It is a big debate these days. Climate change in the vineyard vs. typicity. Many believe that 2008 Burgundy will prove to be the more “pure” expression of Pinot Noir, made from a cold climate, as it should be. While a vintage like 2009, far more flattering in its youth, will not never be as complex. But opinions vary like so many economists discussing the best way to solve the euro crisis or debt in the developing world. While enjoying a lovely meal at Caves Madeleine, that is what owner Laurent Prelin said. An amiable and accommodating sommelier/owner, who has a true passion for wine. And runs a great friendly restaurant. But the irony here is that Pinot Noir in Burgundy is still brilliantly authentic, when compared to some of the wines we had at the bistro – wines I brought thanks to the public relations manager from Monteverro Toscana, a new winery in Toscana under the consultancy of world famous winemaker Michel Rolland. These wines – see my notes HERE – were about 15% alcohol, made from Bordeaux and Rhone varietals. Although well made, they were far more international in style, and certain to please Robert Parker. Rich, big, bold. And about as far away from 2008 Burgundy as one could get. Come to think of it, also as far away from 2009 Burgundy.
The thing is, Burgundy 2009 was not a really hot vintage. The evenings were cool and therein lies the difference. Although not as balanced as the more structured and likely longer lasting 2005 vintage, the 2009 vintage is no 2003. Few of the wines tasted conveyed any prune like or baked aromas one can find in many 2003s. Indeed, their richness was backed by fine structure. The tannins were suave. The taste was delicious. And even Frederic Mugnier said that 2009 is a “great vintage” that “will last a long time”. So where is the problem? In 2008, the weather was problematic and the challenges were difficult. It was a vintner’s vintage, and some did better than others. Some 2008s I have tried - see also this report - were indeed great, too. But I found far more regularity in 2009, and that can explain their higher pricing. But basic villages wines are not expensive, and well worth your while.
With Jürgen Steinke and Mike Grammer just after lunch in Puligny Montrachet
The whites however are a different story. When you read the notes on Paul Pernot for example, you will see that while the 2009 whites were good, the 2008s have more substance and will last longer. At Bouchard for example, the 2008 whites are superb!
Finally, the 2010s tasted from barrel show much promise. They seem to have the brightness of the 2008s but more fruit, perhaps better ripeness. At least that is what Frederic Mugnier said, comparing the 2010 vintage to the 2008 in that manner. Which may be more user friendly for the reds.
The notes. Readers of my website have gotten to know my notation. I sometimes avoid scoring and opt more for the following method: wines in bold I like, wines in red and bold, I really liked, and when underlined, the wines are great, even sublime. So here goes…
Monday 30 May – Sunny but very hot weather, pretty good conditions to taste wine, especially in a cold cellar…
With Paul Pernot
Paul Pernot in Puligny Montrachet is an authentic vigneron. And his wines are almost always very well made. Not much new oak in his whites, which we tasted – did not get to his reds. This was my second visit at his estates in Puligny Montrachet. We tasted many 09s, which were good enough for the vintage, some even very delicious, but the 08s are probably more interesting for the long run. If you do not have premox. Two very different vintages. In 2008, harvest ended at the beginning of October. In 2009, the harvest was from 7-15 September. And although alcohol levels were similar, 2008 had one full gram of acidity more: 4.8 grams per liter as opposed to 3.8 in 2009. Now, I found some 09s flabby, but others well worth the price of admission. Take the simple villages wine at just €22 per bottle. Same price for the 2008, but the 2009 is more flattering today. A sure sign of the demand however for the 08s is their paucity. Most are sold out, while you can still get some 07s and of course 09s. Pernot thinks that 07 is a bit more longer term than 09… and I recall loving the 07s when I tried them from barrel almost two years ago.
Puligny Montrachet 2008. Good richness on the attack, a tad thin on the mid palate – lot of acidity – but the finish is reassuringly full. The Puligny Montrachet 2009 is almost tropical by comparison, certainly less structured, even a tad flabby, but lots of juicy fruit. When tasted again at the end of the tasting I almost wanted to mix the two!
The 2008s will outlast the 2009s, Paul Pernot says in this video, see below:
Meursault Blagny La Pierre sous le Bois 2009. Spearmint like nose, freshness, pears on the palate, although somewhat diffuse and a tad warm on the finish. OK
Puligny Montrachet Les Folatieres 2009. Here we have about 30% new oak (earlier wines had none), showing licorice, pear, very rich and broad, a bit too thick for my taste, even somewhat warm?
Puligny Montrachet Clos de la Garenne 2009. Firmer, more mineral, perhaps not immediately exciting, but the palate has more structure and is more interesting to me.
Puligny Montrachet Les Pucelles 2009. A mix of the two previous wines? Orange blossom nose, a hint of wet stone, richness but not over the top. Nice job! And so popular that both Jürgen Steinke and Mike Grammer who tasted with me bought some of that.
Bienvenue Batard Montrachet 2009. Here we have 40% new oak. Bottled in August. Very rich. Somewhat tropical. There is a veritable volume to this wine but also quite elegant. Is there just a hint of heat?
Batard Montrachet 2009. 45% new oak. Herbal notes, basil. Subtle richness, wintergreen, a cooler aspect, but also opulent. Very successful.
Batard Montrachet 2008. My goodness what difference acidity makes. Here we have a wine that had been opened the day before, carafed and from a half bottle to boot, yet was very fresh while also showing off yellow peach and floral scents and flavors. I see why this is sold out.
Chez Domaine Mugneret Gibourg in Vosne Romanee: a great discovery, thanks to Mike Grammer who organized the visit.
Marie Christine Mugneret
What a great visit! The wines here were all at least very good. I was lucky to have been able to buy some 2009s, many of which were already sold out, but I got two magnificent Echezeaux… and three excellent Vosne Romanees. Does this domain deserve a golden star, like the one we get in elementary school? YES!
Marie Christine was a fine hostess. She makes the wine with her sister Marie Andree Mugneret. She said that there might have been a bit of acidification in 2009 but certainly a “spoonful” of sugar was added to lengthen the fermentations. Natural yeasts used. In 2003, certainly acidification. In 2008, more chaptalisation. Interesting fact: the village wines were not yet in bottle, but the premiers and grands crus were! The malolactics took longer for the former in 2009! We tasted some 2010s, which showed much promise, perhaps just less brightness than some of the other 2010s tasted at other estates, but just as much purity. It was not the easiest time to taste, because the malos were not all done, and there was reduction, too. Check out the video below – in French- in which Marie Christine explains how the 2011 vintage as of late May resembles the 2007 vintage, which was very hot and dry, until the rains came… She also explains why there was sulfur in the air: lots of preventive treatment as a rain burst was expected (and it came) the next day.
2009s
Bourgogne. 10% new oak. 12.5% alcohol. 3.4 pH. Pure cherry aspect. More black than red. Good sap, even somewhat creamy. A bit warm on the finish, but a very fine basic Burg. Just €14.80 at the property. 60-year-old vines!
Vosne Romanee Villages 2009. We saw part of their 3-hectare vineyard, which has varied vine ages, averaging 40 years old. Hint of cinnamon and mocha. Very pretty wine, excellent freshness, with floral notes, violet, and graphite. A rounded and complete wine which I preferred to the next, premier cru level. About 13% alcohol, 25% new oak. Only €27.50 at the property. With giddy glee, I snapped up the three bottles maximum that were authorised to buy per person…
Nuits St Georges 1er Cru Les Chaignots. Slightly higher alcohol, this comes from a vineyard that is northward, closer to Vosne Romanee. There is a Lindt chocolate like finesse on the nose, flattering, but lacking in my opinion the needed lift to make it more special. Could this be what some 2008 fans talk about, about cool climate Pinot being better? Perhaps this wine could illustrate their point. 45% new oak. €40 per bottle.
Chambolle Musigny Les Feusselottes. Here we have a clear step up. Again 45% new oak, 13.5% alcohol. More perfumed aroma of ripe red and black cherries, white flowers, too. The palate displays a fine mineral focus, with refined tannins. I got a hint – just vague – of heat… but overall, a very elegant wine! €44 per bottle, a great price. I know that Mike and Jürgen got some of this!
Echezeaux Grand Cru. Now this was my wine of the tasting and only two bottles were left for what I thought was per person. We were three interested parties and Marie Christine seemed worried that we all wanted this. I ended up with two bottles at €70 per bottle. Money very well spent because this wine exuded superb balance, while juggling poetically floral, cherry pit and cassis aromas and flavors. It was aged in 60% new oak that was perfectly integrated. Not a hint of staves here. Coming from two complementary terroirs: the northern Les Rouges du Bas where the vines average 70 years in age and the more southern Quartiers des Nuits, where vines are 40 years old. Just nine barrels…
Ruchottes Chambertin. Just two other owners of this 3.3 hectare terroir, Armand Rousseau and Christophe Roumier. They have .5 hectares. Stricter nose, graphite. Licorice and mineral. A hint of pepper on the palate, very long and precise. 65% new oak. Impressive, deeper perhaps than the above, but far less charming.
