Champ., Burg., Bx., Rhone & Port

Post Reply
User avatar
AlexR
Posts: 2373
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:35 am
Contact:

Champ., Burg., Bx., Rhone & Port

Post by AlexR »

Hi guys,

A bunch of people in the wine business came over to my house on Monday evening, and this is what we drank. All but the Champagne were served blind. When you’re hosting a fairly formal dinner it’s not really possible to take down detailed notes, so please excuse the sketchiness.

2004 Champagne “Les Rachais” from Raymond Boulard, disgorged in July 2009 – 3 gm. sugar/litre
An elegant wine showing its age, but not oxidized. Some gooseberry and mint overtones. Medium body, refreshing, with a mineral aftertaste. Not austere, but getting on that way.

2002 Meursault Perrières, Yves Boyer-Martenot
Two people thought that this might be a fine old Graves made predominantly from Sémillon and I could see what they mean! Thank goodness, it wasn’t premoxed. The color looked younger than its years and the nose was very subtle, with hazelnut nuances. On the palate, this was not your big, blowsy Meursault by any means. In fact, an MW friend thought it might be a Chablis. A pleasing wine. Some people into Burgundy figure this climat should be promoted to grand cru status. If this example is typical (not everyone can afford Coche Dury ), it is fine as a premier cru.

2009 Château Chevrol Bel Air, Lalande de Pomerol – I always serve affordable Bordeaux at a meal like this and this estate never fails to deliver. I paid 9 euros a bottle for it last year. It has a lovely deep color and a vibrant nose of Merlot fruit and fresh butter. Good grip on the palate, although there’s not a great deal of body or long aftertaste. Just a really enjoyable wine that’s fine to drink now, although it will keep for years. Blind tasters were guessing “Bordeaux, mainly Merlot-based” - but in a much more exalted and expensive category.

1998 Château Latour, Pauillac – OK, you need to be as objective as possible about the name wines - neither overly indulgent and fawning, nor overly critical and nitpicking. Let’s just say that the earth didn’t move here. This is my second and last bottle of this wine. The previous one was drunk a year ago. In light of that constant search for the right balance between fruit and tertiary complexity one seeks in Bordeaux, I figure the 98 Latour is pretty much where it should be. If you want to hold on for yours for 30 more years, then that’s your taste, and that’s fine by me . In any event the wine was unsurprisingly well-structured and also had an extremely refined nose. The trademark traits were there, just in minor key - although one guest thought it was more reminiscent of a Margaux than a Pauillac.

1996 Côte Rôtie La Mouline, Guigal – Everyone at table thought this was a Bordeaux, and two agreed that it was a Pessac-Léognan. Maybe it was a dirty trick to serve it after the Latour… Anyway, this wine shone and is wonderful to drink now. I read that Guigal wines are sometimes too oaky. Not this baby. It was extremely suave and subtle, with a cool, but tremendously long aftertaste. Most at table preferred it to the previous. The antithesis of what many think of as “Rhône” wines, i.e. heavy, alcoholic, and clunky. That this Côte Rôtie should not pale in comparison to a first growth speaks volumes. Of course, one could always demand a return match with a greater vintage of Latour…

1985 Fonseca vintage Port – A Portuguese enologist was at table, and this is also my son’s birth year, so it was especially nice to enjoy this. I qualified the wine is “spirited rather than sprity”. By that, I mean that the alcoholic component made itself clearly felt, but that it was not out of place in the wine’s overall balance. In other words, this wine, age 29, is still an adolescent. The color is very dark and vigorous and the nose splendid, with black fruit, dried fruit, spice… Christmas cake in a glass!
Received wisdom is that you need to keep vintage Port for decades to make the most of it. The 85 Fonseca is a case in point. However, more recent experience shows that many vintage Ports are also very sexy and enjoyable young, and without that “alcoholic burn”. I guess it all depends.

Best regards,
Alex R.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Champ., Burg., Bx., Rhone & Port

Post by DavidG »

Nice report Alex. I'm not at all surprised that the La Mouline stole the show. I find that the oak in these integrates very nicely after 10 years or so. And not surprised that it wasn't identified as a Cote Rotie, especially served blind in a setting where perhaps Bordeaux was expected. Nothing for your guests to be embarrassed about.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 16 guests