2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

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

2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by AlexR »

Hi,

I have been a fan of Clos Dady for a while. This 6-hectare estate in Preignac (AOC Sauternes) was recently purchased by the Russian Ilkham Ragimov. It is currently managed in conjunction with nearby Château d’Arche.
As opposed to the red wines of Bordeaux, 2007 is a good year for sweet white wines, and this comes through in 2007 Clos Dady, which I enjoyed with panfried foie gras - a marriage made in heaven…
The color is a rich deep golden yellow with bronze highlights. The nose is very fresh and fruity with quince and (decided) pear aromas, with some waxy nuances. The bouquet seems much more overripe than botrytized.
The taste goes from round and unctuous into a finish with pronounced acidity. The aftertaste is pleasant, but on the short side.
This is nevertheless a good wine to enjoy at this stage of its development. It is fresh and vital. I am of the opinion that there is a style of Sauternes (like this) that appeals more to the French market, as opposed to the other kind (more botrytized, more concentrated, and oaky) that appeals to foreign markets. At table, even so, this Clos Dady was a treat.

I expected much from the 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, a wine that I do not follow regularly, but which was promoted to Premier Grand Cru “A” status in 2012. Aware that 2002 is not such a wonderful vintage, especially on the Right Bank, I was willing to make allowances. I was nevertheless disappointed with what I tasted. The color is lovely and deep, looking younger than its age. The nose has hints of leather and musk as well as a ferrous, and what I call a soy sauce element. It is ripe and shows candied fruit. Things unfortunately go downhill from there... The wine is simply steamrollered by the oak.
One of the great discussions among Bordeaux lovers is the “classic” versus the “modern” style. I freely admit to belonging more to the former camp. Still, I have an open mind. But when a wine is as overwhelmed as this by barrel ageing, you simply have to admit it. 2002 Troplong Mondot is thus big and a little “hot” on the palate with a hard, dry, oaky aftertaste. It is curiously diluted on the attack, and then goes dumb and tight. The wine showed a little better after a few hours in the decanter, but it is going nowhere. Someone was a just a little too ambitious that year in light of the fruit’s potential.
The last Troplong Mondot I had was a 1990, which was delightful, so I do not mean to paint every vintage with the same brush by any means.
Also, I am anxious to go to the restaurant that recently opened at Troplong Mondot, called Les Belles Perdrix. I’ve heard very good reports…
The Bordeaux rumor mill has been very active with news of a possible takeover of the estate since Christine Valette passed away last year, but these seem to be ungrounded.

I am increasingly finding that mid-range 2000 Bordeaux is ready to drink. So, I decanted a bottle of 2000 Ch. Siran to have with rabbit à la moutarde. I should point out that the mustard ends up being very subtle when blended with the cooking juices and cream, so this did not really skew my evaluation. Anyway, the color of this 2000 Siran is very deep and thick, looking younger than its years. The nose is surprisingly mute. Although pure, it is not very expressive at all. What little I could detect smelled like beetroot. The wine is somewhat better on the palate and reminded me of nothing so much as the way Médoc used to taste when I first arrived in Bordeaux, over 30 years ago. I noted cedar and a touch of blackcurrant, but also unquestionable greenness and bitterness on the finish. I came back to the wine 5 hours after the meal, and it had changed little. The tealike flavors are very reminiscent of old-fashioned Médoc. Above all, this wine would have been much better a few years ago. You’d have to look very hard to find any of the characteristics usually associated with Margaux…

Best regards,
Alex R.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20110
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by JimHow »

As good as 2002 is on the left bank it is bad on the right bank.
User avatar
Roel
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:24 pm
Location: Waalwijk, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by Roel »

I'm not a a fan of 2002 at all. Found most wines green and/or uninspiring. I like the (mediocre too) 2007's better. If I have to chose..
Siran never has been a high flyer in my book. Fine, decent wines, but not très Margaux at all. Labels sometimes look better than what's in the bottle.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6225
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by stefan »

What Jim said.
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by dstgolf »

Alex,

Not sure the Trolong Mondot oak trend is isolated to 2002....and I know it's not! This is the modernized style they have been putting out since at least 2000...over extracted and oaked. Not to my taste at a young age and likely not any age. Maybe some of this will integrate down the road but I still feel the great wines show balance regardless of age. Maybe heavy on everything young but still you should tell a reasonable wine based on balance and not hope you're holding on to the ugly duckling that will blossom one day. It happens but more chance with an up front balanced wine.

Siran has never been a remarkable wine. Short term early inexpensive drinker. 15 years out I'd expect it to be dead in the water and you seemed to have at least had a somewhat drinkable wine so I think that you are lucky on that front.
Danny
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by Blanquito »

Shame about the Siran, I bought a few of the 2005 out of nostalgia. Siran was one of the first Chateau I ever visited, when I made my first pilgrimage to the Gironde in 1994.
User avatar
Jeff Leve
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by Jeff Leve »

dstgolf wrote:Not sure the Trolong Mondot oak trend is isolated to 2002....and I know it's not! This is the modernized style they have been putting out since at least 2000...over extracted and oaked.
Hi David

It's OK not to like Troplong Mondot. More for me! But the oak program has not really changed since 1990. You can find the precentages of new oak for each vintage in the tasting notes on my site. http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/bor ... ng-mondot/

For a few examples, 90 was 75%, 2005 was 75%. 09 & 10 were aged with 100% new oak. It really depends on the vintage. FWIW, 2002 was nice, but not my favorite vintage.
User avatar
AlexR
Posts: 2373
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:35 am
Contact:

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by AlexR »

Jeff,

The use of new oak cannot just be pinned down to percentage points. It's as simplistic and misleading as summing up a wine up in two digits :-))))).

