Dom Pegau CNdP '98 w/dinner

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
Domaine Pegau Cuvee Reservee Chateauneuf du Pape '98 --
Dark red.
Robust bouquet, exotic spices, complex berry fruits, some leather, black pepper, herbs, sweet nuance.
Full body, fruit forward, firm acid underpinning, medium tannins, impressive density and purity, glycerin perhaps adds a sleekness, complex profile, no edges.
Long full finish. [EXCELLENT - OUTSTANDING]

Served with Pan Seared Rib Eye Steak with Tequila Poblano Pan Sauce, Oven Roasted Smashed Potatoes...



. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
Dom Pegau CNdP '98 w/dinner
Domaine Pegau Cuvee Reservee Chateauneuf du Pape '98 --
Dark red.
Robust bouquet, exotic spices, complex berry fruits, some leather, black pepper, herbs, sweet nuance.
Full body, fruit forward, firm acid underpinning, medium tannins, impressive density and purity, glycerin perhaps adds a sleekness, complex profile, no edges.
Long full finish. [EXCELLENT - OUTSTANDING]

Served with Pan Seared Rib Eye Steak with Tequila Poblano Pan Sauce, Oven Roasted Smashed Potatoes...



. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

Damn I just love this wine...
 
originally posted by drssouth:

Damn I just love this wine...
Click to expand...

I opened a bottle recently from my cellar and it was one of the Brettiest wines that I've had in ages. Not your experience, I take it?

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by MLipton: I opened a bottle recently from my cellar and it was one of the Brettiest wines that I've had in ages. Not your experience, I take it?
Click to expand...

Mark, I normally associate Brett with some semblance of a metallic aftertaste. None was observed with this bottle.

I'm aware that Brett is sometimes mentioned with Pegau but if it was present in the bottle I'm reporting on, then it was well assimilated and not noticeable...at least not by me.

This bottle was outrageously fine and an absolutely perfect accompaniment to the pepper steak and smashed potatoes!

. . . . . Pete
 
If by brett, one means band-aids or, as Peter said, a metallic taste, I don't get it on Pegau 98 either. The horsey thing, though, is all over the wine. Not something I object to and not always caused by brett, though.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If by brett, one means band-aids or, as Peter said, a metallic taste, I don't get it on Pegau 98 either. The horsey thing, though, is all over the wine. Not something I object to and not always caused by brett, though.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify: I got a major whack of Band-Aid from it, and several of my drinking companions found it to be too fecal to consume. I've never felt this way about any earlier vintage of Pegau ('90,'93-'96) or indeed even in this wine at release.

Mark Lipton
 
IIRC this was touched on in a recent Brett thread on this site. At the risk of some repetition this is very like a discussion about Pegau 99 elsewhere with some people finding the wine undrinkable for reasons that ranged across the whole brett spectrum e.g. horse, barnyard, metallic, pharmaceutical/bandaid, fecal [to name just a few] while others found the wine very much to their taste.

There are several possible explanations: firstly the very different way that brett is perceived by individuals i.e. sensitivity thresholds in total as well as differential individual sensitivities to multiple brett products such as volatile phenols, intermediate vinyls and fatty acids. Some people appear to be generally quite insensitive to all while others are sensitive [some very much so] to individual products responsible for different aromas.

Secondly the level in brett in different bottles can be substantially different for 2 main reasons: the brett products already present at bottling can be quite different from two differently produced lots and, depending on whether any live brett cells make it into bottles the ultimate level of brett will depend on whether any nutrients [e.g. residual sugar] remain and whether transportation and storage temperatures are normal or raised since further brett products can 'bloom' in bottle.

Pegau isn't the only CDP that has a bretty reputation but the more 'natural' the winemaking with very ripe grapes and SO2 and filtration kept as low as possible with no sterilants such as Velcorin [dimethyl dicarbonate] used the greater the opportunity for the widely present brettanomyces yeast to succeed within the winemaking mix.

It also explains why some vintages of Pegau [and many other CDPs like Beaucastel et al and indeed red wines worldwide] can have significant brett and others don't.
 
originally posted by nigel groundwater:
firstly the very different way that brett is perceived by individuals

Secondly the level in brett in different bottles can be substantially different
Click to expand...

Nigel, The same can be said about TCA. I know that I am not susceptible to TCA.

Since Beaucastel is probably my favorite producer and since I am partial toward many Rhone wines, it might be that I am less susceptible to Brett also.

. . . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
originally posted by nigel groundwater:
firstly the very different way that brett is perceived by individuals

Secondly the level in brett in different bottles can be substantially different
Click to expand...

Nigel, The same can be said about TCA. I know that I am not susceptible to TCA.

Since Beaucastel is probably my favorite producer and since I am partial toward many Rhone wines, it might be that I am less susceptible to Brett also.

