Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
attendees: Don & Melissa, Eden & Scott, Jay, Jeff, Scott & Anne-Marie, Victor; and Jayson
It is Anne-Marie's birthday today! So, in addition to wine, there is cake (because this is not a meeting). And that song, which is not enhanced by coming over Zoom. Anyway....
First, we taste the one and only white:
Definitely riesling, "Reminds me of some tangerines I ate this week" -Melissa; gorgeous wine, tons of acidity, not that sweet; we're just enjoying it but Victor says to start guessing so I say Mosel (yes), Kabinett (yes), 2007 (yes). Wow, this really is some wine: Egon Muller 2007 Scharzhofberger Riesling Kabinett.
Now we start the four wines labeled in Candy Land style:
█ █. "BBQ and tobacco" -Anne-Marie; "Spicy berry fruit" -Jay; OK, this is definitely cab franc (yes), "Really bright" -Victor; long and pure, I venture Chinon (yes) and Olga (yes). Don gives us the vineyard (Picasses) and declares the theme: This is a vertical of Olga Raffault Chinon "Les Picasses" spanning five decades: 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s. The challenge is to name which decade is not included.
Yikes! So we have to focus on each wine and on the overall set of them, too. So, we'll discuss the sensations of the wines and our surmises about them but keep our guesses private until the end.
Revisiting █ █ later, I find this the best balanced of the four, a fair mix of forward fruit and reserve minerality. I don't think this is sharp enough to be 10s but it's not showing any age so I place it at 2002.
█ █. "Huge graphite nose" -Victor; this wine is definitely more potent than the first one but someone says there is a note of mushroom in the finish that hints this isn't one of the younger bottles; incredibly sturdy acidity and, with revisits, this is the strongest wine of all. I pick a big and vigorous year for it, mushrooms be damned, 2015.
█. Tangy, with resolved tannins, the palate is much less dense than the first two, gentle hints of orange oil and pith, suave but also even visually fading at the rim. This is the old man of the bunch, though still in some kind of shape, so I choose 1978, a good year everywhere.
█. Also less potent and less densely-flavored than the first two wines, "Herbs are taking the back seat, more violets on the nose" -Eden; for me, this is the least-interesting of the four. I'm going to guess that it's a blah showing of an older warm vintage, 1988.
Maestro, drumroll, please!
So, which decade is not represented?
I vote for "No 90s".
And I'm right! Go, me! (I actually only got one decade correct but the other three wrong guesses canceled each other out.)
The reveal:
2B. Olga Raffault Chinon 2014 "Les Picasses" - amazingly deft for such a youngster!
2W. Olga Raffault Chinon 1985 "Les Picasses" - what strength! (ignore the shrooms at your peril...)
1B. Olga Raffault Chinon 1977 "Les Picasses"
1W. Olga Raffault Chinon 2005 "Les Picasses" - what meh!
"Baudry is well-made but it never has this much personality." -Victor.
Returning now to the last wines on the program... two more from Victor:
V1. Victor announces this wine has a connection to one of Jay's previous pours; this is Bordeaux with a good deal of age on it so Jay calls 1970 (yes); it is not another Margaux, though: Ch. Montrose 1970 St-Estephe, super-smooth, youthful, meaty, brambly, chewy, amazing; Victor recalls very few bottles of this that showed as well as this one; ye gods what a slow trajectory of development!
V2. My nose thinks this is very slightly spoiled, and Jay might agree with me, but Lisa rings the all-clear; another older Bordeaux so we suppose 1970 (yes) but we don't guess the house: Ch. Palmer 1970 Margaux, redfruity compared to the Montrose, smoke, "leather astringency" -Melissa, good and suave but I think I prefer the Montrose tonight.
Jayson is still in Florida so did not receive a regular share. He is home away from home with La Porte Saint-Jean (Sylvain Dittiere) 2017 Saumur Champigny.
--
Day 2 follow-ups:
The wines remained in good shape...
Palmer - musty funk is still there when poured into the glass, it blows off a few minutes; rather more dark/plummy than yesterday, great density and intensity, juicy acidity, much more satisfying wine today
Montrose - charming but still has a good square jawline, just beautiful, now slightly redfruitier than the Palmer
Olga 2005 - still rather un-self-promoting, it's not really any sweeter or any more alcoholic than the others, it would just prefer not to
Olga 1985 - so much stronger than the 2005, like sticking your nose into an incredibly fragrant barrel of green peppers, palate is a little more delicate than the nose (and a lot more delicate than on Day 1), it's Chinon in a pungent style: if you're worried about being pigeon-holed, this is not your wine
Olga 2014 - this is the city slicker to the 1985's bumpkin: the peppers have been gently simmered to take any rude edges off and a bit of citrus and sandalwood swirled in, palate is much grippier, my tongue gently but definitely clinging to my upper palate, I think the palate is a bit faded from yesterday though; late in the finish is a bit of braised meat (which this wine would have been good with)
--
"I refrain from putting 'Lucky Charms' in my coffee," said Anne-Marie.