Was the wine fermented in barrel? Did it undergo malolactic in barrel? How were the staves toasted? Above all, how long did the wine stay in barrel?

I realize that how many new barrels are introduced in a given year is useful information, but it is not the complete picture.

Alex R.
User avatar
Jeff Leve
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by Jeff Leve »

AlexR wrote:Jeff,

The use of new oak cannot just be pinned down to percentage points. It's as simplistic and misleading as summing up a wine up in two digits :-))))).

Was the wine fermented in barrel? Did it undergo malolactic in barrel? How were the staves toasted? Above all, how long did the wine stay in barrel?

I realize that how many new barrels are introduced in a given year is useful information, but it is not the complete picture.

Alex R.
Let's make it simple Alex. For Troplong Mondot, the answer to #1 is no.

For most Right Bank wines, for #2, the answer is yes. I do not think the vessel for Malolactic fermentation matters on how the oak shows, especially with time.

#3... You got me there. No idea. You would need to ask. But I do not think the amount of time for barrel aging has changed over the years at Troplong.

PS... As long as we are playing today, Troplong Mondot was upgraded to their current status in 2006. They were reconfirmed in 2012. :mrgreen:
User avatar
AlexR
Posts: 2373
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:35 am
Contact:

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by AlexR »

OK, technicality for technicality :-).

As for malolactic fermentation in barrel, this applies only to a small percentage of estates.
If is is done - because it costs more money - it is obviously because it is thought to have a (positive) effect on the wine, i.e. does make a difference.
My understanding of winemaking is weak here. I will need to ask someone about the advantages and possible disadvantages.

You never did answer if you read "Vinobusiness" by Isabelle Saporta.

In any event, the St. Emilion classification is being challenged in the courts... again.

If the plaintiffs win, I can't see a future classification ever being made. So the prententious "A" carved on the pediment of Pavie can stay where it is, unchallenged...

Alex R.
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2084
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by dstgolf »

Jeff,

I might be incorrect but I find the level of toast on the oak has increased and this is whatmay put me off. Certainly the new oak % has a bearing but that has not changed according to your numbers. Source of oak barrels has as much to do with this as does the % and not just saying 75% French oak because all oak is not produced from the same forest/cut the same way etc. My understanding is the winemaker chooses the different cooperage houses and they won't have 100% of their barrels from the same house but will have varying percentages from multiple houses to highlight differant notes of vanilla,spice,nuttiness etc that will change from house to house and thereby changing the makeup/taste of the final product. This is not as easy as saying they haven't changed the NEW oak percentage from 75% since 1990. What about the barrel suppliers,source of oak each uses,cooper changes at the house over the years,level of toast,length of contact in the barrel pre/post fermentation etc. Their choices in "oak management" are almost as important as a change in winemaker and can be dramatic.

I remember trying Cab based wine produced by the same winemaker/methodology/grapes etc and he used three differant French cooperages, American,Hungarian and Ontario(north/South) oak producing a barrel of each in addition to one of the French oaks having differing levels of toast. A total of 9 wines and every one tasted tremendously different. The education experience was unforgettable. Young trees vs old, trees from colder climates have tighter grain/grow more slowly and impart little to no oak(Ontario north). Southern Ontario oak more closely approximated Hungarian. The exercise was one of the most memorable I've ever experienced. Still have to admit EVERYONEs preferrance was French oak and yes there were minor noticeable variations.

Danny
Danny
User avatar
Jeff Leve
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: 2007 Clos Dady, 2002 Ch. Troplong Mondot, and 2000 Ch. Siran

Post by Jeff Leve »

dstgolf wrote:Jeff, I might be incorrect but I find the level of toast on the oak has increased and this is whatmay put me off.
To make life easy, I sent an Email and asked for you, as I have no idea.

Source of oak barrels has as much to do with this as does the % and not just saying 75% French oak because all oak is not produced from the same forest/cut the same way etc.

True... But at most chateau, that does not seem to vary much, if at all. But honestly, I have no idea.

My understanding is the winemaker chooses the different cooperage houses and they won't have 100% of their barrels from the same house but will have varying percentages from multiple houses to highlight differant notes of vanilla,spice,nuttiness etc that will change from house to house and thereby changing the makeup/taste of the final product.

Every chef has their own idea for the perfect recipe. Some estates, for example, Tertre Roteboeuf only use one cooper. Others use several. Oak, like wine are most often the result of the blend.

What about the barrel suppliers,source of oak each uses,cooper changes at the house over the years,level of toast,length of contact in the barrel pre/post fermentation etc. Their choices in "oak management" are almost as important as a change in winemaker and can be dramatic.

Most of that has already been addressed in this thread. I'm not sure what length of contact pre fermentation has to do with oak. Some chateau, not Troplong, ferment some, or all of their wine in barrel. But as we are talking about Troplong, that is moot.

The most important differences in Troplong today are really; the level of ripeness, alcohol, age of the vines, selection and the minor change in the vineyard cepage. Not the oak program. Today, the wines are deeper, rounder, plusher, richer, more concentrated and higher in alcohol. The fruit has more purity, the wines show more complexity and length. They also have a relatively new cellar and wine making facilities, which also helps. At least that is how I see it.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests