Saturday, the 19th of April, 2008. Another of those all day food and wine extravaganzas – thanks so much, Suganda! Although we did have the following wines in the order of the write-up here (I realize the order might look irritating), they were served with lots of breaks and well-prepared courses in between. Plus, each time the noise level increases, something’s gotta be done about those empty glasses, no?
Pierre Moncuit Champagne Blancs de Blancs Brut Vieille Vigne Cuvée Nicole Moncuit 1996
Thanks to Suganda. Bready-dry, tannic, some stone dust, approachable for a 1996, fair enough length, with some subtlety surfacing on the aftertaste. Rating: 87+
Egly-Ouriet Champagne Extra-Brut V.P Vieillissement Prolongé
Thanks to Martin. Lot 59. 61 months (an internet source says over 70, and that 50% of the all Pinot Noir is from 1998, with the rest reserve wines from vintages dating back to 1995) on its lees, dégorgé in August 2006. Same as last time when Erik brought along a bottle to Albino’s place, no need to type a new TN. More high-acid and intense, and longer than the Moncuit. Very dry thanks to its under 2 g/l dosage. Could use some bottle age. Rating: 89+/90
Château d’Yquem Sauternes 2003
Half bottle thanks to Martin. Quite full yellow-gold. Extremely exotic for young Yquem, I did not find this nearly as closed as some claimed. Soft butter and dandelion, but mainly banana, nearly overripe pineapple and mango, little botrytis (showing as a top note of Patex white glue with a touch of dissolvent) but still honeyed and creamy. Nice little bitter note as of ripe lemon zest. Exotic and tropical-flavoured acidity that is a bit low and tastes, well, a bit artificial and thus irritating (acidified)? Good body, but fairly alcoholic. Long on the finish. All in all a pleasurable enough if exotic, possibly overblown young Sauternes, I would expect the 2003 to age better than the unevenly ripe 2002. Rating: 91+?
Château d’Yquem Sauternes 2002
Half bottle thanks to Erik. Less golden, greener yellow. Firmer and chewier than the 2003, more viscous, with a surface touch of bacon fat Erik said, though ultimately the more vegetal wine, with a more tannic bitter note, and a minor medicinal aspect to the botrytis. I was a bit baffled when Victor claimed the 2002 is at least three times as long on the finish. Also, some felt the 2002 is sweeter. I thought it a bit deceptive, whereas the 2003 is of the obvious kind. Not a bad effort at all, but one I would make sure not to cellar until what appears to be an ever so slight underlying greenishness makes itself felt in a negative way (it really only brings on a sensation of raciness for the time being). Ultimately neither the 2002 nor the 2003 show enough potential for harmony, and both are a very far cry from the perfect 2001. Rating: ~90/90(+?)
Péter Kállai Tokaji Essencia Csontos Dülö 2000
Thanks to Victor again, same as last year. 100% Furmint with over 600 g/l residual sugar. Bottled unfiltered, and therein lies the rub: Tokaji Eszencia can only be the greatest sweet “wine” on the planet if bottled unfiltered (filters strip it not only of its yeast, but also of residual sugar, aroma, flavour etc.), but then, there is always the risk of refermentation in bottle. As it is happening with this wine. Lightly amber-orange colour with the faint milky murkiness of unfiltered Eszencia. Bubbly since refermenting. Still very thick and viscous. Incense and wax top notes to pear compote, dried apricot, some minerals, curry powder, white chocolate, sweet Sumatra tobacco, elderberry. Less bright, aromatic and precise than it used to be, the high acidity here has never been particularly high for Tokaji Eszencia. Remaining bottles need to be drunk up. Rating: 91-
Úri Borok (Vince Gergely) Tokaji Eszencia 2003
