Asimov Suplexes '07 Chateauneuf

I agree with Asimov on this one. I went to a 2007 tasting a few months ago and had very similar misgivings. 07 will, on the other hand, sell well in restaurants and retail. They have the two-fold value of being endorsed by Parker and being rich with fruit and alcohol.

I thought the question of the vintage's ability to age was interesting. My opinion was that many of the wines will not age well, as they lack the underlying structure needed to do so. In addition, the alcohol levels are pretty high so I wouldn't think this to be a vintage for the ages.

We'll have to wait and see, I guess.
 
I usually like Asimov, but there are some strange remarks in this review. First, whatever one thinks of the 07 (and thinking that they are too much of a muchness is hardly outside the ballpark), thinking they are less over the top than the 03s seems to me on the face of it odd. 03s are drinking beautifully now (far earlier than they ought even if like me you like many of them), but I can't imagine even fans of the vintage thinking that it is more typique, less overripe and fruit bomby than the 07s. Second, his selection of wines was almost designed to get him that effect. Between Cambified wines like Montpertuis and wines that don't need Cambie to tend toward the modern like Janasse, he was drinking wines that would only taste refined in an off vintage (and by off, I mean 92, not 04). What did he expect?

It's not that I don't understand preferring 04--and even more 06, my current nomination for the most underrated vintage since 99--to 07. But where oh where were Beaucastel, Charvin, Pegau (alright, not in bottle yet)in this line-up. To his credit, he identified the real ones--VD and Bosquet des Papes (despite Cambie, still making real wine at least some of the time).
 
But where oh where were Beaucastel, Charvin, Pegau (alright, not in bottle yet)in this line-up. To his credit, he identified the real ones--VD and Bosquet des Papes (despite Cambie, still making real wine at least some of the time).
Click to expand...

I was rather wondering this myself. You'd at least expect to see some 'gold standards' among the gobby-hitters.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
Cambie?
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

Phillipe Cambie, a ubiquitious oenologue in CdP, beloved by Parker and with a direct hand in numbers of notorious special cuvees. But to be fair, he also consults so broadly now, that he is clearly able to accommodate numbers of styles without always changing them.
 
I think Asimov only listed his top ten wines. It is possible that Asimov did try some of the traditionalist gold-standards, like Beaucastel and Charvin, and perhaps didn't like them enough to put them in the top 10.

But, I don't know. This is just a guess.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
First, whatever one thinks of the 07 (and thinking that they are too much of a muchness is hardly outside the ballpark), thinking they are less over the top than the 03s seems to me on the face of it odd. 03s are drinking beautifully now (far earlier than they ought even if like me you like many of them), but I can't imagine even fans of the vintage thinking that it is more typique, less overripe and fruit bomby than the 07s.
Click to expand...

Jonathan,
No expertise with the area (nor an real interest) but my first thought here was that some years in bottle made a difference to him and might do likewise for the 2007's Asimov tried and didn't laud (and I believe he notes that possibility).
Or am I missing something?
Best, Jim

PS Thanks for the Cambie info.
 
originally posted by Yule Kim:
I think Asimov only listed his top ten wines. It is possible that Asimov did try some of the traditionalist gold-standards, like Beaucastel and Charvin, and perhaps didn't like them enough to put them in the top 10.

But, I don't know. This is just a guess.
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't had Janasse or Montpertuis in 07 or with great frequency as I'm not a fan of their wines, but, assuming they run to form, if he preferred them to Charvin, then his preference of 04 to 07 becomes curioser and curioser. As in 03, while Charvin made a big wine, he made a wine that stresses structure and complexity, traits he seeks.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As in 03, while Charvin made a big wine, he made a wine that stresses structure and complexity, traits he seeks.
Click to expand...

You might get some argument about Parker seeking structure and complexity these days.
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
First, whatever one thinks of the 07 (and thinking that they are too much of a muchness is hardly outside the ballpark), thinking they are less over the top than the 03s seems to me on the face of it odd. 03s are drinking beautifully now (far earlier than they ought even if like me you like many of them), but I can't imagine even fans of the vintage thinking that it is more typique, less overripe and fruit bomby than the 07s.
Click to expand...

Jonathan,
No expertise with the area (nor an real interest) but my first thought here was that some years in bottle made a difference to him and might do likewise for the 2007's Asimov tried and didn't laud (and I believe he notes that possibility).
Or am I missing something?
Best, Jim

PS Thanks for the Cambie info.
Click to expand...

I haven't gone the round of the 03s in my cellar, though I will this year. I've retasted a handful though and they are doing what I expected, which is evolving fast in the ways that might have been expected. I think and hope the 07s will evolve differently and more like the 98s that have done well (most but not all). I read him as saying that while he thought the 07s would age, he didn't expect to like the versions they aged into anymore than he likes them now. But he lurks here, I think, so he could always chime in and clarify if he felt the urge.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As in 03, while Charvin made a big wine, he made a wine that stresses structure and complexity, traits he seeks.
Click to expand...

You might get some argument about Parker seeking structure and complexity these days.
Best, Jim
Click to expand...

I don't think Parker does seek them particularly, though he doesn't reject them in CdP (to speak in complimentary language, his tastes are clearly more catholic than mine are). I was saying Charvin seeks them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top