Syrahfest

MarkS

Mark Svereika
Been in a groove with syrah lately. 3 wines, 3 times.

Tardieu-Laurent, Cornas, 'Coteaux', 1999
Fading bright cherry-red color. Aromas of old wood cask and fading plums. Old cherry-oak, flat cola, sherry cask...the flavors speak 'ancien' but the tannins still clamp on the finish. The fruit has faded precipitously from a bottle earlier (maybe 3 years ago?) leaving behind a warm wooden shell. Much better before when fresh. Tastes more like a southern Rhone blend than all syrah Cornas, perhaps more like a syrah-grenache-carignan blend. On the second night, more of the sour biting acid that syrah manifests was present. Still, B/B-

Domaine de Cantaussel, Minervois, 'la Liviniere', 'Pic St. Martin', 1999
No notes here, but this mostly syrah wine was much improved from an earlier bottle, with the whole enchilada smoothing out and becoming that stage of young maturity with nuance. Mushroomy, tobacco leaf, and preserved damson plum jam, with earth and minerals. Great stuff here (esp. at $20), and wish I had another bottle. A-

Ferraton, Hermitage, 'les Miaux', 1998
Whatever happened to these vignerons? I never see them around anymore. Translucent dried maroon red color. Cherry straw and iron on the nose. Rusty iron, beet skin, sour cherry-redcurrant juice, with noticeable tannins remaining. This is probably toward peak now, having the middle-aged spirit of fighting a vision of future death, but balancing the tension between smooth fruit and loss of such. In a good spot. B+
 
Tardieu-Laurent; I just can't get a handle on these guys.
The fruit sources seem pretty good, the wine-making seems reasonable but the barrel program just seems to overwhelm all the rest - regardless of age.
Or at least, that's the way it is for me.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Tardieu-Laurent; I just can't get a handle on these guys.
The fruit sources seem pretty good, the wine-making seems reasonable but the barrel program just seems to overwhelm all the rest - regardless of age.
Or at least, that's the way it is for me.
Best, Jim

Me too, Jim. me too. I'm glad that is my last bottle of TL (well, there might be one more Cote Rotie or Hermitage hiding) I own. I am not sad at all to see it go...
 
originally posted by MarkS:
SyrahfestBeen in a groove with syrah lately. 3 wines, 3 times.

Tardieu-Laurent, Cornas, 'Coteaux', 1999
Fading bright cherry-red color. Aromas of old wood cask and fading plums. Old cherry-oak, flat cola, sherry cask...the flavors speak 'ancien' but the tannins still clamp on the finish. The fruit has faded precipitously from a bottle earlier (maybe 3 years ago?) leaving behind a warm wooden shell. Much better before when fresh. Tastes more like a southern Rhone blend than all syrah Cornas, perhaps more like a syrah-grenache-carignan blend. On the second night, more of the sour biting acid that syrah manifests was present. Still, B/B-
Must have been a bad bottle but I just had this Friday night and it rocked. I didn't get any of the oak/wood that you cite.Unusual amount of funk for a syrah, but nice bacon fat. Very old world nose.
I took it to a tasting of my wine group and everyone loved it. The Bordeaux/Cabernet sauvignon freaks loved the structure. Nice, elegant finish.
On the spectrum of modern verses traditional I think it might be just over the edge to modern but it isn't spoofy.
I've got four more bottles and I'm looking forward to trying the next.
 
originally posted by MarkS:
Ferraton, Hermitage, 'les Miaux', 1998
Whatever happened to these vignerons? I never see them around anymore. Translucent dried maroon red color. Cherry straw and iron on the nose. Rusty iron, beet skin, sour cherry-redcurrant juice, with noticeable tannins remaining. This is probably toward peak now, having the middle-aged spirit of fighting a vision of future death, but balancing the tension between smooth fruit and loss of such. In a good spot. B+

Bought by Chapoutier or Terlato or some such and used mainly as a negiociant arm.

I've had some great bottles of Ferraton in the past, too bad.
 
originally posted by SteveTimko:
Must have been a bad bottle

Different palates, fine. But bad bottle? Really? Where do you think you are, EBob?

I'm pretty sure Mark knows the difference between a sound and unsound bottle.

The more interesting question is whether the bottling regimen is the same barrel to barrel regimen as used to be the case with the Burgundies, resulting in wild bottle variation.

Personally, I give all Laurent wines a wide birth.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Tardieu-Laurent; I just can't get a handle on these guys.
The fruit sources seem pretty good, the wine-making seems reasonable but the barrel program just seems to overwhelm all the rest - regardless of age.
Or at least, that's the way it is for me.
Best, Jim

This sounds exactly like their handle. I'd add that every T-L wine is more T-L than whatever place it ostensibly comes from.
 
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by SteveTimko:
Must have been a bad bottle

Different palates, fine. But bad bottle? Really? Where do you think you are, EBob?

I'm pretty sure Mark knows the difference between a sound and unsound bottle.

The more interesting question is whether the bottling regimen is the same barrel to barrel regimen as used to be the case with the Burgundies, resulting in wild bottle variation.

Personally, I give all Laurent wines a wide birth.

A bottle can have problems but still be drinkable.
There was plenty of fruit in the bottle I tried. In fact, it might still be improving. And wood wasn't an issue.
Hathan, name some Disorderlies from the Bay Area whose judgment you trust. Next time I go down there I'll bring a bottle and let them try it. I've got four left.
 
originally posted by SteveTimko:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by SteveTimko:
Must have been a bad bottle

Different palates, fine. But bad bottle? Really? Where do you think you are, EBob?

I'm pretty sure Mark knows the difference between a sound and unsound bottle.

The more interesting question is whether the bottling regimen is the same barrel to barrel regimen as used to be the case with the Burgundies, resulting in wild bottle variation.

Personally, I give all Laurent wines a wide birth.

A bottle can have problems but still be drinkable.
There was plenty of fruit in the bottle I tried. In fact, it might still be improving. And wood wasn't an issue.
Hathan, name some Disorderlies from the Bay Area whose judgment you trust. Next time I go down there I'll bring a bottle and let them try it. I've got four left.
Guilhaume.
 
originally posted by SteveTimko:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by SteveTimko:
Must have been a bad bottle

Different palates, fine. But bad bottle? Really? Where do you think you are, EBob?

I'm pretty sure Mark knows the difference between a sound and unsound bottle.

The more interesting question is whether the bottling regimen is the same barrel to barrel regimen as used to be the case with the Burgundies, resulting in wild bottle variation.

Personally, I give all Laurent wines a wide birth.

A bottle can have problems but still be drinkable.
There was plenty of fruit in the bottle I tried. In fact, it might still be improving. And wood wasn't an issue.
Hathan, name some Disorderlies from the Bay Area whose judgment you trust. Next time I go down there I'll bring a bottle and let them try it. I've got four left.

Boys, boys...this is nothing we can't settle with a little virtual fisticuffs.
And Steve, the bottle wasn't bad, it just wasn't good. Perhaps you enjoy the TL style. I apparently do not. FWIW, I thought better of it 3 1/2 years ago when I drank my other bottle of it: Plummy-red colored. Spiced plums and fruitcake aromas, there's a soft wash of sour cherry, clay, and gently bruised strawberries, short, spicy finish. Not much of a tannic structure here and I don't think the 2-lb bottle is going to help it through the aging curve. Doesn't have the savage qualities I look for in Cornas and tasted blind, this could come from the Midi. Well made but modern and without 'place'. B-B+
Interesting that the tannins showed more this time around, though. But oak was predominant. And I tend to be oak-averse.
 
originally posted by SteveTimko:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by SteveTimko:
Must have been a bad bottle

Different palates, fine. But bad bottle? Really? Where do you think you are, EBob?

I'm pretty sure Mark knows the difference between a sound and unsound bottle.

The more interesting question is whether the bottling regimen is the same barrel to barrel regimen as used to be the case with the Burgundies, resulting in wild bottle variation.

Personally, I give all Laurent wines a wide birth.

A bottle can have problems but still be drinkable.
There was plenty of fruit in the bottle I tried. In fact, it might still be improving. And wood wasn't an issue.
Hathan, name some Disorderlies from the Bay Area whose judgment you trust. Next time I go down there I'll bring a bottle and let them try it. I've got four left.

I don't know who Hathan is, but you don't even have to drive to SF. You're near Matt and Devlon.

This isn't the point I'm making anyway.

Mark said he didn't like the wine, and you said it must have been a bad bottle, because, you know, if it were a good bottle he would have liked it. This is something I hate about the Squire's bored. I think the wine IQ is a bit higher here and I take it on faith that folks can distinguish between good and bad bottles. Whether I think they have good taste is a separate issue.

IMO, T-L wines are terrible. Haven't had one that would change my mind.
 
I think it was on Wine Therapy I made a joke about academics and their disputes being so vicious because the stakes were so low. And you responded mentioning truth and how important truth was.
Clearly you dislike Laurent and my suspicion is that clouds your judgment. I don't know Mark but I think it's a fair assumption he has a good palate. The wine he described is nothing like the wine I had Friday night. My wine was vibrant and has years left in it. Applying Ockham's Razor, or some form of it, the deduction I make is that there's problems with the bottle he had.
I'm suggesting letting people who have no dog in this fight try the wine and see if they arrive at a truth.
 
originally posted by SteveTimko:
I think it was on Wine Therapy I made a joke about academics and their disputes being so vicious because the stakes were so low. And you responded mentioning truth and how important truth was.

I'm suggesting letting people who have no dog in this fight try the wine and see if they arrive at a truth.

That is a completely different issue.

I said I believe that there are hierarchies the quality of wine and that there is some truth value to emergent consensus. I'm no longer good enough at philosophy (if i ever was) to fully work out this theory. Maybe if I ever get to retire.

As an aside, I think people say that about academia because they don't know the stakes.

Clearly you dislike Laurent and my suspicion is that clouds your judgment. I don't know Mark but I think it's a fair assumption he has a good palate. The wine he described is nothing like the wine I had Friday night. My wine was vibrant and has years left in it. Applying Ockham's Razor, or some form of it, the deduction I make is that there's problems with the bottle he had.

I don't know Dominique Laurent, but I do like his girlfriend and I have defended his "super-barrels". They really are quite amazing. For the record, I'm not an oak hater, it is the quality of the wood that matters (see i.e. Foucault).

What I did say is that I have not had a T-L wine that I found good. This is an aesthetic judgment on my part, unless what you are saying is that every bottle I've tried has been a bad bottle.

The section I have in bold does not logically follow from the preceding.

For the record, it could be that Mark just had a "bad bottle" and that he would have really liked your bottle. However, it is quite another thing to presume that because he didn't like it, it must have been a bad bottle. It doesn't bother me that the wording of the descriptions may have been different as language describing wine is fairly variable.

He doesn't like the wine, you do.

I've never had it. Maybe next time I'm in Reno.
 
originally posted by SteveTimko:
originally posted by VLM:


The section I have in bold does not logically follow from the preceding.
I'm making as few suppositions as possible. I'm looking for the simplest explanation.

As I outlined above, I disagree that you've given the simplest explanation.

I'm not even sure that Ockham's razor is even the appropriate tool.
 
Back
Top