NYTimes: Asimov On Gigondas

Nice enough article by EricAsimov in today's NYTimes on Gigondas:

NYTimes: Asimov/Gigondas

His point that it's a small step up from CotesDuRhone to Gigondas, but a large step up from Gigondas to ChateauneufDuPape is well taken, I thought.
Tom

Asimov's point that: "Just because a wine is immediately likable doesn’t mean it will remain pleasing over the long haul." is so correct; as Pepsi and Coke found out in those taste tests in the Pepsi commercials years ago.

Thanks for posting the link, Tom.

count me as disagreeing vehemently with the assertion that gigondas is close to cdr but along way from cdp. tasted a lot of all of them care needs to be taken with all of them. i've found gigondas more reliable on the whole and chateauneuf these days is such a mixed bag of raiseny plonk and decent quality stuff that for the price......

I have felt for some time that billing Gigondas as Chateauneuf's understudy is misleading. However, and in direct contrast to Asimov claims, I believe the reason for this is precisely because Gigondas has a distinct character and identity. I will agree that the distinction is in Gigondas' stucture and undertone rather than its fruit profile, but the difference in structure and undertone is rather substantial, in my opinion. And frankly, these days, mid-tier Gigondas overlaps in price and quality with low-end Chateauneuf, making the choice between the two strictly one of style.

I would instead level the claim of "not much different than Cotes-du-Rhone and a large step below Chateauneuf" at Vacqueyras. I much prefer Cairanne to Vacqueyras, despite the former being a "mere" village (albeit one that by all accounts would be upgraded in short order if the growers really wanted it to be).

Côtes du Rhône itself is such a varied field that it's hard to know what to make of that statement. Certainly, Gigondas, Vacqueyras, Cairanne and Rasteau each have a sense of place and a level of quality that distinguishes those communes from run-of-the-mill CdR and that's why (perhaps) the INAO has distinguished them with their own AOCs. Then again, Coudoulet and Mon Coeur are also labeled CdR For Grenache-based wines, though, Chateauneuf does stand above all the others to me, though I hesitate to quantify that level of separation.

Mark Lipton

I liked that he prominently mentioned Domaine du Cayron Gigondas because it is a wine I consistently enjoy, and the 1989 was one of the best wines I've ever had (tasted in 2006). My neighbor collects it, so I've luckily got to try quite a number of vintages. Keep collecting, Larry!

I totally agree with David's point. I've long considered Gigondas to be a good alternative to Chateauneuf, more consistant and less expensive. To me it's much more than an everyday wine like CDR and always a good choice.

Nice enough article by EricAsimov in today's NYTimes on Gigondas:

NYTimes: Asimov/Gigondas

His point that it's a small step up from CotesDuRhone to Gigondas, but a large step up from Gigondas to ChateauneufDuPape is well taken, I thought.
Tom

At its best, Châteauneuf du Pape can be a majestic wine, e.g. Beaucastel and Rayas, but there are too many out there which are over jammy, over alcoholic and over-priced. Amongst "lesser" southern Rhônes there are many estates which routinely produce delicious wines which avoid these traps; Oratoire St.Martin and Richaud at Cairanne, Soumade at Rasteau and Gramenon spring to mind as well as some of the better estates at Gigondas and Vacqueyras. On the less fashionable right bank of the Rhône, Domaine Ste.Anne and Réméjeanne also achieve excellent results.

For my palate 2010s are preferable to 2009s; they have an extra zest of acidity which makes far more of them into bottles which one finishes.

Nice article by Azimov, subject to the above reservations.

Both NYTimes and SFChronicle (see recent post on Sicilian whites) seem to do better wine articles than any I have found in UK or French language dailies, with the possible exception of Jancis R's column in Saturday's Financial Times.