Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Yes, thank you. It was 5am when I wrote it (jetlag early rising). Fixed it, now.
Assorted wines w/dinner (menu)
- Thread starter Peter Creasey
- Start date
georg lauer
georg lauer
Everybody can be a dotster.
.......Georg
i'm all for pedantry for pedantry's sake, and this made a certain sense, even if it suggested that one had to have something of a plebeian palate to like wines from 2000.
but now you have modified your position.
so let's go back to the point you have begged to disagree with, namely that 2000 is "a vintage that has consistently provided a delightful source of openhearted, always drinkable and surprisingly long lived hooch."
1998 - i love this vintage, but many wines were difficult to judge young, and lots and lots of them have spent many years showing weird and angular, such that i take on faith that many wines i have will turn out well on the back of the ugly duckings that have tuned into swans in recent years.
1999 - after an initial period of loveliness from maybe 2001-4, even the kindest examples turned stubborn and surly, and it is still too easy to open a bottle and think, "should have given it more time," even today.
2001 - i remember copping flack from several current and former members of teh bored for working my way through a six pack of gouges vaucrains in a matter of months when it was around six years old. i loved that shit, but i am a man who loves structure and sometimes digs teh hooch more for teh contemplative qualities than teh deliciousness. which is to say that, as a group, 01's were stern as fuck for a long, long time -- albeit, as i said, i have always kind of dug that.
2002 - meh. i've always found this vintage to be a tad foursquare and unstylish. one has always been able to drink it, i guess, but for most of the time it has been with us, i'd have thought who cares? again, time has been kind to these hooches.
all of which is to say that had i said, "oh, 2000, best eva xoxo," i might get the point of your disagreement. since i didn't, would you care to describe the set of 98, 99, 01 and 02's that have led you to conclude that these vintages have consistently provided a delightful source of openhearted, always drinkable and surprisingly long lived hooch?
fb.
Pavel Tchichikov
Pavel Tchichikov
looks like vintage comparisons have been covered in great girth, so no need
matters of geschmack [as pointed out] aside, this particular divergence of opinion does surprise me given the level of players involved
love the vintage myself. started out most user-friendly, suggesting it may not make old bones, but no evidence has since crossed these lips in support of that theory. joyfully balanced: not defined by acidity but not lacking any either (which i believe is a statement that should not be ignored coming from a disorderly-trained palate). also almost none of the cyclical burgundy bullshit that is so diligently documented in the monthly vulgar monkey digest of the guide to large cellar management.
funny enough [but also in support of our perhaps looking for different things], i would not consider either roumier or dujac to be model citizens in 2000. not uniformly of source - need to go wine by wine, e.g. the moose is very loose indeed in 2000- but a number of bottles from both can be uncharacteristically awkward for the vintage, perhaps a little forced.
as always, it could be dumb luck but off the top of my head chevillon, gouges, d'angerville, rousseau, drouhin, lafarge made gorgeous 00s that show well to this day. then there is chandon de briailles: what a range, with idv being one of my desert island wines
matters of geschmack [as pointed out] aside, this particular divergence of opinion does surprise me given the level of players involved
love the vintage myself. started out most user-friendly, suggesting it may not make old bones, but no evidence has since crossed these lips in support of that theory. joyfully balanced: not defined by acidity but not lacking any either (which i believe is a statement that should not be ignored coming from a disorderly-trained palate). also almost none of the cyclical burgundy bullshit that is so diligently documented in the monthly vulgar monkey digest of the guide to large cellar management.
funny enough [but also in support of our perhaps looking for different things], i would not consider either roumier or dujac to be model citizens in 2000. not uniformly of source - need to go wine by wine, e.g. the moose is very loose indeed in 2000- but a number of bottles from both can be uncharacteristically awkward for the vintage, perhaps a little forced.
as always, it could be dumb luck but off the top of my head chevillon, gouges, d'angerville, rousseau, drouhin, lafarge made gorgeous 00s that show well to this day. then there is chandon de briailles: what a range, with idv being one of my desert island wines
I'm surprised by how much of that reflects my own experience-I do think that both 98 and 01 are showing signs of not lasting as well as 00, however, which I find very surprising indeed. I loved both vintages best at around ten years old, both were not nice at all when released. 02 indeed seems dull and foursquare in most cases, but of course it all depends what one opens and I don't drink nearly enough these days to have a genuinely informed view.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Perhaps jeebaxi?
Pavel Tchichikov
Pavel Tchichikov
deux mille, cher monsieur
being teh fathead, i bought few 00s initially. why would i? i had loaded up on teh vintage of teh century 99s. in teh case of idv, the wine from rollin was teh one that seemed perfect out of teh gate. i still have several bottles of same. suffice it to say that i eye them with some trepidation when i am in teh fatcave, and teh last of teh diminishing stock, 2? years ago -- was filed away under stubborn, surly and wait!!
for whatever reason (was i flush at teh time?) i went large on rollin's fichot too. see above.
fb.
if you'll forgive teh drift, this raised in my mind another dimension to these shits when it comes to burgundy, namely bottle size.
for me teh predictability of teh development of magnums from bottles has to be the worst of losers games with teh burgundy, to the extent that in only a surprisingly few years -- 85, 87, 92 and 00 come to mind but i'm sure there are more -- can i think of there being any real information from teh development of the one from the other.
which is to say i find i still have magnums of 98s and 01s (and, ulp!, 83s, 86s, 93s, 95s etc) simply on the basis of my having been bitten hard by falsely projecting the state of teh bottles (all long since gone) to teh girthier compatriots.
i begin to suspect that, as you suggest, some of these -- teh 98s espec -- may not survive my ignore and hope strategy forever, and may be heading for a less than graceful decline. will stand some up and report.
fb.
Pavel Tchichikov
Pavel Tchichikov
wasn't 01 quite (what's the pc word?) diverse, at least in terms of raw material, leading to the question of how fanatical the sorting may have been from house to house? with 98 you kind of know what you are getting, so far.
yup. but, to some extent, isn't that always true? which is also to recognize teh more oblique point regarding whether teh hooch named in teh different formats is teh same juice in reality. one thing i've always loved about bertrand lilbert is that he is explicit in setting one straight in this regard.
fb.
Pavel Tchichikov
Pavel Tchichikov
and the scary thing is that teh history repeats itself and dumbasses like me don't learn
insufficient buying of 00s on the heels of 99s was the second greatest offense in a short span; ignoring 91s due to space constraints imposed by at-the-time delicious 90s still leaves matching marks on forehead and wall
Jay Miller
Jay Miller
My last 99 showed similarly much to my disappointment. I think about 4? Years ago. My remaining bottle,is regarded,with equal trepidation.
I’ve thought almost all 1999s tried in recent years to need more,time though a drouhin
Clos des ‘Chenes had a remarkably beautiful silky texture which I loved