Contribution of mine. The first and better lot with 800 g/l or more residual sugar. Bottled unfiltered, this never started fermenting, thus contains no alcohol. Same as always, of course. Comparing this to great Eszencias from the past, not even the legendary 1947 is as concentrated as this. Full fresh orange colour. Soaked pollen, Japanese green with a hint at black tea, pear, honey, dried apricot, singularly minerally, a huge solid in the mouth, candy backed by beautiful aromatic and flavourful acidity. Mouthcoating rather than long in the usual sense at this primary, early stage. Erik asked if one can expect this to improve with bottle age. Perhaps, but even if, I doubt any of us will live to see it happen. Rating: 100
Trimbach Riesling Vendanges Tardives Clos Ste-Hune 1983
My other contribution that day. Probably the CSH I have had most often in my life, from different sources, this was not one of the great bottles, although superficially youthful and certainly well-stored ever since bought at auction. Quite full gold with a green hue. Touch of asparagus to aged apple, thinner than usual lime, pistachio, white peppery-chalky minerality, only faint sea-saltiness, a bit more brittle and drier than at its best, with some alcohol showing. Other than that a nice bottle, fairly finesseful and quite expressive of its terroir, just leaner and not on the surreal level of the finest bottles. On average, the standard (non-VT) 1983 has proven to be a safer bet (but the also botrytis-free 1983 VT could be near-perfection at its best). Rating: 94-/93
Drouhin Beaune Clos des Mouches 1997
The white (there is both a red and a white from this monopole vineyard). Thanks to Victor. Forgot to note the colour, but remember it looked pristine as one would expect given Victor’s perfect storage conditions. Aromatically a bit flat. Buttery-nutty “fruit”, not actually fruity, just some lightly steely lime and soft herbs, some oak and chalk, acidity sufficient but a bit bland in flavour. “Middle of the road”, Victor said. Rating: 89-/88
Wilh. Spindler Wilhelmshof Riesling Auslese #8 Forster Jesuitengarten 1971
Thanks to Erik. Impeccably stored, pristine bottle, in excellent condition and yet, rather dried out. Cheesy nose, dried mushroom. A bit medicinal aged/old fruit notes. Tannic surface dryness. Faint tobacco ash note taking away from the freshness. Good body. Mild basalt and sand notes. Some herbs. The undisputed greatness of the vintage shows only insofar as this is holding up well. The soil may be the limiting factor here, and the yields were probably too high, the German Riesling specialists suggested. “Thin, lacks substance”, Sam said. Indeed, minerality laid bare can be more attractive than this. Rating: 82-
Radikon Oslavje 2003
Thanks to Sam. 40% Chardonnay, 30% Ribolla Gialla, 30% Sauvignon Blanc. No addition of sulphur, very oxidative style. Milky orange colour. Impossible to describe attractive weirdness. Strong verbena, pipe tobacco, some straw and hay, cinnamon, gingerbread, dried egg. Tannin like a red wine. A tiny bit fecal, as Victor noted (everyone seemed to agree), but essentially interesting. Rating: 89
Radikon Jakot 2003
Thanks to Sam. 100% Tokai Friuliano. Milky orange colour. Prominent, attractive rosemary aroma and flavour. Fuller body than the Oslavje. Much oakier, too (apart from lesser depth and finesse, the main reason I like Radikon wines less than those by the even more original Gravner). A rubbery caoutchouc note. Tannic, partly due to oak it appears, which glosses over whatever finesse there may be. Long finish. Rating: 88-/87
Emrich-Schönleber Riesling Erstes Gewächs #10 Monzinger Frühlingsplätzchen 2006
Thanks to Sam. Lovely herbs and fruit subtlety, nicely finesseful. Less offensively dry than some Erste Gewächse, but not too concentrated, a fairly easy-going effort. Nice tannic stone dust. Went very well with morels. Even so, I do not see uncommon ageworthiness and the potential greatness here that some do. Rating: 88(+?)