Clos Vougeot. Just five barrels of this, about .333 hectares. Located where the tour busses stop, at the higher end of the 52-hectare appellation, at Monliottes hautes. Even more closed here, with subtle violet aromas. Rich on the palate but subdued. Graphite. “Complex” fruit. Again, 65% new oak, where the toast can be higher. Again, I return to Echezeaux for more pleasure.
At Domaine Remoissenet in Beaune: Manager Bernard Repolt guided us through the tasting of 2010 reds. He was an excellent host and explained very well the wines. Towards the end of the visit, we also met the talented and young Claudie Jobard who vinifies the wines. The day was torrid outside, so it was truly comfortable to taste in the air conditioned cellar.
Tasting in the comfortably cool cellars of Remoissenet
I had already visited this Beaune based property with Pierre Antoine Rovani about 18 months ago. Just after the 2009 harvest in fact. He wanted to offer all his stems. A firm believer in fermentation without stems and later harvesting, Rovani – formerly a critic with Robert Parker – prefers ripe fruit without the “risk” of stems in the fermentation vats. He had told me that while some wines develop well with the stems, too often the stems can be detrimental to the wine. Frederic Mugnier also avoids stems in his vats, although he thinks that in the long run, any stem derived notes are well integrated. He just prefers to avoid any hint of possible bitterness early on.
Here my experience with the 2010 reds was more mixed. While the Corton Renards is magnificent, other appellations were a bit less impressive.
2010s
Beaune Greves: This was positive. Bright red fruit. Vivacity. A fine Beaune.
Beaune Toussaints 1er Cru. The nose is a tad closed but the palate is marked, again, by a bright red fruit aspect that indicates a crackly acidity of 2010. Is the fruit riper here than at Mugneret-Gibourg? That was a question posed by Jürgen, and he is perhaps correct. A good balance between the ripe fruit and the acidity.
Beaune Marconnets 1er Cru. Here a spicier nose, strawberry ripeness, is the palate just a tad sharp?
Nuits St Georges (villages). The vineyard is located very close to Vosne Romanee. A touch of spice on the nose, I get ripe red cherry on the nose and on the palate, which is tight and marked by more noticeable acidity.
Vosne Romanee (villages). A darker register. A touch more suave than the above. Fine.
Gevrey Chambertin (villages). Not sure about the sample here. A hint of shoe polish and overly reduced. No comment.
Volnay Robardelles 1er Cru. I get a furry animal aspect on the nose… The palate is warmer, with very ripe fruit, a tad hot to me.
Pommard Arvelets 1er Cru. Another odd sample, as I get nail polish and sour cream. The second sample is far better, with more brightness here, red cherry fruit. Fine.
Pommard Chermots 1er Cru. Medium intensity red fruit, ripe and bright too. Even somewhat smoky making this intriguing. Fine.
Nuits St Georges Bousselots 1er Cru. Ashes, even burnt? The palate is better but there is too much reduction perhaps to appreciate.
Nuits St Georges Damodes 1er Cru. Fine mineral notes, with medium+ fruit intensity, even elegant fruit. A wine to seek out.
Chambolle Musigny Echanges 1er Cru. We joked that this is the swinger club wine… I get a brief whiff of shoe polish, but then a velvety nose, with spice. The palate is very ripe.
Gevrey Trio 1er Cru. This I just did not like: very coffee, caramel and burnt toast. Far too much new oak?
Gevrey Chambertin Poissenots 1er Cru. Here some shoe polish notes? Coming from a new oak barrel, again… Very ripe on the palate, which is better. But not sure.
Gevrey Chambertin Cazetiers 1er Cru. Far better nose, the best of the Gevreys here. Cherry focused. Although the palate feels just a tad extracted. Still, a big improvement over the Poissenots.
Corton Renardes Grand Cru. Fresh nose, minty aspect, quite beautiful in fact. The palate is juicy, not thick. So there is some tightness, but it acts more as healthy tension to match the ripe fruit which is, again, very juicy and even sumptuous. Lovely wine! Vineyards located high on the slope with northeastern exposure.
Clos Vougeot. Here the nose is more reduced, and has a “thicker” aspect, but the palate shows off serious plum and ripe blackberry fruits, with healthy tightening on the finish. Serious Clos Vougeot.
Chapelle Chambertin. Mentholated nose. There is a certain sweetness to the layered palate, which displays a “grand cru” breed… even if I get the sense that there is a bit of oak derivation, but time will put things all to the good.
Charmes Chambertin. Not sure about this one, it is far more closed, with reduction than the previous wine. The palate is somewhat dumb at this stage, and does not seem quite as “layered” as the previous wine, but it could be just a phase.
Chambertin Clos de Beze. Just 1.5 barrels in 2010 (normally they produce 2), and the cellar master Claudie Jobard showed up… great to have the winemaker there. The nose was rather rich, but not heavy. Very well integrated oak. The flavor intensity on the palate was high, displaying strength but not monolithic. A very impressive wine, with structure, fruit and tannin all well balanced and ready for the long haul. Not as immediately charming as the Corton Renardes, which has to be my overall favorite of all the reds here, but will likely outlast it and perhaps prove to be even better in the longer run.
A go-to, highly rated restaurant in Beaune. Unpretentious, inexpensive and good sums up the overall ambiance and food quality. The cavernous setting is amenable to wine and food, and guests can choose from very fairly priced wines from all over France, including outside France. A top quality German Riesling? You can get it there. As well as some exceptional French wines, from Jacques Frederic Mugnier’s Musigny 2006, which costs under €300. For a restaurant price, a great deal. But also other lovely wines, including affordable Chablis and less prestigious red Burgundy appellations. Laurent Prelin, owner and sommelier, is a great host. He authorized me to bring four samples of wine from the next super Tuscan wine, at least that is what Monteverro would like to be. Many thanks to Olympia Romba, sales and marketing manager, who sent me the samples.
Here the notes:
Although the wines are very well made, and they would please many a palate, they do not really constitute my style of wine. There is a bigness to them that I think quite international in approach. And I am certain that Robert Parker will give at least two of them very high scores. Michel Rolland is the consultant.
Let’s look at the best of the bunch, the Monteverro Toscana 2008. Very well made, with a fruit filled and big palate. Rich and intense. Its 15% alcohol is not really showing as such, but the wine is large scaled and intense. Fellow taster Jürgen Steinke, who tastes regularly with the Grand Jury Europeen, believes that it would be confused with certain Right Bank Bordeaux wines from 2009 or 2010, if tasted blind. Although the blend is 60% Cabernet Sauvignon, it also has 10% Merlot and 25% Cabernet Franc, and the rest Petit Verdot.
The second wine, Terra de Monteverro, has a slightly fresher nose, and the palate does show a “Rollandesque” plum richness. Jürgen said that it “flirts” with over-ripeness, and that “no doubt a lot of people will like this” and I would agree. The alcohol, again 15%, is also well integrated that the more expensive first wine, but it again resembles a rich St Emilion from the 09 or 10 vintages. Certainly will make many people happy!
I was perhaps alone in enjoying most the Tinata, which mixes Syrah and Grenache. This has the most alcohol, at 15.5%, but it had a Rhone like succulence that would make any Rhone Ranger happy. Still, I could see why a Burgundy fan like Mike Grammer and a person sensitive to jammy fruit, like Jürgen, would like this less. Still, I can turn off my Burgundy love, and focus on the Rhone jam and appreciate this for what it is.
One of the wines however was not good for anyone… The Chardonnay was far too dark for its age. It displayed butterscotch aromas and flavors. Excess sweetness. Very New World Chardonnay and the oak derivation also was too much for my taste.
Note on Caves Madeleines: here one can get excellent service, superb wine knowledge and a very friendly attitude. Did I mention that the prices are very reasonable? Well, one of the few quality bistros where – if you buy a bottle or two from the list – you can also bring your own wines, also if you call in advance, and share with the owner. The escargot was delicious.
Tuesday 31 May – a rainy and colder day. At least the vines needed the rain… We got a good whiff of sulfur the day before as preventive treatment for the expected rain. Although hardly diluvian, it was enough to refresh the vines, many said. Conditions to taste not as good, as the atmosphere was rather heavy and cloudy, but we enjoyed the next set of wines at yet another wonderful property which Mike Grammer introduced me to! Thanks Mike!
At Domaine Taupenot Merme in Morey Saint Denis.
What a fine welcome from Virginie Taupenot Daniel. Perfect guidance through the barrels of 2010, careful choices made, as some samples were far too reduced for their own good, and then she guided us through a series of lovely 2009s. The domain comprises 13 hectares, 20 appellations. Organically grown since 2001. Not certified. Again, 2011 resembles 2007 so far, she said. Although in 2007, the rains fell in the summer… still they had harvested on 1 September in 2007. They practice cold fermentation for 4-5 days and fermentation of about 2-3 weeks. Some pumping over and punching down of the cap, when appropriate.
Virginie Taupenot Daniel
2010
Chambolle Musigny (Villages). Located higher in the appellation. A reduced nose but good purity. Brightness on the palate. Nice job!
Morey St Denis (villages). Darker register, dark cherry. Nice full fruit, elegance too. I prefer this to the Chambolle.
