Lapierre MMVII

  • Thread starter Thread starter BJ
  • Start date Start date
B

BJ

BJ
This wine really struck me in SF. L was less taken, and even claimed some oak. I didn't get oak but could see what she meant as it tastes a bit oaky but in more an old viney, sort of like oak way. I waved it off and moved on.

But then last weekend, at the now infamous cassoulet jeeb, someone mentioned in passing, without us saying anything, that the MMVII was raised in new oak.

That would absolutely stun me, but I raise it here for collective consideration and discussion.

I have carefully reviewed the information Matthieu previously provided to us and saw nothing either way.

I guess I could email him again but thought I'd post first, just for kicks.
 
This ought to be a fun one. Thanks for posting Brad.

I was the one who mentioned the concern about possible new oak...I got the info from a sales guy at KLWM - I only have a few bottles, so I haven't tested the theory myself....it's 100% hearsay. Would be great to get confirmation from the source...it does seem very contradictory to the style of the producer.

-mark
 
From my buddy who's also my local KLWM rep:

"Same Jules Chauvet vinification as all gang of 4. All are aged in barrique - no new.

For the Marcel Lapierre -- 100 year old vines from the Cote du Py - longer maceration, longer elevage, more structure and age worthy."
 
Mathieu previously responded to my enquiry concerning Cuvees Mathieu and Marcel but since their stated [general] policy on oak is to use 3-13 year old barrels the enquiry [and response] did not include anything on new oak.

I have now asked him the specific question but since I leave for the USA tomorrow for 8 days will post on my return - assuming of course he has had time to look at the query and reply.

I suspect the answer will be that the wood regime does not include new oak even for the 'bigger' Cuvee Marcel [as per Brad's note above] but since the Marcel is only made in certain years [he doesn't want to "steal from" the basic cuvee] let's see.
 
I picked up nothing resembling new oak in the bottle I tried. I think some tasters are confusing this signature with other variety characteristics.

What I did taste was a somewhat backward wine, perhaps in contrast to some of the other tasters, with a distinct Gamay flavor that made me question somewhat the comparisons to a Beaune Premier (for example). What was really noteworthy, however, was the depth of fruit and the structure here, with good minerality and a lingering note of underbrush (was this the oak some people thought they were seeing). Anyway, should be really good in a few years...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top