G. Dessalle & E. Mainguet Moulin à Vent 1945
Thanks to Erik. Yes, it is amazing that a Beaujolais, a Gamay, would keep so long, but then, it is from one of the most glorious vintages of all time, and it would nonetheless have been so much more enjoyable years ago. Huge amount of sediment in the bottle. Light amber-ruby colour. Fine little ethereal sweetness, light and floating on top. Nice mushroom, somewhat noble truffle pipe tobacco. A bit tannic and dry underneath. Interesting, and despite the fact that it is way beyond its prime, still a drinkable Beaujolais. Rating: 86-
Albert Bichot La Romanée Réserve 1967
Thanks to Suganda. Light amber, faint ruby hue. Top notes of oxidized apple and acetone, morbid fallen leaves, but also some dried raspberry, forest floor, some rose petals, chervil and lovage. The best aspects here were the minerality and length. Actually became a fraction fruitier with airing. “A beautiful corpse”, Erik quipped – I honestly thought it a pity the original owner (I assume this was bought at auction) did not drink it many, many years ago. Rating: 83-
Bouchard Père et Fils La Romanée 1996
Thanks to Suganda. Bottle number 03466. Some ginger to lovely raspberry and light Amarena cherry fruit, faint smoke and nice tree bark, lovely herbs, tarragon and laurel. Lovely and not too much, perfectly fitting oak. Nicely minerals and forest floor earth. A pretty little walnut note to the tannin. Good body, lovely vinosity. Fairly racy yet well-balanced 1996, not wholly without edges, but not too high-acid, with palate-cleansing acidity that is far from bland. Firm and long finish. As transparent in its aroma and flavour profile as Pinot Noir gets. Closed down with airing, typical young wine behaviour. Deserves more, possibly lots of time in bottle. One of only three or so wines of which I poured myself a second glass. Rating: 94+/95(+?)
Haut Brion Pessac Léognan 2003
The white. Thanks to Erik. Quite bright yellow-green colour. Fairly closed, but still exhibiting charm. A bit flat, broad and bland, and alcoholic in this vintage. Not too precise, some herbs, little minerality, elder, candied green hazelnut. Faint bitter note, just fair enough acidity. Warming on the finish, fair enough length. “Quite sexy” as Erik says, but not focused and minerally enough for my taste. Rating: 88+/89(+?)
Bruno Clair Corton-Charlemagne 1999
Thanks to Suganda. Quite bright, lightly golden yellow-green. Quite oaky, or more to the point, quite closed at present – even so, this would be better-balanced with less oak. Some thistle. Candied lime. Cloves, juniper berries. Soft but nicely refreshing minerality, coquina/shell limestone. Quite flavourful acidity. Quite good body and length. Grown through with oak, even if per se nice quality oak. But a promising wine that hints at potential finesse. Rating: 92+
Jean-Louis Chave Hermitage 1995
Thanks to Victor. Full ruby-black. Fresh and racy. Lively graphite and charcoal minerality and minor oak influence (that oak is just marvelously well-integrated, better than in the slightly more concentrated and serious Cuvée Cathelin from the same vintage). Strong partly roasted, partly dried, partly fresh Provençal herbs. Nice green pepper. Less opulent than in some vintages, but precise, and focused, long, racy and refreshing – my kind of wine! The acidity was surprisingly reminiscent of that of the 1996 La Romanée. One of only three or so wines of which I poured myself a second glass. Rating: 94+/~95
Vega Sicilia Ribera del Duero Unico Reserva Especial N.V.
Thanks to Erik. Lot No. 015/98, apparently a blend of 1974, 1981 and 1986. Undrinkably corked, what a pity... Rating: N/R
Perticaia Montefalco Sagrantino 2003
Thanks to Sam. “Overripe fruit and oak”, Martin said (who preferred the corked Vega!), and that pretty much sums it up. Yes, this may be the most tannic and a per se interesting variety as Sam said, but this was a modern-styled, overly polished example that hinted at, but did not fully bring out its potential. Faintly plummy ruby-black. Apart from the oak and modern-styled if closed “fruit” density, herbs such as roasted oregano, and slightly grainy tannin, as polished as this Sagrantino was. Rating: 89+?