Chambolle Musigny 1er Cru La Combe d’Orveau. Wow this shows lovely red cherry and brightness, coming from 60-year old vines. Lovely!
Morey St Denis La Riotte 1er Cru. A spicier nose, with black cherry, seems to show more body than the above, very impressive. Perhaps a tad better?
Nuits St Georges Les Pruliers. Coffee bean, dark fruit, and expansive on the palate, rich. A hearty wine which really pleases the palate. Fine job.
Chambertin Mazoyers Grand Cru. Here I get a bit more heft, bigness, with dark cherry. It should gain in finesse over time.
2009s
Most were bottled in February 2011.
St Romain (red). Coming from rocky soils. Hint of floral. Strawberry. Some jam. Red licorice. Is the palate just a tad austere? It does not seem to deliver the nose’s promise. There is good sap however, although a hint of iron. Good.
Gevrey Chambertin (villages). Nose is more chocolate cake, black fruit. Again a promising nose, but the palate – marked by some beef blood – is not as giving as the nose suggests. Seems to show more the structure, rather tannic. Harvest was between 14-15 September. Lots going on, this is promising.
Chambolle Musigny La Combe d’Orveau 1er Cru. At 13.5% alcohol. I get violets and black cherry on the nose. It is rather deep on the palate, no need for punching down of the cap on this, Virginie explained. Quite rich, lots of tannins. And I found this well balanced. Rich yet fresh, if just a touch of warmth on the finish? Jürgen found this a tad short on the finish but I really liked the wine. And was able to purchase… one bottle!
Morey St Denis La Riotte. More earthiness here, some sour cherry, and the palate reveals something like polished rock underneath the earth, with a hint of musk… Very sap filled. I would have bought some of this, too! Very nice!
Nuits St Georges Pruliers 1er Cru. Black licorice, mineral aromas. There is a steeliness to the palate, slightly austere. Give it time.
Charmes Chambertin GC. More subtle nose, even closed. But displays deep dark cherry, graphite, bordering on gunflint! And white flowers. The palate exhibits power and structure but there is elegance matched with an intriguing spice (oak derivation?) including nutmeg. With time in glass, one gets the sap, too, but this is a long distance runner. Bravo!
Mazoyers Chambertin GC. Very floral, nectar like, with a hint of iron? Good sap. Although more fluid, and perhaps more charming, not quite as serious as the preceding wine. But one is totally seduced by the fine tannic grain, and focused linear aspect. More “feminine” perhaps.
Saint Romain (white). Yellow peach, Kiwi fruit, a bit too much pineapple for me to really like this, but a good drink – a touch of heat. Still, it would go well with a linguini and scallops in a cream sauce. And the price is certainly attractive!
Tasting with Ray Walker at Maison Ilan in Nuits Saint George. Ray Walker is a serious young man, born in 1981, who chose to do what many wine lovers would only dream of doing: make his own wine, and in Burgundy no less. No new oak. Careful, thoughtful decisions made on his own with regard to grape selections and vinifications, he has made some amazing wine.
Many of the 2010s tasted with Ray were very impressive, although it was sometimes difficult to understand the wines not finished with malo, and reduced by sulfur. Even better perhaps than his 2009, was his Gevrey –Chambertin Les Corbeaux 1er Cru, which displayed fine freshness. Over lunch we enjoyed a superlative Morey St Denis Les Chaffots 2009 which exhibited a very pure mineral expression, notions of coffee bean but certainly not coming from any new oak (he only ages his wines in older oak!) and a very lovely richness. Lunching at Ray’s we were spoiled by Ray, who insisted on giving each of us (to Jürgen and to Mike) one bottle of this wine. Many thanks Ray!
Bouchard Pere & Fils in Beaune
I have known this Maison for several years now, having lunched in early 2009 with Stephane Follin Arbelet, then managing Director, and with Isabelle Philippe , for an article in France Today. I have also gotten to know Philippe Prost, the winemaking director, first over a tasting of 2008s and then over a dinner which included 1959 Le Corton from magnum. Finally, I tasted with him late last year the 2009s, which proved mostly very delicious: SEE HERE. This time we were greeted by Cecile Blanchardon, who gave Mike, Jürgen and me a tour of the impressive castle and domain and a view of the very old cellars.
2008s, unless otherwise noted. On balance the whites performed far better here. Which seems to argue for the difficulty of the 2008 vintage, regardless of what some “purists” may say about 2008 being more pure than 2009. In my opinion, at least at Bouchard, and for the wines tasted below, 2009 is FAR better for the reds…
Reds
Monthelie. A bit of wet dog, iron on the initial nose. A tad thin on the palate, overall, but adequate corpulence. Slightly disjointed feel, among alcohol and acidity. Somewhat furry and musk like.
Beaune du Chateau 1er Cru. Made from 17 parcels of vines, all premier cru, this wine has always been a favorite of mine since discovering the 2006 vintage. And here it does what is expected: nice red fruit character, lovely red cherry, decent sap. I liked this one more than Mike or Jürgen.
Volnay Caillerets Cuvee Carnot. Here I get another iron aroma, slight beef blood, although a deeper nose of darker fruit, too, at the same time “soft”. What could I say, “better” musk aromas, too. The palate reflects a certain earthiness, damson spice, but it is marked by rather high acidity which is not as pleasing. How will this age?
Beaune Greves Vigne de l’Enfant Jesus. Coming from choice parcels in Greves, this is a star red for Bouchard, with an even deeper nose than the above, rather black fruit in profile, with licorice and spice – made with up to 80% new oak! There is more volume on the palate, but it is still almost hard to stand up to the acidity and tightness. Made from grapes that are at least partially not de-stemmed, this seems challenging. Cross your fingers?
Le Corton 2007. This was the one red that was not 2008, and it showed the charm of the 2007 vintage. Much softer than the above, more inviting if not exactly very focused, but a relief to taste after the last two, even if the tannins are a tad edgy…
Whites
Meursault Les Clous. Jürgen bought three of these at the gift shop and I do not blame him. I would have, too, but opted for a single bottle of the far more expensive Corton Charlemagne… Anyway, this was showing a bit of mineral, vaguely pierre a fusil, but the soft middle so typical of this cru, which I had bought while working as a sommelier on Nantucket island, is so nicely balanced by the vif acidity of the vintage. A success, and you should buy some: competitive pricing! 10% new oak.
Beaune du Chateau Blanc 1er Cru. A bit more floral on the nose, lilacs. Smooth and with a riper feel, juiciness on the palate, white apricot, if perhaps just a tad flabby in the middle, which is what surprised me here. 15% new oak, which I felt more of here…
Meursault Les Genevrieres. Mike Grammer’s favorite. More herbal aspect on the nose, excellent finesse on the palate, acidity lends “cut” and the lingering finish is marked by orange blossom and lime. Lovely indeed, integrating its 18% new oak very well. And a good price, to boot.
Corton Charlemagne. I spent €82 on this one bottle. Extravagant, perhaps, but it blew me away enough to do so. What subtle aromas of almond and wet stone! It perfectly incorporates the 25% new oak, with a soft density, leaving the impression of a spherical palate, all very polished yet with much substance. Vif yet corpulent, fresh yet opulent. Wow. This is a long term beauty.
1 June. The rains had subsided today, leaving a freshness in the air and partly cloudy skies. I was looking forward to this visit to Chambolle Musigny at Jacques Frederic Mugnier. This was my second visit to the domain and owner Frederic was just like the last time: very informative and interesting. His wines are splendid, too… He sees that the 2011 harvest will very likely be precocious, as the vineyard cycle is already… 26 days ahead of schedule. He is not too happy with that, as he prefers a slower ripening process for the grapes. Like others, he said that the weather so far resembles 2007, but in 2007 the rains fell in the summer.
Frederic Mugnier and Jürgen Steinke
Before tasting the 2010s, he compared them more to the 2008s but with a bit more richness, even if the acidities are even higher, he said. My overall impression was of brightness and elegance. Something like some of the wines tasted at Remoissenet but with further elegance and purity, for the most part. Basically, in 2010, summer was mild if rainy, up to around mid September. Pickings towards end of September.
2010s from barrel
Chambolle Musigny. Some reduced notes, which are worse towards the end of malolactic, Frederic explained. When he tastes wines at this stage (and in general, in fact), he pays less attention to flavors and more to the structure of the wines. Looking at the “architecture” of the palate, whether smooth or rough, whether rounded or edgy, and – in the end – the thinner wines tend to get thicker with time (and vice versa). At least he talked about such convergence. Anyway, this wine was very fine, if one talks about architecture, it was more rounded than edgy, and exhibiting a refined tannic grain.
Chambolle Musigny Les Fuees. Pepper like spice, deep red fruit, freshness, good linear precision, showing vivacity on the palate, longer and more subtle than the above, as expected. A cranberry fruit freshness I liked particularly.
Bonnes Mares. This was Jürgen’s preference of all the 2010s tasted (Jürgen is writing a report for the website of the Grand Jury Europeen). A sample taken from a four year old barrel. I got some fine chocolate on the nose, with much depth and layered texture on the palate, rich and broad, showing ripe black fruits, but never heavy or thick, subtle actually. Very impressive indeed. This was Jürgen Steinke’s favorite, but I liked the next two a bit more.
