The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.
no avatar
User

Mike Conner

Rank

Ultra geek

Posts

163

Joined

Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:35 am

Location

Knoxville, TN

Re: WTNs: Musar 1998, 1995, 1977, 1966

by Mike Conner » Fri May 05, 2006 3:52 am

OW,

There was just some talk in the yahoo group MoCool e-mail thingie that I somehow am still a part of that this years MoCool theme might be something simple like 'wines of 1990' which I think was the first year of MoCool gathering as such. Suffice it to say there was nothing officially decided by the organizers.

Otto,

Well, can't say for sure about the low show of brett in our bottles. I have heard that Musar often bottles at separate times, so perhaps the bottles you've had were from different lots. And, Bill has another point about stylistic change of recent - although I've not enough experience tasting young Musar to know if the style has changed. Serge would tell you it hasn't (at least that was his stance when he was in town 3-ish years ago). Perhaps just changes in the raw materials? Better selection used to make the grand vin?

Anyway, I know volatility is often an issue in Musar. And, with the mix of grapes used, folks often comment upon an unusual 'funk' of sorts associated with Musar (certainly few other wines in the world has its flavor profile).

Maybe we could convince some of the Ann Arbor folks who might peer into the board to get into this Musar discussion - they have a lot more experience than I do tasting Musar.

Mike

(I wouldn't worry about the ? you pose at the end... Once someone has learned what the flavor profile brett often produces, they are not likely to use that term in jest about a wine - - although there has been interesting discussions about the '89 and '90 Beaucastel - - whether the wines are brett dominated, or just unusually funky based on the blend)
User avatar
User

Bill Spohn

Rank

He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'

Posts

5072

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:31 pm

Location

Vancouver BC

Re: WTNs: Musar 1998, 1995, 1977, 1966

by Bill Spohn » Wed May 10, 2006 10:30 am

Otto Nieminen wrote:Am I the only one who gets some merde/shit/dung/funk/brettanomyces bruxellensis in my Musar? What sort of strange Musars do you get accross the pond?


I'm going to have to answer yes to that.

You got me curious so I attended a small trade tasting yesterday with Serge Hocher who happened to be in Vancouver (I doubt that I've seen him for 20 years.

I gently asked him about any hint of brett in his wines and he adamantly denied it and was rather offended at the suggestion (I made sure he knew it wasn't MY suggestion). :D

The only element that is unusual at all in his wines is the rather high volatile acidity, but I wouldn't have thought you would characterise that as brett.

I'll post my notes in a separate thread.
User avatar
User

Otto

Rank

Musaroholic

Posts

4071

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:07 pm

Location

Helsinki, Finland

Re: WTNs: Musar 1998, 1995, 1977, 1966

by Otto » Wed May 10, 2006 5:36 pm

Ok. It seems that I don't know what brett smells like. But brett or no brett, my bottles of almost all Musars (red or white) have scents which I would liken to brett (i.e. dung in reds, and Cantillon's Gueuze in the whites). I really can't explain what else it could be than Brett, but I guess I must concede to your knowledge. Mourvedre is often said to cause brett-like scents, but Musar doesn't have that. So any ideas on what could cause them?
I don't drink wine because of religious reasons ... only for other reasons.
User avatar
User

Bill Spohn

Rank

He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'

Posts

5072

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:31 pm

Location

Vancouver BC

Re: WTNs: Musar 1998, 1995, 1977, 1966

by Bill Spohn » Wed May 10, 2006 5:46 pm

Dunno what could be causing that, Otto.

The wines were clean other than the high VA, but then we were tasting young vintages. Perhaps some fo the older vintages developed secondary characteristics that you associate with ...dung.

As for Bret, you can probably get a reading on it if you taste a wine that really has it. I'd suggest some of the older Beaucastels, but that would be an expensive lesson.

Hello out there - can anyone suggest a currently available modestly priced wine that is egregiously affected by Brettanomyces? - Think I'll post this as a separate thread and maybe somene can offer a nice 'study' wine on the subject!
User avatar
User

Otto

Rank

Musaroholic

Posts

4071

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:07 pm

Location

Helsinki, Finland

Re: WTNs: Musar 1998, 1995, 1977, 1966

by Otto » Wed May 10, 2006 6:06 pm

Bill Spohn wrote:As for Bret, you can probably get a reading on it if you taste a wine that really has it. I'd suggest some of the older Beaucastels, but that would be an expensive lesson.

Hello out there - can anyone suggest a currently available modestly priced wine that is egregiously affected by Brettanomyces? - Think I'll post this as a separate thread and maybe somene can offer a nice 'study' wine on the subject!


Bill, having tasted a few older Brettcastles (including what is probably the Brettiest wine in existence: the 1991) I think I have a fair idea of what it tastes like. Also I've noted from literature that there are several strains of Brett which cause different types of scents.

What I find annoying about Musar is that Gaston Hochar and Serge Hochar seem to tell totally different stories. When I visited Musar, Gaston gave the tour and he did mention dekkera in his wines. So why is Serge denying this? Or why is Gaston saying something else? I really don't know. And I really don't know what I have been drinking or what you have been drinking, but what I do know is that whatever was in my glass was Bretty. Except you made me rather unsure about that as well. Oh, well, we Finns are noted for being terribly insecure about everything ;)
I don't drink wine because of religious reasons ... only for other reasons.
Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], James Dietz and 2 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign