TN: Rhones and Burgs on the Lower East Side

A

Asher

Asher Rubinstein
This is my first post.

The following were tasted last night along with a fabulous chef's tasting menu at the swank Allen & Delancey on Manhattan's Lower East Side.

1985 Charles Heidsieck Champagne Charlie
Folks at the table are enjoying this crisp and tasty champagne, but I think Im alone in finding a note of sherry amidst the toasty, nutty palate that shows hazelnuts and almonds alongside a contrasting hint of licorice that adds a dimension of sharpness.

1996 Anglada Deleger Chassagne Montrachet 1er Blanchot Dessus
This is really a treat. The nose shows butter and lanolin, complicated by a spray of lime, and a hint of either sulfur or matchstick which then dissipates and gives way to white blossoms cut by lime citrus. The palate is soft and full, yet with great underlying acidity. The finish goes on and on. This is really a treat.

2003 Chteau de Beaucastel Chteauneuf-du-Pape Blanc Cuve Roussanne Vieilles Vignes
Ive gone on record as not being a fan of the 2003 vintage in Chateaunuef du Pape (although I have had one contrasting and enlightening experience recently with the 2003 Charvin), but this wine was really something special. This sported a much darker golden-bronze-apricot color than the Chapoutier Ermitage Blanc that was served alongside it. Terrific, effusive, alluring nose of candy fruit, ginger, dried pineapple and candied nectarine. One taster comments that the palate could use more acidity, which would not be surprising given the hot vintage, but I find it to have a great acidic backbone. Despite the candied nose, the wine is dry on the palate, with excellent juiciness and terrific chewiness, with golden yellow/orange fruit, especially orange marmalade, as contrasted to light green/yellow fruit of the Chapoutier Ermitage.

2005 Chapoutier Ermitage Blanc Chante Alouette
The nose here is rather delicate, especially contrasted against the Beaucastel, showing lots of florality and green melon/honeydew. The palate likewise is very light in body and mouthfeel but shows very good purity. Its actually too light for me at this point and may need time to put on more weight. Coming back to this wine after the dinner and all the reds, the nose has filled out considerably and now shows honeycomb alongside strong white flowers. The palate likewise has filled out and gained both weight and depth. It is now giving off a slightly oily texture, with white nectarine fruit supported by tannin. This is interesting to me as tannins are often elusive in white wines.

1966 Leroy Vosne Romanee 1er cru
The more experienced Burgundy drinkers at the table point out that Leroy is known for labeling wines as 1er Cru without bothering to specify which Cru. Uncorked and poured, right away a fabulous nose of black fruit and cinnamon jumps out of glass. Typical of many older Burgundies, the palate is not as vibrant as the nose . . . at least initially. On the palate, the acidity shows more than fruit at first, but there is a core of red fruit, mostly sour cherry, surrounded by leaf and a bit of rust that emerges and then recedes. After some air, both the nose and palate gain clarity and focus, and a clean red fruit emerges highlighted by some leaf complexity. Quite nice.

1995 Pierre Damoy Chapelle-Chambertin Grand Cru
Interesting to put a 66 Burg in the same flight as the 95, but Im open minded. The nose is shyer than that of the 66 Leroy, to my surprise. The palate is very smooth on the attack, creamy even, with black fruit more than red. This wine seems a bit oaky and has a darker profile. The black fruits turn to more candied fruit with air time.

1991 Ogier Cote Rotie
Fabulous. The nose shows smoked meats, herbs, especially wintergreen, and lots of black olive. The palate shows a lovely round body on a frame of acidity that carries and carries. Truly delicious. Smokey palate, showing fuzzy black fruits, bacon dog treats and a long finish of sweet grilled meats. I had the 91 Jamet a few weeks ago and this Ogier is showing younger, less resolved, with more power and more upside to further cellaring.

1998 Ogier Cote Rotie
Some call the nose dirty diaper and one taster calls it pigeon shit, but I only get trace amounts of barnyard and it blows off after a bit of time in the glass. Very savory palate, showing a good yin-yang of smokiness and sweetness together. Smooth in the mouth, silky mouthfeel. Tannins seem totally in the background. George cites a certain chocolate smoothness, along with caramel. To me, these descriptors suggest excessive oak, but I dont find it to be overly oaked. However, I have followed this wine since its release and have drank many bottles of it, and this is the first time that the wine appears to be somewhat too soft and round and lacking in precision.

1985 Guigal Gigondas
The nose is amazingly clean, with light musk notes. The palate delivers sweet fruit, very vibrant for a 23 year old Gigondas, direct and uncomplicated, lots of fig, with amazing richness. Wow, is this surprising . . . and delicious. The finish is spectacular; I swallow and then a minute later the finish explodes with sweet fruit. This wine has a perfume nose like when I shampoo my dog: a top layer of the perfume of the shampoo and a bottom layer that is simply the smell of dog. The perfume/animal mixture is fascinating.

1985 Les Gamets Fayolle Hermitage Les Dionnieres
Here the nose is smokier and darker than the 85 Gigondas, with a hint of burnt wood and lots of animl. The burnt wood is a bit distracting, but the palate is lovely, showing lots of garrigue and black fruit, smooth in the mouth, just lovely.
 
Had a bottle of the 98 Ogier a few months ago and it changed dramatically over several hours. It was too unclean at first for me, but by the end of the evening it was prettier and very lovely, although perhaps lacking ideal precision (as you cite) in a somewhat blocky fashion. I can't really recall..
 
Your first post, heh?
I think the only appropriate welcome is; fuck you.

The 98 Ogier had a period several years ago when I swore it was the best Cote-Rotie I had ever had. It has since gone out to recess and several other contenders for the tile have emerged.
But I suspect it will come back to class, refreshed and ready for a more mature showing.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Your first post, heh?
I think the only appropriate welcome is; fuck you.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

You're too kind, Jim. Thanks for the warmth.
PS, I'm looking forward to tasting your wine.
 
originally posted by Asher:
1966 Leroy Vosne Romanee 1er cru
The more experienced Burgundy drinkers at the table point out that Leroy is known for labeling wines as 1er Cru without bothering to specify which Cru.
Click to expand...
Actually, back then, except for a small number of the best-known premiers crus (e.g., Clos St-Jacques, Amoureuses, Suchots, Beaux Monts), it was unusual for anyone to specify the premier cru vineyard on the bottle. Even as late as Anthony Hanson's original (1982) version of his Burgundy, only a handful of vineyards are identified on the maps of each village. Moreover, until relatively recently, many producers blended their less well-known premiers crus into their village wines (e.g., Roumier, who only started producing the Chambolle-Cras as a separate wine with the 1993 vintage, IIRC, and has only started separating out the Chambolle-Combottes in the last couple of vintages; Mugnier still puts his Plantes premier cru into his village Chambolle, although he has indicated to me that he follows that policy based on the quality of the vineyard; de Vog has other premier cru holdings in Chambolle besides the Amoureuses, but they all go into the village wine (with the Chambolle 1er Cru being exclusively young vine/declassified Musigny)).
 
Actually, back then, except for a small number of the best-known premiers crus (e.g., Clos St-Jacques, Amoureuses, Suchots, Beaux Monts), it was unusual for anyone to specify the premier cru vineyard on the bottle..
Click to expand...

Interesting given what we hear about the 'historical' respect for vineyard specificities in Burgundy.

So this was because there just wasn't a market for all the specific wines and blending together was easier to sell?
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:

Interesting given what we hear about the 'historical' respect for vineyard specificities in Burgundy.
Click to expand...
Actually, the "historical" respect is referring to much, much earlier times. Throughout most of the 20th century, although vineyards had reputations for quality more or less in line with today's, the descriptions of characteristics of the wines was not really site specific. A major part of the revolution that began in Burgundy in the mid- to late 1980s was the rediscovery of the notion of terroir.
 