Chambolle Musigny Les Amoureuses 1er Cru. I was seduced here by a more sumptuous and sexy nose: pure and floral, showing much depth again on the palate, layered intensity, which basically illustrated Frederic’s researched style: wines that are both intense and delicate at the same time. Well, this was it.
At this stage we spoke about freshness in wine, about this notion of lightness. And Frederic said something quite profound: “I do not understand why lightness is often considered a quality for food but not as much for wine” and that pretty much sums up my feelings about wine today. Too much emphasis on what is big and bold, not enough on what is subtle and elegant.
Speaking of subtle and elegant, how about the Musigny Grand Cru? Yes, difficult to taste, but it seemed to combine the aromatic focus of Les Amoureuses with the sheer depth of the Bonnes Mares. Very lovely cherry, richness married to seriousness, and something that will be delicious, if expensive.
Clos de la Marechale. Here we have some fine perfume on the nose, displaying a distinct earthiness and musk. There is fine sap and crackling acidity, red fruit. Time in barrel will make it more rounded.
2009s
Clos de la Marechale. We were spoiled because Frederic grabbed this from the bottling machines… Sweeter nose, darker cherry. Frederic explained why 2009 was for him not really as optimally ripe as people might think. He said that the ripening was too quick. That the juice was sometimes riper than the skins, for example. The seeds were not brown. He explained that ripe Pinot Noir is difficult to pick without crushing it, that the pulp sticks to the stems, but that was not the case in 2009. “I like Pinot Noir that ripens under colder conditions,” he explained. Whatever the case may be, I loved the 2009 Clos de la Marechale. It was perhaps more “obvious” but delicious!
Chambolle Musigny. Same story here. And in the end, Frederic said that the 2009s are “great wines” that “will keep a long time”… So there you go. Perhaps this wine could be a tad fresher to be ideal, at least that was the only negative that crossed my mind, but overall, delicious, and it displayed no 2003 like overripe notes.
2008s
Clos de la Marechale. Here I loved the nose initially, noting cooler aromas of blueberry and flowers. I felt that the acidity was very well integrated. Perhaps more muscle and less fat? Jürgen was not as impressed, noting a bit too much under-ripe notes. But this was fine for my palate… Here Jürgen and I parted palate paths!
Bonnes Mares. Once again, many thanks to Frederic for spoiling us with this bottle, which proved exceptional. Very deep violet with some spearmint freshness, preceding a palate of ripe black plum, licorice and freshness. A slightly tonic finish, hint of bitters, but that is what made it so special. Frederic compares the 2008 to the 2001, although the 2001 has a bit more flesh, a bit more body, he explained.
With Chris Newman at Domaine Newman in Beaune, who is a gregarious and fun person indeed! We were very late for our scheduled meeting but he and his assistant Jane Eyre, who does not write novels, but does make her own wine, too (and it is good) welcomed us very nicely.
Newman comes from New Orleans. He does not want to sell wine, he said, and although in Beaune for many years already, he has not focused on the US or UK markets that much. He wants to make wine for the French, he said. “I never wanted to come here and be the American in Burgundy and find US buyers,” he said. In Burgundy since the 1970s, he made his first wine in 1984, and bought his fine estate in Beaune in 1997, located just next to one of the best fish shops in France (Jürgen and I went into the shop just before and were mightily impressed). Newman prefers later pickings and de-stemming 100%. Overall, a judicious use of oak, with one or two notable exceptions…
All 2009s
Cote de Beaune. Smooth and crisp, is there a hint of warmth here? Very low yields of 25 hectoliters per hectare, but a nice drink!
Beaune. Richer aspect with a thicker feel on the palate, pleasing certainly, even tonic on the mid palate, but I get just a slightly drying feel on the finish. Still, another fine drink.
Monthelie. Nicely perfumed, more nuanced than the previous wines. The wine is rich, with very ripe black cherry notes, although – again – slightly dry on the finish. It also tightens up. Which is probably a good sign for the long term. Just 30% new oak, which is showing itself at this early stage, but should get better integrated. Quite nice overall!
Reserve Monthelie. A special in house bottling, Jane said. Here the 100% new oak is a detriment because the aromas are all oak derived: vanilla city. A sleek aspect, that tells me: I could be an international wine. Where is Burgundy? I much prefer the previous version, which is thankfully what is for sale!
Beaune Clos des Avaux 1er Cru. Light cherry notes, fine sap, a bit of mentholated cherry, slightly baked aspect, some alcohol. Not sure about this one.
Pommard (villages).Well now the vines were in part planted in 1921, and perhaps they result in such a fine wine. Very deep cherry notes, red licorice, a rich and sap filled palate, perhaps just slightly drying (40% new oak), but the chutzpah is there and so is the overall pleasure. My favorite wine so far, and just for the price deserves a star.
Beaune Greves. On the higher part of the Greves slope, this displays some nice violet notes, perhaps a hint of acetone, but lots of depth on the palate, and a tad drying. Is it the oak? Overall, a fine wine. Give it time in bottle, I like the violet aromas.
Mazis Chambertin GC. OK, this was the best wine of all. Aged in 30% new oak, very well integrated. Beautiful purity, very precise, fresh and opulent if in a subtle manner. A great success.
Bonnes Mares GC. The nose is promising, almost Medocain graphite. Here we have 50% new oak. The palate is less impressive, not quite following through, as the puissance is a tad monolithic. Compare this to a Mugnier Bonnes Mares 2008, for example, and you yearn for more freshness and more texture. Of course it is not as expensive, but why is the Mazis so much better? Because it has more nuance and freshness, at least for me. Give this time in bottle. Perhaps just far too young to understand?
With Mike and Jürgen and Ray, we also tasted other wines over lunch and dinner. One wine I really liked, to take a break from Burgundy… was the Chateau Haut Bailly 1995, which displayed excellent body, subtle notes of tobacco and milk chocolate and refined tannins that still need time. Lots of lift and yet just a tad tight. Another 10 years and it will be perfect. The owner of our hotel, Hotel de France, just opposite the Beaune train station, who used to sell Burgundy wine, was really impressed with this Bordeaux!
With Mike Grammer and his father Jeremy, winemaker Ray Walker and Jürgen Steinke, we were indeed one happy crew!
It is that time of year. The Bordelais tour the world to have their latest vintage in bottle tasted by wine buyers and hacks like yourself. As a contributor to Decanter, I was able to taste blind scores of cru bourgeois and scores from the Pomerol appellation. Overall, the vintage has proved its promise from barrel. You can find some lovely cru bourgeois whose prices have not followed the skyscraping trend of many of the cru classés.
Wines like Poujeaux and Chasse Spleen from Moulis, Pibran from Pauillac, La Bernadotte and Sociando Mallet from Haut Medoc are all very fine. There are some wines that are a bit jammy and hot, others where maturity seemed blocked or somehow managed to get some unripe flavors, but these are – for the most part – rather rare. The Pomerols I tried were also successful, although I was less inclined to grant gold medals. I feel that the Right Bank, in general, is handicapped by high alcohol Merlot in 2009 and in 2010. Although estates which have a good amount of refreshing Cabernet Franc on average performed better. Still, Pomerol did have some gems in 2009.
But these are just rough sketches. I will get more into detail once I taste the wines next month in Germany and again in June – I hope – in Moscow. It is so much fun to follow the UGCB bandwagon. I missed them in the US this year, but here some notes from fellow taster and wine friend Faryan Amir-Ghassemi, who is not only a talented and perceptive taster, but a true wine lover. He has agreed to grace my blog with notes he took from a tasting in New York City last month on 25 January 2012.
2009 Bordeaux tasting notes by Faryan (at left).
Preemptive note: I didn’t have a chance to taste the right bank wines. By the time that I was meticulously working through Graves, I was informed that some of the heavy hitters were running out of wine, so I went ahead and fast-tracked to Pauillac, Margaux and St Julien. By the time I was done with these, there was only time to sample the blancs and Sauternes (not to mention most of the right bank wines already packed up or depleted). As such, these notes are not a reflection of the right bank. We’ll have to try them later.
General impressions – 2009 is clearly a vintage where the elements were favorable. Across the board, phenolic ripeness was superb, concentration was a given and the quality of fruit was a repeated noted. What differentiates the quality of the wines to me was the ability of the vigneron to conscientiously manage the maturation of their grapes to both create high quality wines but to also be cognizant of the style ofBordeaux, the appellation and most importantly, its own terroir. If terroir is not an issue for you, there will be oceans of good-tasting well ripened wines coming out of this vintage (many hopefully at reasonable prices from the non cru-classé.
If you have favorite producers you are keen on buying, I would advise the careful shopper to navigate this vintage with a more refined view, as there were obstacles to overcome in order to find that perfect balance. Some wines were outstanding; perhaps the best young examples of their respective chateau I have tasted. Some wines were endemic of the point-craze influencing craft; overripe, overtreated and generic/lacking character. Quality in many cases trumped charm. In a few cases, the identity of the wine as Bordeauxwas marred to a point where it drew no appeal to me, regardless of substance. Finally, as a whole, I believe the most successful wines in 2009, similar to those in 1990, will be the ones where the vigneron was able to achieve freshness and nervosity (a term I use to describe a certain “electricity” you get from the wine’s ability to balance many powerful components) through careful management, while not sacrificing ripeness and quality of fruit (a difficult balance indeed). There were a handful of wines that showed this and project to be superlative wines through maturation.
Graves – As a whole, I was quite happy with the reds, with the caveat being that UGC does not showcase the crown jewels of graves (Mission and Ch. Haut Brion). The cooler more porous soils of the graves perhaps allowed for wines of higher merlot levels without having the worry of pruney/stewed merlot factoring into the final assemblage. I think this benefits the region. The whites were simply outstanding. 2009 Domaine de Chevalier is the greatest young white Bordeaux I’ve ever tasted (more on that later).
Haut BergeyRouge – Opulent, thick, a bit overt oak on the nose which is not symptomatic of the house (didn’t see this as much in the 08,06 or 05 at prior UGCs). Perhaps they thought the fruit ripeness could afford more oak, but to me it was a bit beyond what I would like in my Haut Bergey, perhaps sacrificing elegance. The wine is undoubtedly plush on the palate, but it doesn’t speak to Graves. We’ll see how it progresses. (90-93)
Carbonnieux Rouge – More traditional and “blocky” than the Haut Bergey. A bit more stodgy and oaky, but too young to really condemn the wine in terms of its balance. It clearly has the stuffing and depth that one wouldn’t expect from Carbonnieux, but as a rule, it is something to expect from the 09s. (88-91)
Domaine de Chevalier Rouge – Last tasted a year ago almost to the day via barrel sample. The wine has “grown up” quite a bit. Before it was primordial, backward and embryonic. In this setting it has calmed down and begun to settle into infancy. The wine shows far more class on the nose compared to the prior Graves. More floral lift (almost Margauxesque) and a beautiful red berry element to the fruit. I can’t wait until the telltale smoke begins to develop with more time in bottle. D d Chevalier rouge seems to be nipping at the heel of the 2nd tier graves rouges. Excellent. (92-96)
Haut Bailly – structured, backward and massive. To me, Haut Bailly shows very classic and backward in its youth. I distinctly remember many people fawning over the 05 when tasted at this event years back but I was struck by its reticence more than anything. Old guard indeed. Nonetheless, the nose is regal in its fruit. It has that unmistakable ability to hold both light/fresh delicacy on the nose, compared to the power and depth to the mouth. The classic velvet glove in the iron fist. I find wonderful nervosity in the nose and this is something I project as great potential. (91-95++)
Larrivet Haut Brion Rouge – basic, nice red berry aspect to the nose. Clearly less regal than the Haut Bailly. Still, it has beautiful fruit but some drying tannins on the finish butting in. If priced as LHB has been historically, this is a nice wine to keep, but I don’t think it has the class to justify a high price point. (88-92).
Pape Clement Rouge – Decidedly more modern than all of the wines tried prior. The creaminess on the palate smacks of vanilla toast oak rather than fruit and to me this is something I tend to avoid as it impairs the transformative gift that Bordeaux wines provide with patience and a cold cellar. To me, this wine shows like a California Cabernet that is aimed to please a buyer in its relative youth. Again, there is wonderful fruit and depth to it, but this is a stylistic choice Pape Clement made, effectively turning its back on what I loved about the Chateau from decades prior. (NR)
Smith Haut Lafitte Rouge – Cut from the same mold as the Pape Clement. Too rounded and “smoothed” over. The finish is a touch drying, but I just don’t vibe with this wine. The style is simply too formulaic for me. Caveat being, that if you enjoy the early consumption style, this is undeniably quality. (NR)
Domaine de Chevalier Blanc – OMFG nose, blowing away everything else tonight. This wine is simply superb. While embryonic and very basic, it has extraordinary lift and balance; the most focused young white wine I can remember tasting. It’s like a hypothetical blend of Chablis Clos minerality, Chevalier-Monty focus and Graves tropic fruit/grape composition. The wine is pure, completely transparent with no hints of excessive oak (or any oak for that matter as the fruit is centerfold). Guayaba, pineapple, citrus, stone, chalk. Incredible intensity. Superb transparency. Buy buy buy. (97-99+)
- No Pape Clement blanc to taste (empty by the time I was there) -
Smith Haut Lafitte Blanc – Exotic, bombastic with a backbone of oak but again completely overshadowed by the Chev Blanc. Long live the king. (91-94)
Malartic Lagraviere Blanc – Rounder and sadly a bit of a letdown to taste after the Chevalier blanc. Lacks that grip, that bracing and shocking focus. More oak dominated on the nose and riper on the fruit, but still a fantastic graves blanc. Sadly, it’s a casuality of its compatriot. (91-94)
Margaux –
To me, 09 is a notch or two behind 05 in Margaux (albeit quite a limited sample size). I don’t think the region’s higher allocation of merlot was favorable for the vintage. Granted, I was unable to taste 09 Rauzan-Ségla, but from those that I did try (I avoided Lascombes and Kirwan), [Editor's note: Kirwan has increased in elegance since the estate changed its winemaking direction in 2007 from Michel Rolland to Philippe Delfaut, formerly with Château Palmer, and the Boissenot father-and-son team]. I found nice wines but wines that weren’t exactly comfortable in their own skins. At their best, Margaux wines balance lovely fruit with a floral perfume that matches femininity and delicacy with opulence and mouthfeel to match. To me, the vintage was likely either a moonshot for an opulent merlot or a dedication to high quality cabernet which was not as prone to excessive ripeness/massive alcohol. Margaux unfortunately sits in the cradle and really wasn’t able to benefit from the best that 09 offered. I will be curios to try Issan, Ségla, Palmer and Ch. Margaux…
Cantenac Brown – Stylistic shift from Graves off the bat. This is less cabernet driven, a litter lighter and more spry on its feet. Good red berry fruit, but a bit drying oak treatment on the finish. A solid Margaux at a reasonable price point. (88-90)
Brane Cantenac – More stuffing than CB, more structure but a bit more reticent. Much rounder on the finish. (90-92)
Rauzan-Gassies – The 05 is a sleeper and a favorite from that vintage for me (available at a fraction the cost of its elder peer and many of the other heralded Margaux…). I think the showing of 09 confirms my overall view of Margaux, as this 09 lacks some of the imprimatur of the appellation I look for in a “great” vintage. Simpler, a bit curt but rounded to deceive one into not prodding too much into its substance. Nice wine, but lacking the bells and whistles (90-92)
Moulis –Only tasted two of these, but they are the real deal. They are less ripe in a vintage where above-all ripeness would be one’s Achilles heel. The Chasse and Poujeaux to me represented probably the best early drinking examples out there. Bravo!
Chasse Spleen – Really shows lovely. Wine has great lift, floral aromatic with unmistakable claret qualities. Projects very well in terms of its ability to progress beyond infancy. Fruit is the name of the game with this wine. It is a delicate dancer that has nothing to do with oak. It’s one of the most transparent wines at the tasting. Should be drinking immediately well and into the near future. 91-94+
Poujeaux – Cut from a similar cloth as the Chasse Spleen. All about red berry fruit, great energy and lift. Not a distance runner, but a beautiful wine to enjoy as you sit on your bigger wines. 91-93+
Pauillac & St. Julien –
To me, the unmistakable superstar of the vintage were the St Juliens followed by the Pauillac. In their best iterations, the wines provide a wide variety of styles: from modern (St Pierre, St Julien), to regal (Lynch Bages, Pauillac), to feminine (Pichon Lalande, Pauillac) to classic (Pichon Baron, GPL – Pauillac). This was a vintage where cabernet that was afforded the chance to mature slowly without undue heat exposure really rewarded the chateau with superb wines.
Pauillac
Pichon Baron – A bit atypical on the nose. Far more feminine in its lovely floral lift. Like a precocious youth wowing you with his memorization skills. Reminiscent more so of the Lalande in many ways. Red fruit and cassis but far more backward than the 08 was at this stage. It is less transparent and classic in its expression, but more like a show horse. Stuffed to the gills with tannins and fruit. One doesn’t need to worry about the structure or over-treated oak as some of the other wines. I still haven’t been able to discern its Pauillac roots after sampling the wine for some time, but the big 09s are so embryonic and must be judged with a longer time horizon. (93-97)
Pichon Lalande – Nose is a bit more reticent and shut down (could just be the amount of air this wine has gotten). Still has hints of the feminine floral lift one comes to expect from great Lalande, but this wine is big big big. The palate is simply lovely with world-class balance, fruit and composition. Beautiful, delineated fruit; so transparent. There is no makeup, there is no cloying/overt oak. Classic Lalande. Just give it time to add richness, depth, pitch and complexity. This wine will not disappoint. (94-98)
Lynch Bages – A regal wine, undoubtedly and a style Lynch Bages seems to project vintage in and out. A millionaire’s (not billionaire’s) Mouton so to speak. Rounded, supple nose with rhubarb and wonderful cassis. The cassis is the name of the game. A bit of vegetal/burnt rubber that blows off with some more swirling. The palate is clean, pure and in superb balance. Will it be the next 90 LB? Time will tell (94-97)
Grand Puy Lacoste – One of my top three of the tasting, and it garners this title partly because one doesn’t have to crack a thousand dollars to buy a case of it. I’d love to line this wine up against a recent vintage Latour and serve them blind; it is that good. What the GPL has that many of the other Pauillacs tasted seemed to miss was the freshness and nervosity on the nose that I began in my preamble. Great lift and floral elements on the nose that is simply gorgeous. Far less backward than the 06 and 05 GPLs; this wine is not draped in imposing tannins like those vintages. It is subdued and elegant; qualities I think will make for better aging in a vintage that may have some risk-factor for long-term cellaring. Simply superb and a wine I will seek to buy. (94-98+)
Clerc Milon – Not quite as impressive as the GPL, lacking some excitement. Clerc seems to nail a balance between classic Pauillac and modern fruit very well and the 09 is no different. Should be approachable younger than many of its peers. (91-93)
d’Armailhac – Maybe a small notch below the Clerc. Similar, but harsher on the nose with some drying wood tannins on the finish. (90-92)
St Julien
St. Pierre– Too much. Too much oak, too much extraction. Vanillin, toast, drying fruit that smacks one in the mouth. I don’t understand why they build their wines this way (welp… the big points they garner). There is no elegance and restraint to their wines anymore. I think 05 was the last vintage that didn’t push this envelope too far. (NR)
Talbot – Nice, but has a burnt streak to it that seems to arise from the oak treatment. Will it integrate overtime? If so, it will be a nice wine (88-92)
Leoville Poyferré – One of the most heralded wines at the tasting and you can see why; it’s structured similar to the 2003 with a bombastic and “winner take all” style, but unlike some other chateau, I think the fruit is sufficient to hold the oak treatment. The nose is beautiful red cassis with mocha bean espresso, but not excessive or drying. Superb balance with miles of fruit, but not a classic wine in its balance or composition. Very plush, very modern but I don’t sense that electricity, that nervosity, that freshness that I feel when I drink a 1990. Let’s see if this wine can evolve positively. (93-98)
Langoa Barton – You know you’re at Barton when you begin to taste some backward wines. I think I can still taste the 08s, 06s and 05s from yesteryear UGC tastings. This Barton, while backward in comparison to some of its peers, is surprisingly rounded on the mouth. So delicious, satin, plush. Marries the structure with the mouthfeel. A superb success this vintage with approachability in the near-term (92-95)
Leoville Barton – Excellent. The best way to describe this wine is complete. Structured and voluminous but not embryonic. Excellent mouthfeel even superceding the Langoa. Unfortunately, this bottle is pretty shut-down, especially on the nose which isn’t budging much. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a banner year for Barton (94-97+?)
Gruaud Larose – Another top 3 for me even though I concede it as less “impressive” and “endowed” as some of its peers. This wine beckons to the glory days of Gruaud: the 80s (or 60s if you’re an old fart). Already the most complex nose of the night, with hallmark Cordier funk (sans Brett), superb red fruit, intermixed with secondary aromatics. The mouth is absolutely lovely and light on its feet. I recall old-timers talking about how fantastic and unheralded 1982 Pichon Lalande was in its youth. I think this wine may be similar; the rare Bordeaux that drinks fantastic throughout its lifespan. Back up the truck (95-98+)
Beychevelle – Simple fruit, lacks depth and harmony. Cloaked with heavy oak. The finish confirms what the nose sleuths out. Not an impressive showing (86-89)
Sauternes –
Another banner year for the Sauternais? We are fortunate, as it seems to be every vintage (not just every other) nowadays. Hard to condemn any qualitatively, but I will note that stylistically these lack some of the backbone and acidity seen in the 05s, 07s or 01s in their youth. They are round, supple, approachable and botrytis driven. Sadly, the Suiduraut was kicked before I got there.
Climens – A great Sauternes, but for whatever odd reason, I reach for the memory of the 2008 which made a better impression on me than this wine did. The 08, while less endowed, had a lift and a delicacy that was quite Germanic in many ways. It balanced tropic fruit with acidity and lift. The 2009 is much bigger and a bit more cumbersome at this phase (something that would likely be eased with age). The finish still shows why its Climens. It is precise, delicate and beautiful. The nose opens up as it comes to temperature with delicate crème brulee, coconut shavings. Still Barsac, but I crave 08 (94-97)
Coutet – Less complex and intricate, the 09 Coutet still has a beautiful depth of fruit at a very reasonable price. The botrytis sings through but it lacks that nth degree of complexity and finish in the Climens. A value buy (93-95)
de Fargues – shut down on the nose but deep on the palate. Supple, but lacking the “baby yquem” qualities I associate with de Fargues, especially with regards to mouthfeel and weightlessness.
la Tour Blanche - perfectly enjoyable, but didn’t really leave an impression on me. (90-92)
Château Figeac may be somewhat of a conundrum for neophytes to Bordeaux. Even for some who work in wine. While sampling three white wines at the trendy Vino Volo airport wine bar at Dulles International Airport last week, just before a flight to Frankfurt, Germany, I told the wine salesman there about Figeac being a top notch St Emilion. And he replied that he adores the Merlot from that appellation and recommended a glass of Beau Sejour Becot, also a premier grand cru classé, he stressed.
Yes, but Figeac is made from vines that grow on more gravely terrain and thus includes very little Merlot – it is composed typically of 70% Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Franc… To complicate matters still further, Figeac never followed the drumbeat of the Garagiste Movement on the Right Bank in the early 1990s, sticking to a policy to pick somewhat early, al dente if you will, to retain freshness. And as we reach levels of 15 degrees alcohol and more with many Merlots on the Right Bank these past few years, Figeac to me represents something more authentic and more mineral from Bordeaux, rather than big, bold and sometimes drying aspects from the high alcohol-soaking new oak.
What is perhaps even more surprising is that since the mid 1970s at least, Figeac has been aged in 100% new oak. Even Petrus has not used 100% new oak since 1990. But Jean Claude Berrouet of Petrus explained to me that the high degrees of alcohol in Merlot are not well suited to so much new oak.
Starting with Krug
Cabernets, on the other hand, can be. And for Figeac owner Eric d’Aramon, the time spent in new oak varies according to the vintage character. For example, the 1997 harvest only saw 12 months in new oak while the 2009 counted 18 months… D’Aramon, who does not like over fruity and over plump plum flavors – see my video below – explained that the new oak he uses is generally low to mid toast, so the purpose is not to impart oak flavors but to more efficiently age the wine – and new oak tends to be more efficient in that regard, he stressed.
So, combine the fact that this is a St Emilion from a unique terroir with mostly Cabernet that is picked somewhat early, and you can see that it will not win many beauty contests when compared with what many tasters expect from beauty contests: a kaleidoscope of plum, raspberry, strawberry, cherry and whatever other (often bordering on over) ripe berry and high-alcohol Merlot derived sensations.
St Emilion and Figeac? A false sense of peerage? It is not an accident that some people call Figeac the Medoc of St Emilion…
Setting the table
In any case it was with great pleasure to organize a tasting of 11 vintages of Chateau Figeac at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse in Washington DC with wine educator and sommelier Maria Denton. Many thanks to her and her team for preparing a magnificent five course meal to match the wines.
Just before he was to join scores of other Bordeaux chateau representatives to tour the United States to have their 2009 vintage tasted from bottle – in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York – D’Aramon flew into Washington on 18 January exclusively for this tasting dinner – and he generously donated 10 of the 11 vintages. The Parker numbers have never been to high for Figeac, so he wanted to have this wines tasted by American merchants and sommeliers and bloggers, to see what they thought of his wines.
For the most part, all participants were impressed, as was I.
Sommelier Maria Denton tasting the wines before dinner
One of the more controversial bottles was the 2000, and to a lesser extent the 1990. Robert Parker had recently downgraded the 2000 vintage from a mid 90s score to a mid 80s score, professing to have “blown it” in his initial judgment. That was a revealing remark, because D’Aramon does not seek big styled St Emilion wines. But he also admitted to having perhaps gone too far in the other direction in 2000. To avoid having too much richness, he may have picked a bit too early, he told participants, who noted some green in the 2000. In defense of the 2000, which I have tasted on several occasions since 2004, it reminded me last week of how the 1995 was about two years ago. Last week the 1995 showed better, somehow having incorporated its greener aspects. As D’Aramon said, the 2000 represents an older style of Bordeaux, and with time, will probably be fine if not delicious.
The 1990 promised great things but proved a bit underwhelming because it lacked some freshness, and I think we just had bad luck with two of the three bottles. One bottle was fine. Interestingly enough, some participants raved over the third bottle which Maria Denton and I had set aside because we thought it to be the dustiest. And even D’Aramon did not want to include it. Perhaps we misjudged it? Perhaps it was a question of more contact with air (although all bottles had been double decanted three hours before the dinner).
The Wines
I was able to taste before the dinner with sommelier Maria Denton. Wines in bold, I liked particularly; in red and bold even more. When underlined, the very best.