Château Poujeaux Moulis 1990
Thanks to Bernd. Medium-plus ruby, black reflections, slight orange at the rim. Cardboardy truffle (not corked). Simple, fairly bland and dry, touches of grey and black pepper. Still tannic, without much depth. Medium-short on the finish. Rating: 86-
Château Ausone St. Emilion 1976
Thanks to Victor. Medium ruby with an amber hue and black reflections and a watery, faintly orange rim. Prominent top note of old fallen leaves at first, and slightly bitter and dry. But this improved with airing, even if it remained essentially light, as well as faintly bitter and dry to the end, but it opened up quite some complexity and more precise terroir expression. Black truffle, old leather. Dried-off cherry, light roast beef juice. Faint coconut note, surprisingly (usually associated with the new oak in Ausone from the modern era, but clearly the same top note). Still lightly furry with tannin. Short at first, longer with airing, even more so on the aftertaste than the finish (note “finish” with me is what is consistent with a wine’s flavour profile, whereas “aftertaste” is what lingers but need no longer be consistent with the wine’s flavour profile). Pretty terroir notes, even if the greatness of Ausone does not fully come out. I remember one time when I posted a tasting note on the 1982, some suggested I try and get a taste of the 1976. Of the pre-Vauthier era Ausones I know, the 1982 remains my favourite, but the comparison may be unfair given the 1982 still appears to be on its way up, whereas the 1976 is clearly fading, if no doubt a uncommon success from a difficult vintage (Victor claims the Pétrus is as good or better!). Rating: 92-/91
Château Angélus St. Emilion 1998
Thanks to Bernd. A slightly disappointing bottle compared to the best I have had. Virtually opaque, lightly plummy ruby. Drier and less opulent than I am used to, oakier, with slightly grainy-dusty and more obviously oak-induced tannin. Fairly thick, sweet and dry fruit, blackcurrant, sweet charcoal. Came across as lacking in finesse, and not just because it followed the 1976 Ausone that day. Rating: ~90 (this bottle)
Château Cos d'Estournel St. Estèphe 1959
Thanks to Martin, a bottle we “forgot” to open (or ignored?) last year. A good showing for a lower mid-shoulder fill bottle. A little sediment here. Quite plummy-deep colour at the center, watery red-orange at the rim. White truffle, raisiny fruit, chocolate truffle, fig juice, faint red beet, a little brown spice. Well-concentrated wine that is just getting a bit old. Good medium-plus body. Finely-grained tannin. Fairly long on the finish. Less dry with airing. Much more depth than the 1986, more layered, even if this bottle of the 1959 was clearly on the autumnal side. Rating: 87-/86
Château Cos d'Estournel St. Estèphe 1986
Thanks to Bernd. Again, a somewhat disappointing bottle compared to the best we have had, diffuse, the nose in particular lacked focus. Full ruby-red. Less concentrated than the 1959, higher alcohol, or less integrated. Less classy. Earthy, this is beginning to shed fruit, as Victor noted. Forward and drinking well for a 1986. Tar and black cherry as of one of the blander vintages of Gaja Barbaresco (that is, not completely bland, of course). Medium-attractive tobacco to a little fruit, but not very layered at all. Medium grain tannin. Impaired by a virtually unnoticeable cork taint? Bernd himself thought it “a bit tired”, possibly suffering from a travel shock. Rating: ~85? (or: N/R)
Château Palmer Margaux 2005
Thanks to Erik. 53% Cabernet Sauvignon, 40% Merlot, and 7% Petit Verdot. Full purple-ruby, lighter at the rim. Fruity-complex, but extremely polished. Some chocolate, mainly vanilla to the oak, some charcoal. Noticeably high alcohol at 14%. Sweet and ripe, milk-chocolatey and approachable, many will say luscious modern Bordeaux. Almost annoyingly easy to interpret, and ultimately a bit deficient in depth, character and length. Even compared to the not entirely satisfactory 1959 Cos, this came across as less deep and long. More body and power than the Pichon-Lalande from the same vintage, and the underlying minerality is impressive – on the whole there is pretty enough terroir expression, even if this is only just recognizable as Palmer. Riper, rounder and potentially more harmonious than the 2004, which I must admit I nonetheless like better, since it is a more classically austere, minerally-stony toughie of wine, at least somewhat more of a throwback to the great wines of the past (the firm, palate-cleansing, food-friendly kind). Has greater upwards potential than the Pichon-Lalande, which I find too light and harmless for a wine from a supposed top vintage, but at least it was stylistically consistent with what one expects from PLL. This, on the other hand, is a shocking Palmer: “Ornellaia with Himalaja salt” (alluding to those remnants of terroir), Rainer quipped when I told him about the party a few days later – the jocular description fits this to a T! I am afraid the only people who will be thoroughly happy with this release are ones who were afraid they had another 1961 on their hands and would not get much pleasure from it during their lifetime. Rating: 91+