Throughout most of the 20th century, although vineyards had reputations for quality more or less in line with today's, the descriptions of characteristics of the wines was not really site specific. A major part of the revolution that began in Burgundy in the mid- to late 1980s was the rediscovery of the notion of terroir.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'll probably need to do more reading about the history of Burgundy.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Throughout most of the 20th century, although vineyards had reputations for quality more or less in line with today's, the descriptions of characteristics of the wines was not really site specific. A major part of the revolution that began in Burgundy in the mid- to late 1980s was the rediscovery of the notion of terroir.
Click to expand...

I am curious about your choice of the term "rediscovery": Presumably, the Burgundians themselves have always known that the wine from this plot tastes a little more like this while the wine from that plot tastes a little more like that. It just wasn't worth noting it on the label. (But why: did they think no one cared? did they think everyone already knew?) Can you say more about what drove the winemakers to start putting more info on the labels?
 
Presumably, the Burgundians themselves have always known that the wine from this plot tastes a little more like this while the wine from that plot tastes a little more like that. It just wasn't worth noting it on the label.
Click to expand...

But which Burgundians? Perhaps a few winemakers with holdings and the ability to taste from certain areas. But I can imagine that broader tasting experience and familiarity with site nuances was not necessarily very detailed.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

I am curious about your choice of the term "rediscovery": Presumably, the Burgundians themselves have always known that the wine from this plot tastes a little more like this while the wine from that plot tastes a little more like that. It just wasn't worth noting it on the label. (But why: did they think no one cared? did they think everyone already knew?) Can you say more about what drove the winemakers to start putting more info on the labels?
Click to expand...
Jeff -- How would, e.g., Christophe Roumier's father and grandfather have known what Chambolle-Cras tasted like if they were blending it with the village Chambolle each year? Also, remember that for a long time, there were inferior clones, too high yields, overchaptalization, supplemental wines from the Rhne and elsewhere, and incompetent winemaking blocking expression of terroir. Additionally, many producers in the old days simply sold everything to the negociant and never drank their own wine. There were exceptions, but let's not get romantic -- those were the exceptions, and they were relatively few.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Jeff -- How would, e.g., Christophe Roumier's father and grandfather have known what Chambolle-Cras tasted like if they were blending it with the village Chambolle each year?
Click to expand...

They taste the grapes while they grow, right?

They throw grapes from different places together but they don't get all exercised about making sure that every vat has the same mix, right?

I think, if you grow grapes in a place for 400 years, you have some kind of clue about which parts of your property are better or worse. (Or is that altogether just a modern mindset?)

Also, remember that for a long time, there were inferior clones, too high yields, overchaptalization, supplemental wines from the Rhne and elsewhere, and incompetent winemaking blocking expression of terroir.
Click to expand...

Yet, somehow, people still bought Burgundy!
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

I think, if you grow grapes in a place for 400 years, you have some kind of clue about which parts of your property are better or worse. (Or is that altogether just a modern mindset?)
Click to expand...
Other than Mel Brooks, name someone who has been growing grapes for 400 years?
Also, remember that for a long time, there were inferior clones, too high yields, overchaptalization, supplemental wines from the Rhne and elsewhere, and incompetent winemaking blocking expression of terroir.
Click to expand...

Yet, somehow, people still bought Burgundy!
Click to expand...
Uh, people buy 17% Napa Cab, too, don't they?
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

I think, if you grow grapes in a place for 400 years, you have some kind of clue about which parts of your property are better or worse. (Or is that altogether just a modern mindset?)
Click to expand...
Other than Mel Brooks, name someone who has been growing grapes for 400 years?
Also, remember that for a long time, there were inferior clones, too high yields, overchaptalization, supplemental wines from the Rhne and elsewhere, and incompetent winemaking blocking expression of terroir.
Click to expand...

Yet, somehow, people still bought Burgundy!
Click to expand...
Uh, people buy 17% Napa Cab and Chteau Pavie, too, don't they? Is this some kind of attempt to make a Plotnicki argument?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top