2009. Oak still on the nose and palate, a very opulent wine, somewhat mammoth like at this stage but displaying ripe Medoc like cassis and primary fruit, more black than red. It tastes like a barrel sample and has much weight on the palate, with finely grained tannin, albeit just a bit monolithic now. Long finish. 92-95
Cheers to Figeac
2006. Cooler nose. Red rather than black fruit, with a touch of violet aromas that are also offset by a bit of iron, lending a just slightly rustic aspect. But the palate is medium plus in body and packs quite a punch, balancing both richness and verve. Do not touch for a few years… 91+
2005. A lovely nose of ripe cassis and cooler blueberry like fruit, this wine exudes a warmer profile on the palate than the 2006. It also has greater volume and depth, nicely balanced with brisk acidity, with a touch of oak derivation slowly receding. I like the very pure cassis aspect to this wine on the palate, which seems more focused than the 2006 and more nuanced than the 2009, although rather tightly wound for now. Potential for a higher score. 95
2004. A mix of graphite and lightly sweet red fruits, plum and cassis. A very smooth medium-bodied palate, just a touch of vanilla flavored with cedar and brambly red and ripe fruit. An appealingly fresh lingering finish with mint. I can understand why so many people liked the 2004 at the dinner. 93+
2001. Pleasing red cherry, more mineral than mentholated freshness here mingle with a certain olive like flavor on the palate. If I had to choose between 2001 and 2004, I would pick the former because it seems to show a touch more depth, a touch more substance on the mid palate especially. Although the finish is similar, the 2001 adds an extra dimension of toffee-like sweetness. 94
2000. Amazing how this wine has transformed from being a super star in 2005 when I tasted it twice (once in a vertical in Germany in February, once in a blind tasting with most of the other premier grand cru classés) to a bit of a question mark in 2012. Eric d’Aramon admits to having picked perhaps too early to preserve freshness, his greatest concern in general. How will this evolve. Some, like critic John Gilman, sees this as a “positive herbaciousness” while others, notably Robert Parker, say he “blew it” when he graded this highly early on and downgraded the wine more recently. My feeling is that it will develop into a better wine, and taste like some of the more appealing 1970s Bordeaux. But there is not guarantee here… 89 for now.
Lamb with Figeac 1999 1998 1995
1999. When I first opened this with sommelier Maria Denton, we both marveled at its floral aspects, but there was a bit of VA that showed itself later à table. Whatever the case may be, it exuded a certain freshness and minerality that pleased my palate. Medium bodied, and perhaps somewhat hollow in the middle, this may have been the weakest of the evening. 88
1998. This had to be one of the two or three best wines of the dinner. It certainly wins as the most sumptuous. Whoever thinks Figeac is thin in the 80s and 90s needs to drink this, or has been drinking too many fruit bombs…. Sorry but that is my subjective opinion. This wine reflects a natural concentration due to a hailstorm, d’Aramon explained. Whatever the cause, the result is magnificent, with focused flavors of red and black fruit, nuanced richness and a fine underlying freshness. A great wine indeed. 95
1995. My how this has improved. When I last tried it with Ben Giliberti in Washington DC two or three years ago, a certain green aspect annoyed me. But that was pretty much gone at this dinner, where I noticed a mélange of stony mineral notes, baked plum and hint of cardamom spice. The tannins were not completely melted, displaying a 1995 “solidity” that one encounters in wines of quality on both sides of the Gironde, indicating yet again that 1995 is a vintage to be reckoned with in Bordeaux. 92
1990. The nose seemed like it needed dusting… but then came a mixture of forest floor, tobacco, light leather and blackberry and plum flavors. The palate was rich, but not as exciting as the 1998. There was a dusty tannin aspect to the palate as well, that was even worse in one bottle. Later however, some tasters drank from that bottle and thought that that dusty aspect had gone. I am not so sure. Even d’Aramon felt that the 1990 was not showing its best from at least two of the three bottles he brought over ex-chateau. 92, but could have been higher.
Beef Wellington with Figeac 1990 and 1986
1986. Here was perhaps my wine of the night, because I just absolutely adored a certain crushed mint leaf flavor on the nose and on the palate, coupled with faded flowers and pencil shavings. Fully tertiary and yet of high intensity and precision chiseled by brisk acidity that kept this wine quite youthful in fact. This is not a wine for people who want evident fruit or low acidity… In an eloquent address to dinner participants, Burgundy lover Maureen Nelson compared Figeac to fine Burgundy, and I think that the 1986 certainly illustrates that comparison. For me, a beautiful wine. 96
What a great pleasure to have enjoyed a home-cooked meal by my sister Tina, who could have gone into the restaurant business, not just because she has a knack for making great food but also because she is very meticulous about what she buys and how she prepares her ingredients.
My sister Tina in her kitchen
On 13 January 2012 she invited me and a few friends over to dinner, which featured a particularly tender and tasty veal roast, flavored just slightly with Madeira-infused cassis that served as a sort of stuffing within the roast.
Veal roasting in the oven
I was initially worried that the Madeira would make the dish sweet, and complicate wine pairings, but that was not at all the case. It was just a feather touch that accentuated the meat’s juices.
Homemade croutons for the salad
With that, she prepared flavorful homemade hand whipped potatoes with celeri root: a simple combination that was flexible enough to go with red or white. Of course her salad was delicious, accentuated with homemade croutons.
Delicious veal and wine
Tina is lucky enough to live near Arrow Wine, which imports some of the best wine in the country. Owner Doug Rosen is an inspired wine buyer and has a particular love for Champagne. Last year, he had organised a wonderful tasting of various Champagnes, many not so well known, and he brought a special bottle from one of those producers to dinner. I must say that it was pretty much the wine of the evening. As much as I enjoyed the wines that followed, I could have just continued with that Champagne over dinner and into dessert: Tina’s delectable homemade pear pie, with cardamom and ginger. I enjoyed it so much that I forgot to snap a photo!
Wine of the evening
Wines
1996 R. & L. Legras Champagne Cuvée St. Vincent Blanc de Blancs Grand Cru from magnum. Doug knows the owner of this estate and had several bottles made personally for him. This was one of them, and it had just recently been disgorged. What emerged was brisk freshness and mineral flavors. It had a citrus and apple as well, but never mind the subjective descriptions. What impressed most was that a wine nearly 16 years old tasted so much like a primary sample. It helps of course to come from a magnum format. And from such an excellent vintage that combined both high acidity and excellent ripeness. 100% Chardonnay from the grand cru soils of Chouilly, the Champagne of course conveyed Chardonnay smoothness. So, here we have a bubbly that surely pleased all five dinner participants. Wine of the Evening!
Fine premier cru 2002 Puligny
2002 Vincent Girardin Puligny Montrachet 1er Cru Les Perrieres. I recently purchased three of these bottles from an auction for $40 each. Here we had a wine that was not affected by premature oxidation. In fact, it was very tasty and rather crisp, although some age was beginning to show, but in a good way. Smooth and flavorful, it had enough body to stand up to the veal – and I certainly reached for more (both veal and wine).
Giscours 2000
2000 Chateau Giscours Margaux Haut Medoc Bordeaux. I brought this bottle to dinner: a rather famous Margaux wine from the southern part of the appellation in Labarde. Giscours has been improving in quality, particularly starting with this vintage, which has aged well. The wine’s medium body combined cassis and earthy flavors that also matched the food quite well.
A Sauternes duo
1999 Chateau Raymond Lafon Sauternes. Here we had a more Barsac like lightness coming from a lighter vintage in the 1999, which I have always enjoyed from Raymond Lafon. A lovely wine, still quite youthful in color and expression, that pleased the palate and paired well with the pear pie.
1990 Chateau Rieussec Sauternes. A noticeably darker color, coming from an older vintage and a half bottle, many thanks to Doug for bringing this wine, as well. This wine seemed a bit spicier and had more noticeable botrytis derived flavors, coming from a more famous and warmer vintage as well.
Doug and Tina with the wine of the evening
Many thanks to Tina and to Doug for the food and the wines - and for the great company! I must say that I tend to eat and drink just as well in Washington D.C. as I have been eating and drinking in France. Thanks in part to my dear sister Tina!
For the second year in a row, I hosted a neighborhood wine tasting in Arlington, Virginia, for family and friends. I was not sure about the theme until nearly the last minute, but a recent political attack advertisement from Newt Gingrich in the midst of the Republican presidential primaires - a Republican attack ad against candidate Mitt Romney in part because he speaks French - convinced me to stick with a previously planned Tour de France theme. Next year will certainly be another country, but I will focus on the wines I know best, French wines. Here the line up with tasting notes and some photos. Pass the Freedom Fries, Newt!
A nice lineup of reds
Wine tasting Tour de France
At the Kennedy residence in Chain Bridge Forest, Arlington VA
14 January 2012 at 6.30 p.m.
Participants: 25 people
Food was brought to accompany the wines. A lot of really tasty food, I must add. Thanks to all the participants!
