la Forest was pale straw yellow in color, with a surprisingly delicate nose of quinine, finely comminuted rock dust, and a touch of white flower just beginning to emerge. The quinine was there on the palate as well (got my malaria treatment), merging nicely with the delicate mineral character on the finish. Not a blockbuster wine, in fact quite feminine and elegant in style, I thought this was great. The second bottle was the more full bodied 1999 Remi Jobard Meursault les Genevrières, distinctly darker in color than the Dauvissat Chablis, and with intense mid-palate flavors of citrus and apples lifted by the racy acidity. Faint tropical fruit notes show on the aromatic finish, along with an oxidative note (which nobody else at the table commented on) that remained in the background. Absolutely delicious wine. Tough to choose between these two wines (if you had to), both performing very nicely in their own different styles.
Next up were the reds, including a 1996 Arlaud Clos de la Roche Cuvée Unique, which started out spectacularly with a cascading nose of ripe red fruit. The palate was a bit less impressive, showing the slightly excessive acidity and austerity of some of the 1996s. Most also thought this wine did not hold up so well with time in the glass, as the ripe red fruit on the nose faded and the oak treatment and volatility of the wine moved to the foreground. By the end of the glass, I thought the oak treatment was excessive and the wine suffered as a result.
Next up were three Clos Vougeots: the 1990 and 1993 Anne Gros Clos Vougeot and the 1998 V. Girardin Clos Vougeot. The 1990 Anne Gros Clos Vougeot le Grand Monpertui showed an expressive but slightly volatile nose dominated by dark fruit and minerals. On the palate, the dark fruit presents itself in a slightly acidic, austere package that is not exactly what I expected given the general characteristics of the vintage. This should improve with further bottle aging, but the wine suffers a bit in comparison to the depth and roundness one finds in the 1993 Anne Gros Clos Vougeot le Grand Monpertui, the WOTN for most (maybe all) of the tasters present. Here we find another step up in both concentration and balance, with smoky spice notes, forest floor, and dark chocolate emerging on the slightly reserved but very pure nose dominated by black fruit. This wine held up beautifully with time in the glass, but really needs another five years or so to develop more fully. But the depth and incipient complexity are all there. Great stuff! Less impressive to my mind was the 1998 Girardin Clos Vougeot, which showed a sort of rough, grainy texture when first tasted, almost suggesting that it had not yet worked off all of its CO2. This black fruit-dominated wine improved with time in the glass as the rough edges faded (due to the loss of CO2?), but the mid-palate depth and balance was simply not there IMO, although some of the tasters ranked this as their 2nd wine of the night. Still, this might improve substantially with some additional age, so maybe final judgment should be reserved.
Last up among the red Burgundies was a 1990 Hospice de Nuits Nuits St. Georges les St Georges Cuvée Faiveley. We never did figure out whether this was really a Domaine wine, or negociant, but it showed quite well, with an impressive, very pure nose of red and black fruit and the most tannic profile of any of the wines we tasted. The concentration on the palate was noteworthy, but in a distinctly different style from the almost creamy, smoky 1993 Gros Clos Vougeot. With the Faiveley NSG les St Georges, the black and red fruit presents itself in an almost stern if not quite austere style, and in the end one has the sense of a sort of schoolmasterly style of wine that delivers the goods in a less than easy, forgiving fashion. Did this need more bottle age to show its stuff, or is it really just a mid-level wine?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)