Domaine Leroy Nuits-Saint-Georges aux Boudots 1993
Thanks to Suganda. Fresh, quite luminescent raspberry-ruby, soft black reflections, lightly watery rim. Racy crystallized berries, citrusy Kirsch, chocolate truffles. Firm, a bit salty minerality, like black-peppery, graphite-tinged stone dust. Lovely soft metal notes. Solid mouthwatering tannin. Less acidity than the 1996 La Romanée, but more tannic. Not a wine without edges: somewhat rustic, in a nice way, perhaps a tiny bit aggressive someone said. No matter: it is the combination of concentration, terroir expression and firm backbone that makes this wine what it is – the slight austerity is really a part of its character, as well as a characteristic of a vintage I can only say I love at the highest level. One of only three or so wines of which I poured myself a second glass. Rating: 94
Bodegas Roda Rioja Reserva Roda I 1999
Thanks to Sam. Faintly pruney ruby-black. Lightly soapy, half crystallized, half raisined fruit, lightly oxidative strawberry jam, a bit cheesy. Chocolatey in a heavy-handed, invasive way. Some density and glycerine, but still quite alcoholic. Lacks freshness, precision and cut in this vintage. Medium length. Rating: 83+
Château Latour Pauillac 1999
Thanks to Erik. From yields of 39 hectoliters per hectare, a blend of 70% Cabernet Sauvignon, 25% Merlot, 4% Cabernet Franc, and 1% Petit Verdot. Liked this a little better than when I last had it six years ago. Purple touch to good ruby-black. Noble oak and tobacco, soft smoke to quite lovely fruit, half-dried blackcurrant and cherry, lovely little truffle top note, aristocratic wine, good density, round. Quite juicy tannin and acidity, even if the latter seems a bit low. Quite luscious for the vintage. Ageworthy enough, too, but showing well already. No use airing this too long. Rating: 92+/93?
Mas Amiel Maury Millésimé 1969
Thanks to Erik. Medium-deep amber-brown. Dry coffee and date, some cocoa dust. Rather one-dimensional. High alcohol. Citrusy acidity. A touch tannic due to the thorough oxidation. Rating: 86
Domaine Mounié Rivesaltes Nectar du Prieuré Cuvée de “L’Homme de Tautavel” 1955
Thanks to Sam. A blend of Macabeu and Grénache blanc. Lighter amber-orange-brown than the Maury. Lighter wine with good medium-plus body, except that the alcohol is elevated at 16%. Tannic rancio surface oxidation. Dried orange zest. High citrusy acidity. Zesty bitter note. A little longer on the finish than the Maury. Rating: 87
Ernst Triebaumer Ruster Cabernet Sauvignon-Merlot 2002
Thanks to Sam, I believe. Faint purple hue to full ruby, some black reflections. Mulled wine spice oak, hugely oaky, warming high alcohol, jammy cherry, chocolate and raisins. Mainly oak tannin. Quite juicy if milk chocolatey and not too refreshing fruit. Quite strong minerality for a Ruster. Probably not bad for what it is, that is, an offensively hyper-modern-styled wine. Rating: 86+/87?
Domaine Leroy Richebourg 1996
Nightcap with Victor, who spontaneously decided to share this late at night – after we had just tasted 32 wines at Suganda’s place (well, 32 minus one that was corked). One of only 2630 bottles. Full raspberry-black. Citrusy acidity, typical 1996. Multilayered, lovely classic austerity, even a tiny bit tough (which I love!). Crisp and racy caper, crystallized raspberry, surreal cherry and Kirsch. Finesse notes of wood strawberries, earthy moss, leather and humus soil. Faintly animal even. Exotic apple and Earl Grey tea notes of bergamot, with a touch of dark Assam. Well-balanced, a lovely combination of rustic and noble grand Cru. Wonderfully natural-tasting tobacco leaf. Very minerally for Richebourg. Very long on the finish. Mouthwatering tannin that is nicely flavourful. All in all, the kind of wine where experience pays off, not one for newbies and fruit drinkers, the contrary of superficial. “Powerful harmony” is how Victor described this. But then, this exhibits significantly more grip, even bite, than the 1996 La Romanée earlier that day. Gingery mouthwatering freshness, the mouthcleansing effect of an apple. With airing some roasted beef if not lamb. Started to close down with extended airing, typical young wine behaviour. Rating: 96+/97-?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti