WTN: Drinks

1999 Juge, Cornas Cuvée SC:
The best bottle out of the case so far; a velvet texture sans weight; Cornas on the nose and palate but the texture was extraordinary and the balance impeccable. The “Burgundy of Cornas” felt like Richebourg tonight.

2002 Clos de la Roilette, Fleurie Cuvée Tardive:
Somewhat closed on the nose and no immediate indicators of gamay; rich and deep in the mouth, black fruit more than red, Baker’s chocolate, brown spices and little that evokes Fleurie; good sustain. Lacks typicity but still a remarkable, arresting wine and delicious in its own way.

2010 Dom. Chignard, Fleurie Les Moriers:
More typical of its place but also of its vintage which means a pretty big and dense Fleurie. Despite its volume, excellent acidity; this seems like it might go awhile; and probably needs it. But really lovely tonight with grilled chicken.

And, for those evenings when wine simply won’t do, a very simple margarita:
Whisk together 1 tbsp. light agave nectar and 1 tbsp. water.
Pour thinned nectar, ¼ cup blue agave, highland, blanco tequila and 2 tbsp. fresh squeezed lime juice into shaker, add ice and shake until blended.
Strain into low-ball glass and garnish with lime wedge.
No blender; no salt.
Finest kind.

Best, Jim

[David M. Bueker]

2002 Clos de la Roilette, Fleurie Cuvée Tardive:
Somewhat closed on the nose and no immediate indicators of gamay; rich and deep in the mouth, black fruit more than red, Baker’s chocolate, brown spices and little that evokes Fleurie; good sustain. Lacks typicity but still a remarkable, arresting wine and delicious in its own way.

I am left wondering what is typical of late harvested Gamay. Perhaps just this.

2002 Clos de la Roilette, Fleurie Cuvée Tardive:
Somewhat closed on the nose and no immediate indicators of gamay; rich and deep in the mouth, black fruit more than red, Baker’s chocolate, brown spices and little that evokes Fleurie; good sustain. Lacks typicity but still a remarkable, arresting wine and delicious in its own way.

I am left wondering what is typical of late harvested Gamay. Perhaps just this.

David,
The "cuvée tardive" designation on this wine isn't the same as a "vendange tardive." In fact, as I understand it, it's simply M. Coudert's dig at the BN crowd, placing "tardive" in opposition to "nouveau."

Mark Lipton

[David M. Bueker]

Hmm...meaningless label speak? Well that's even more annoying than anything the "BN crowd" might or might not do.

Hmm...meaningless label speak? Well that's even more annoying than anything the "BN crowd" might or might not do.

Well, that parcel is picked later than the others that he puts into the regular cuvée, as old vines are wont to be. Perhaps "cuvée plus tardive" would be less objectionable?

Mark Lipton

[David M. Bueker]

Long business trip, so I am in one of my more cranky moods, but Jim's note just struck me as having another dig at a wine that shows no sin other than ripe fruit. A fascinating but flawed sort of judgement given to the wine, and one that sticks in my craw a bit in that it imlpies that Gamay and/or Fleurie has to show in a specific way to be legitimate.

Long business trip, so I am in one of my more cranky moods, but Jim's note just struck me as having another dig at a wine that shows no sin other than ripe fruit. A fascinating but flawed sort of judgement given to the wine, and one that sticks in my craw a bit in that it imlpies that Gamay and/or Fleurie has to show in a specific way to be legitimate.

I do hope that I did not come across that way - certainly not intended.
As to this specific wine, I enjoyed it. I did not think it showed typicity.
I enjoy many wines that do not show typicity; even some of my own.
But there are folks who find typicity to be a factor in whether or not they like a wine and so I described what I experienced so that they could judge accordingly.
I do not think lack of typicity is a flaw but I do think it is at least note worthy.
Best, Jim

Long business trip, so I am in one of my more cranky moods, but Jim's note just struck me as having another dig at a wine that shows no sin other than ripe fruit. A fascinating but flawed sort of judgement given to the wine, and one that sticks in my craw a bit in that it imlpies that Gamay and/or Fleurie has to show in a specific way to be legitimate.

I do hope that I did not come across that way - certainly not intended.
As to this specific wine, I enjoyed it. I did not think it showed typicity.
I enjoy many wines that do not show typicity; even some of my own.
But there are folks who find typicity to be a factor in whether or not they like a wine and so I described what I experienced so that they could judge accordingly.
I do not think lack of typicity is a flaw but I do think it is at least note worthy.
Best, Jim

Not sure that the typicity of a nearly ten year old Beaujolais Cru can be established.

[David M. Bueker]

Not sure that the typicity of a nearly ten year old Beaujolais Cru can be established.

There's that as well. Some wines are being consumed and discussed in different ways than they used to be.

Thanks for the notes, Jim.

Jim's note just struck me as having another dig at a wine that shows no sin other than ripe fruit. A fascinating but flawed sort of judgement given to the wine

I didn't read the note that way (i.e., as having a dig), but some people would call wines made from relatively riper fruit unbalanced (in the same way some people would call highly herbaceous wines "underripe") in the context of certain styles. It's certainly a (subjective/personal) value judgement, but I wouldn't call it flawed.

sticks in my craw a bit in that it imlpies that... Fleurie has to show in a specific way to be legitimate.

I'd say that many wine drinkers (especially the French, particularly those in Beaujolais, and undoubtedly those involved in the Beaujolais "wine industry") certainly do believe a Fleurie should show in certain ways to be legitimate. I would question the usefulness/reasoning of that position, but I wouldn't dismiss it outright either.

[David M. Bueker]

I guess I am looking for more specific information on what the wine had or didn't have that made it un-Fleurie. Was it more like a Morgon? If so, in what way?

In the end I bet (though I am by no means sure) that we are eventually headed back towards the concept that riper vintages are in some way not typical or legitimate, despite the fact that they have always happened throughout history, just more often now than in the (supposedly better) old days.

I guess I am looking for more specific information on what the wine had or didn't have that made it un-Fleurie. Was it more like a Morgon? If so, in what way?

In the end I bet (though I am by no means sure) that we are eventually headed back towards the concept that riper vintages are in some way not typical or legitimate, despite the fact that they have always happened throughout history, just more often now than in the (supposedly better) old days.

I'm sure you know that Coudert is more typical of Moulin a Vent than Fleurie, and it's only a freak accident of history that it missed the borderline to be called MaV. At least that's the way I've always made sense of the wine.

[David M. Bueker]

That's just rationalizing for a single expression of Fleurie IMO. The line gets drawn somewhere. To expect full consistency across the AOC is a false grail.

To expect full consistency across the AOC is a false grail.

Yes, I think you are right about that.
But I suspect it has taken you years of tasting such wines over several vintages to be able to say it and mean it. Then too, to have enough confidence in yourself as a taster to not only have an opinion but a supportable one.
I believe that, for most wine drinkers, the AOC has some meaning. They have neither the experience nor confidence that you do. And so, they depend on the AOC label as a guideline, at least.

Hence, when I wrote my note, I attempted to use the AOC as a starting point; for the more sophisticated drinkers out there, that may seem useless - and I have no quibble with that. But you and I are not the only people reading these boards. I bet some readers are even perplexed that someone finds variations across an AOC and says so.
A learning experience for us all - at least, that is my hope.

On a personal note, wasn't it you who mentioned that my SB was atypical and that you had difficulty with it for that reason (among others)? Or did I read your note wrong?
Best, Jim

That's just rationalizing for a single expression of Fleurie IMO. The line gets drawn somewhere. To expect full consistency across the AOC is a false grail.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'rationalization'. As you say, the AOCs are constructions, so this wine is only a 'single expression' of Fleurie in the legal sense, because that is what it is called today. It used to be Moulin a Vent AOC. At which point it was a 'single expression' of Moulin a Vent. Which one is correct?

Either way, back to Jim's original point, as you say, there is lots of variation across AOCs. Some wines will be closer to the norm and some wines will be outliers. This one is and has always been, an outlier among Fleurie wines. That was all Jim was trying to say. Is that so controversial? No one gets upset when Boudots is called a Vosne-like Nuits.

And of course one's idea of typicity is inevitably influenced by parameters of own experience. The Coudert/Roillete regular was first cru Beaujolais I regularly bought (starting with 1999) , by the time I spread out to Vissoux/Chermette Poncie and later Brun Fleurie I already had "erroneous" ideas.

[David M. Bueker]

Rahsaan,

First off, I'm not upset, just crank from travel, and thought Jim's characterizaiton of the wine was more than a little bit odd. He has explained himself, and to be honest the discussion has now evolved in the direction of "what is typicity" which always makes for an engaging topic.

Jim,

I did indeed struggle with the Isa, but my first comment was that I don't like Sauvignon Blanc, and that your version did not taste like Savignon Blanc, which to that point was a plus! I just couldn't get any more of a read on it than that. I have not tried the wine again since that initial trial, but will be going back to it this ummer. TIme will tell.

David,
I appreciate the second chance.
Best, Jim

David,
I appreciate the second chance.
Best, Jim

What constitutes a third chance? You walking the plank with a copy of The Wine Speculator in hand.

David,
I appreciate the second chance.
Best, Jim

What constitutes a third chance? You walking the plank with a copy of The Wine Speculator in hand.

Another vintage.
Best, Jim