"Is that a new definition of Irish Coffee?" asked Melissa.
It is Anne-Marie's birthday today! So, in addition to wine, there is cake (because this is not a meeting). And that song, which is not enhanced by coming over Zoom. Anyway....
First, we taste the one and only white:
Definitely riesling, "Reminds me of some tangerines I ate this week" -Melissa; gorgeous wine, tons of acidity, not that sweet; we're just enjoying it but Victor says to start guessing so I say Mosel (yes), Kabinett (yes), 2007 (yes). Wow, this really is some wine: Egon Muller 2007 Scharzhofberger Riesling Kabinett.
Now we start the four wines labeled in Candy Land style:
█ █. "BBQ and tobacco" -Anne-Marie; "Spicy berry fruit" -Jay; OK, this is definitely cab franc (yes), "Really bright" -Victor; long and pure, I venture Chinon (yes) and Olga (yes). Don gives us the vineyard (Picasses) and declares the theme: This is a vertical of Olga Raffault Chinon "Les Picasses" spanning five decades: 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s. The challenge is to name which decade is not included.
Yikes! So we have to focus on each wine and on the overall set of them, too. So, we'll discuss the sensations of the wines and our surmises about them but keep our guesses private until the end.
Revisiting █ █ later, I find this the best balanced of the four, a fair mix of forward fruit and reserve minerality. I don't think this is sharp enough to be 10s but it's not showing any age so I place it at 2002.
█ █. "Huge graphite nose" -Victor; this wine is definitely more potent than the first one but someone says there is a note of mushroom in the finish that hints this isn't one of the younger bottles; incredibly sturdy acidity and, with revisits, this is the strongest wine of all. I pick a big and vigorous year for it, mushrooms be damned, 2015.
█. Tangy, with resolved tannins, the palate is much less dense than the first two, gentle hints of orange oil and pith, suave but also even visually fading at the rim. This is the old man of the bunch, though still in some kind of shape, so I choose 1978, a good year everywhere.
█. Also less potent and less densely-flavored than the first two wines, "Herbs are taking the back seat, more violets on the nose" -Eden; for me, this is the least-interesting of the four. I'm going to guess that it's a blah showing of an older warm vintage, 1988.
Maestro, drumroll, please!
So, which decade is not represented?
I vote for "No 90s".
And I'm right! Go, me! (I actually only got one decade correct but the other three wrong guesses canceled each other out.)
The reveal:
2B. Olga Raffault Chinon 2014 "Les Picasses" - amazingly deft for such a youngster!
2W. Olga Raffault Chinon 1985 "Les Picasses" - what strength! (ignore the shrooms at your peril...)
1B. Olga Raffault Chinon 1977 "Les Picasses"
1W. Olga Raffault Chinon 2005 "Les Picasses" - what meh!
"Baudry is well-made but it never has this much personality." -Victor.
Returning now to the last wines on the program... two more from Victor:
V1. Victor announces this wine has a connection to one of Jay's previous pours; this is Bordeaux with a good deal of age on it so Jay calls 1970 (yes); it is not another Margaux, though: Ch. Montrose 1970 St-Estephe, super-smooth, youthful, meaty, brambly, chewy, amazing; Victor recalls very few bottles of this that showed as well as this one; ye gods what a slow trajectory of development!
V2. My nose thinks this is very slightly spoiled, and Jay might agree with me, but Lisa rings the all-clear; another older Bordeaux so we suppose 1970 (yes) but we don't guess the house: Ch. Palmer 1970 Margaux, redfruity compared to the Montrose, smoke, "leather astringency" -Melissa, good and suave but I think I prefer the Montrose tonight.
Jayson is still in Florida so did not receive a regular share. He is home away from home with La Porte Saint-Jean (Sylvain Dittiere) 2017 Saumur Champigny.
--
Day 2 follow-ups:
The wines remained in good shape...
Palmer - musty funk is still there when poured into the glass, it blows off a few minutes; rather more dark/plummy than yesterday, great density and intensity, juicy acidity, much more satisfying wine today
Montrose - charming but still has a good square jawline, just beautiful, now slightly redfruitier than the Palmer
Olga 2005 - still rather un-self-promoting, it's not really any sweeter or any more alcoholic than the others, it would just prefer not to
Olga 1985 - so much stronger than the 2005, like sticking your nose into an incredibly fragrant barrel of green peppers, palate is a little more delicate than the nose (and a lot more delicate than on Day 1), it's Chinon in a pungent style: if you're worried about being pigeon-holed, this is not your wine
Olga 2014 - this is the city slicker to the 1985's bumpkin: the peppers have been gently simmered to take any rude edges off and a bit of citrus and sandalwood swirled in, palate is much grippier, my tongue gently but definitely clinging to my upper palate, I think the palate is a bit faded from yesterday though; late in the finish is a bit of braised meat (which this wine would have been good with)
--
"I refrain from putting 'Lucky Charms' in my coffee," said Anne-Marie.
"Is that a new definition of Irish Coffee?" asked Melissa.
