by Tim York » Tue May 05, 2009 11:50 am
Château de Beaucastel – Châteauneuf du Pape blanc (“classic”) and Châteauneuf du Pape Vieilles Vignes blanc (“VV”)
The TGVins Club looked at several vintages of white Beaucastel last night, comparing the classic cuvée and the Vieilles Vignes. As usual Pierre Ghysens was our guide.
White Beaucastel, like a lot white CdP, is prone to go into a prolonged closed period after a delicious 12 months following bottling. Most of these, though not old vintages, should have re-opened. However another characteristic of Beaucastel blanc is to continue evolving in a saw-edge fashion with continuous ups and downs, which can make it an unreliable pick for a great occasion of the sort for which such a wine is designed.
These wine are dense, rich and alcoholic (>13.5%) with complex Mediterranean aromatics and flavours managing to combine darkly burnished notes with freshness and I noticed that without food, like powerful red wines, they tended to induce palate fatigue. They would be wonderful pairing for rich fish and white meat dishes, e.g. the poulet Vallée d’Auge, which I wrote about a few days ago with Vouvray. In most cases the classic cuvée was drinking more expressively right now but the VV mostly showed greater density, freshness, elegance and length, which led us to think that it had potential in reserve which would reverse the preferences in a few years time.
The prices for 2007 vintage are €59,50 for Classic and €96 for VV; one may ask whether VV's extra quality justifies this big difference.
According to Parker’s 1998 (French) edition on Rhône wines, Classic is made from 80% Roussanne, 15% Grenache and 5% others (Clairette, Bourboulenc, Picpoul, Picardan) and 80% is matured in stainless steel tanks and the rest in new and used barrels. VV is 100% Roussanne and is fermented and matured 50/50 in stainless steel tanks and in once used barrels.
1998
Classic showed an open and expressive nose and an ample, deep, rich and complex palate with tropical fruit, some nuts and good mouth-fill; 17/20+.
VV showed slightly lighter colour than Classic and was initially more closed but with swirl and airing fine floral aromas emerged and the palate was more focussed, mineral and linear than Classic with fine length; 17/20++ now; 18/20+ potential.
1999
Classic showed deeper amber than ’98 and a sweetly burnished nose with slight iodine and sherry hints; the palate with its richly burnished character gave the impression of less fullness and intensity than ’98 with a certain soft bitterness around the edges and dryness towards the finish; good drinking, though; 16/20.
VV was similar in colour and its aromas were somewhat less burnished and fresher with more marked iodine notes; the palate was also fresher and more ample than Classic’s though darker than ’98; good length; 16.5/20.
Most of the others preferred Classic.
2000
Classic was better than ’99 with fuller and more complex fruit, pineapple, orange and marmalade, greater freshness and generosity; 17/20+.
VV was broadly similar but more discreet aromatically and with less purity, malt hints and a bitter touch on the after-taste; 15.5/20; was this in a “down” phase or an under-performing bottle?
2001
Both seemed a lot more youthful.
Classic took time to open up and was aromatically simpler than the previous years; there was some fine deep substance seeming quite dark and burnished at first but freshening up; good balance and length; 16/20 now with ++++ potential.
VV was even more restrained aromatically with initially some woody and pasty hints but these dissipated and impressively round, rich matter and fine balance and length were revealed; 16/20 now with +++++ potential.
Pierre thinks that these are potentially the finest of the lot.
Tim York