The Wines
DRY WHITES
Champagne
Delamotte Brut: This was a fresh blend of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier. At $35 from MacArthur Beverages, it was a very good deal. Smooth and even delectable, albeit a tad rich, it was perhaps served just a touch warm… But a very good deal. 89/100 – Cost $35 at MacArthur Beverages in Washington DC
Delamotte Blanc de Blanc 2002: Very focused and deep, yet refreshing. A 100% Chardonnay that is smooth and accessible, but with good body and length. Structure, too. A noticeable step above the previous wine, and worth the double price. 94/100 – Cost about $70 at MacArthur Beverages
Alsace Dry Trimbach Cuvee Frederic Emile Riesling 2004: Lovely smoky nose, slightly gunflint. Dry Riesling par excellence that married a subtle richness with brisk acidity. One of the participants did not like it because it was so nervous, too much acidity. Had he tasted it about two years ago, he would have probably despised this wine. Point being, this great cuvee from two grand cru vineyards is built to age. I would say that the 2004 will be better in another three to five years. 92+/100 – Cost about $40 on wine-searcher.com
Burgundy White Paul Pernot Burgundy Chardonnay 2007: For the price, a smooth and full-bodied and somewhat simply pleasing Old World Chardonnay, coming from a vintage that has both vivacity and fat. At $15 per bottle at MacArthurs, a very good deal from a top individual producer in the Cote du Beaune. 89/100
Bouchard Père & Fils Meursault Les Clous 2009: Surprisingly good for a 2009, I was expecting something fatter, less disciplined, but Bouchard Pere & Fils has become one of the top major houses of Burgundy and this is an example why. Most participants picked this as their favorite white in the tasting. Sample donated by Bouchard for a horizontal for wine bloggers and professionals in Washington D.C. 92/100 – Cost about $43 on wine-searcher.com
REDS
Originally, I had planned to start with two simple Southern Rhone Valley reds, but they were rather pronounced in flavor, so I went immediately to the Bordelais, since there were two older vintages, followed by a more delicate Burgundian interlude, before heading south to the heady Rhone!
A pair of heady southern Rhones and the second wine of Brane Cantenac
Bordeaux Baron de Brane 2008: Adequately aromatic, coming from a rather tough vintage for Margaux, but the palate shows potential for moderate aging, because the tannins are still present on a certain tight finish. Is there a hint of vegetal? Perhaps. Give it time… this is getting to be one of the better second wines to be found in the Medoc, given the challenging vintage, a good job. 87+/100 – Cost about $25 at MacArthur Beverages
Chateau Brane Cantenac 2nd Growth Margaux Medoc 2000: For some, the wine of the night, and I would easily understand why. Smooth and complex at the same time, this wine exuded fine floral aromatics one would expect from Margaux, with excellent palate texture and presence (moderate plus), with a lingering finish. Was there a bit of “closed earthiness”? Chalk that up to perhaps its current age. This should even improve over time. For now, still, a rather high score. 94+/100 – Costs about $100 on wine-searcher.com
A flight of 2000 Bordeaux
Haut Bages Liberal 5th Growth Pauillac Medoc 2000: A disappointment! I recall trying this in the 1990, 2004 and 2007 vintages and it impressed me particularly in 1990, not far behind Grand Puy Lacoste and even Lynch Bages in that vintage. So I was hoping great things for the 2000… But there was a distinct green note on the nose that only became more pronounced as it sat in glass (and bottle). For its defense, I guess it did indeed have a Pauillac power type palate, and some participants preferred it to the Brane Cantenac 2000 because of that “stuffing” but this seems to have a ripeness issue. 85/100 – Costs about $60 on wine-searcher.com
Chateau Belair St Emilion Premier Grand Cru Classe 2000: This reminded me a bit of the Belair 1982 I had tried over dinner with then owner Pascal Delbeck about six years ago. For some reason, this reminded me less of a Merlot on the palate than of a Cabernet Sauvignon. Methinks we opened this 10 years too early! It was rather tight and not quite unforgiving but not quite open either. The nose however was a dead giveaway: plum, spice and chocolate. The aromatics were far different from the two preceding wines. Although I enjoyed drinking the wine, it was not quite the pleasure I was expecting from a right bank Merlot with over 11 years of age! 91/100 – Costs about $75 on wine-searcher.com
Château Belair 1976: I had purchased two bottles of this wine at an auction and was hoping that it would be great. I was hoping against reason because 1976 was a very hot vintage and although the estate picked early to retain acidity, the wine was close to dead when we tried it. OK, I initially liked it, perhaps because I wanted to so much… Was not sure how much air to give it (too much for a fragile vintage could have killed it via decanting, so it was popped and poured). I liked its older earthiness, I suppose, but I could see why more than a few participants were making unfriendly grimaces while trying this… No note to give… Cost about $45 per bottle at auction
Château Meyney Cru Bourgeois St Estephe Medoc 1989: Things came back to life with this wine. Perfect for a cru bourgeois at over 20 years of age. It tasted more youthful than its years. Not the most complex wine, but darn tasty and showing much backbone and substance! Nice job! 93/100 Costs about $65 on wine-searcher.
Burgundy Red
Beaune Clos de la Mousse Premier Cru Bouchard Pere & Fils 2009. Cherry fruit for me , lively and fresh. I could not understand the mushroom comments from some of the participants! Well, I guess I am just used to drinking more Old World wines? The thing is, this wine will also be retasted at a Bouchard 2009 horizontal for professionals and I will ask them if they detect mushrooms… In any case, a classy young Burgundy from Beaune, and a good price for the pleasure, about $45 on wine-searcher.com. This bottle was donated to me by owner Henriot for the horizontal. 92/100
Fine Burgundy and fine Bandol, next to the magnum of Beaucastel
Southern Rhone Valley
Cote du Rhone Villages Perrin & Fils 2009: Decadent on the attack. Rich and ripe, but drying on the quite short finish. What do you want for $11 ? 2009 was not ideal for the southern Rhone (lesser balance than vintages like 2001, 2005, 2006). Most liked this, as did I. Not to think too much about, but a certain hedonistic pleasure to be sure. 88/100
Seigneur de Lauris Vacqueyras 2009: An improved version of the above, with a more interesting aroma, that does have the rich fruit but matched by some mineral components, cooler aspects. Still, let us not exaggerate either. This is a rich, heady Grenache based wine from a rather hot vintage, to boot. In any case, as one participant commented, “a great deal for a $15 bottle of wine.” Indeed. Available at MacArthurs in Washington D.C. 89/100
Provence Bandol Pibarnon Red 2001: A bit too tight, this wine is still not ready to drink, thanks to the Mourvedre that seems to have more than nine lives. But I liked its palate substance. And many participants were happy to drink this, too. It certainly has more classy aromas than the preceding wines, more nuanced and complex, and the palate does pack serious punch. But it is telling the drinker today: leave me alone in your cellar for a few more years, and you will have more pleasure. 91/100 with much potential for higher score. Cost about $40 on wine-searcher.com
Chateauneuf du Pape Chateau de Beaucastel Red 2001 from magnum: Here we have a majestic wine from the top producer – arguably - in Chateauneuf du Pape. It rivalled the Brane Cantenac for wine of the evening… but for different reasons. Yes, this is a mix grapes, primarily Syrah, Mourvedre and Grenache. The Grenache lends the richness, the Syrah the backbone, the Mourvedre the spice. Or something to that effect. Point being, the vintage is superb for Chateauneuf du Pape and the producer does not go for an overly rich style here. Overall impression of balance and elegance as well as palate filling pleasure: rich fruit, peppery spice, licorice and minerality. I purchased five magnums a few years ago on sale for $110 each. Today this costs close to $300… good reason because it is darn good! 95/100
Alsace Sweet Beck Hartweg Gewurztraminer Frankstein Alsace Bas Rhin 2005. 2005 was a very good vintage for this exotically spicy grape in Alsace, and this bottle did not disappoint! Subtle in its aromatics, displaying some litchi and ginger, the palate was sweet but never cloying. Most participants loved this for its freshness and delicacy, and the touch of sweetness was a fine way to finish the series of richer reds towards the end…. How to score this? 93/100 for sure! I paid about 20 euros at the property for this bottle, which I could not seem to find on wine-searcher.com, but I am sure that an importer could get this bottle for people who want it…
Many thanks to Barbara and Tim Kennedy for hosting this event. I was really happy to have been able to present some nice wines to the Garden Club. Hopefully we can see one another again in 2013. If anyone plans to visit France, please send me an e-mail: panosk@verizon.net.
Many many thanks to Rolf Rehm, pilot with Lufthansa, for allowing me to film on one my regularly scheduled flights back home to Washington D.C. for the holidays. Rolf and his wife Claudia often attend wine tastings I organise in Germany and, because he is a pilot, they sometimes come all the way to the U.S. when I organise events here at home.
The food and service were first class – as you can see in this video. As for the wines, I think that Chateau Belgrave Haut Medoc 2004 is drinking well today, although still a bit too young. But it paired very well with the roast goose and red cabbage with potato dumplings. The lobster medallion tart, rabbit filet crepe and esgargot soup as appetizers were also particularly delicious, washed down with Louis de Sacy Grand Cru Brut Champagne.