. . . . . . Pete
Click to expand...

Pete, I understand although there are many differences between TCA and Brett with the main one being that TCA is a single substance [whereas Brett is a cocktail of many] which people either 'get' or don't albeit across a fairly wide range.

That is not to say that very low level TCA cannot be confused with other contaminants including brett and certain mercaptans and disulphides but the 'dank cellar' and 'wet cardboard' aromas are usually powerful and distinctive enough to provide a clear diagnosis - particularly if an uncontaminated bottle is available for comparison. Like everything else recognition of TCA improves with experience although there are laboratory confirmed studies that show that even expert tasters can call it when it isn't there.

Trichloroanisole is so 'powerful' that most people will perceive it at some point measured from single figure parts/trillion through to tens of parts/trillion and above and really only anosmiacs will miss a truly TCA infected wine. While TCA is the most common haloanisole infection there are at least two others that play a part in the contamination of wine: Tribromoanisole and Tetrachloroanisole.

Sensitivity thresholds to TBA are similar to TCA but are higher for TeCA. While TCA will generally reach wine through a cork infection the other two are found in winery woodwork due to the past use of pesticide and fire retardant treatments that include the relevant halophenol precursors which common moulds can transform to the haloanisole state. Haloanisoles can migrate within a winery by airborne means as well as contact and can infect barrels as well as wine directly.
 
originally posted by nigel groundwater: TCA is a single substance which people either 'get' or don't albeit across a fairly wide range.
Click to expand...

Nigel, Since I cannot detect TCA in most all cases, I have to draw conclusions as to probable TCA contamination when a wine is lifeless or otherwise totally unlike it should be according to my prior experience(s).

. . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
originally posted by nigel groundwater: TCA is a single substance which people either 'get' or don't albeit across a fairly wide range.
Click to expand...

Nigel, Since I cannot detect TCA in most all cases, I have to draw conclusions as to probable TCA contamination when a wine is lifeless or otherwise totally unlike it should be according to my prior experience(s).

. . . . . Pete
Click to expand...
Pete, understood but there are situations and products other than TCA that can also cause a wine to taste lifeless and different from its norm.

One of the reasons that TCA is called wrongly is that experienced [and very low threshold] tasters are calling it even when THEY [and everyone else] cannot smell it simply because low level TCA has been shown to flatten and mute the fruit in wine. However, evidence on the reliability of such calls at extremely low [unsmellable] levels, backed by concurrent Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry analysis, appears to be very limited [IIRC the Australian Wine Research Institute provides the best known example] and a separate special study showed that 10% of all calls of TCA in that study were wrong using the GC-MS analysers.

What wasnt published [and therefore remains surmise] is how many of those wrong calls occurred when the specialist tasters were calling it based not on their super olfactory sensitivity but on their extrapolation of TCA effects because the wine simply didnt seem quite bright or lively enough. Assuming it was not a confusion with some other 'smell' it might be reasonable to assume the 10% all came from calling it based solely on how 'muted' the wine seemed - and assuming wrongly that it would 'inevitably' be TCA that had caused that sensation.

However we also don't know how many 'extrapolations' i.e. no smell but muted fruit [what I believe David Schildknecht calls 'stealth cork'] were called correctly as TCA in this study.

For the most sensitive this will mean that any TCA that is present [if it is present] may well be at or below 1-2 parts/trillion i.e. approaching the limits of detectability even with specially prepared samples for GC-MS analysis. Some might say approaching a zero case state.

On the other hand, if your general olfactory tolerance of TCA is as high as you say, the sheer weight of TCA that might be there might also explain your experience of a wine that is lifeless or otherwise totally unlike it should be according to prior experience(s). However if you were drinking such a wine with others at least some of them would usually be able to detect TCA by smell, particularly after some time in the glass, since it has such a powerful and distinctive odour even at very low levels. And it doesnt blow off [at least in any relevant timeframe] and, incidentally, nor do most brett products.
 
originally posted by nigel groundwater:


What wasnt published [and therefore remains surmise] is how many of those wrong calls occurred when the specialist tasters were calling it based not on their super olfactory sensitivity but on their extrapolation of TCA effects because the wine simply didnt seem quite bright or lively enough.
Click to expand...

Speaking as someone who is quite sensitive to TCA and congeners, I can say that I am very reluctant to call TCA on a "fruit scalped" wine for the very reasons you cite. I heard complaints recently on WLDG about people claiming cork taint on untainted wines (which, frankly, runs counter to my experience) and I would not want to contribute to that through the kneejerk reaction of TCA taint to any mute wine.

Mark Lipton
 
I agree that great care should be taken so that wines are not the subject of false claims.

For the record, since I fully recognize that I am not very susceptible to TCA, I never classify a wine as being corked. I might suspect that a wine is tainted with TCA, but I never declare it to be so.

. . . . . Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top