Steven Spielmann
Steven Spielmann
is that you drink too much of it and then can't properly reconstruct your wine experiences prior to it.
Let it be recorded that in the last few days I have drunk a 1999 Chateau de Pommard, a 2005 Faury St. Joseph VV, and a Larmandier-Bernier NV Rose.
The CdP I couldnt understand. It smelled like pinot. Sometimes I thought it was too simple, but then there would be hints of interesting complexity deep down. Sometimes I thought it was too light, but then there would be a hint of Pommard richness. And then, it didn't seem ready: there was plenty of acid and potenetial for development even though it was a village wine. This vintage needs 20 years I guess. Anyway, the wine resisted my attempts to dismiss it but didnt give me that much definite to groove on either, though it was balanced and drinkable. Also, my wife liked it, and shes usually right about these things in the end, though she doesnt usually give me her reasons. I did wonder idly for a moment if this wine might be a relic, taking a position in an older constellation of Burgundy values that I'm not old or experienced enough to be fully familiar with.
The St. Joes was its usual beautiful self, light old vines intensity, good capsicum and blueberries. The first bottle of this I had had this appealing bacon thing going on on the finish that threatened to push it into THIS ROCKS territory; the two since have been very good but just not quite as intense somehow. Very burgundian St. Joe though and recommended, though apparently you might need to go to Kermits store in Berkeley to get some.
The champagne was very impressive, on multiple levels. First, it was pinot noir, and no mistaking it: big pinot smells, complex and ever-changing fruit, even looks like a beautiful ruby burgundy in the glass, with bubbles. Second, it was champagne, and no mistaking it: clear regional character at least (I simply dont have enough experience to say whether it speaks of Vertus, but I wouldnt be surprised). Third, there is a long list of fruits that could be used to describe the experience of having it in your mouth. Fourth, the tartness and, for lack of a better word, puke smell that for me often haunt pinot-driven champagnes (I am generally a BdB guy) are not in evidence; there are occasional flashes of tart but they are pleasing and morph into caress on alternate sips. Fifth, works with appropriate food. Very focused, like the other Larmandier-Bernier champagnes Ive had, and if you like a broader/more diffuse character that might be something to note. But there's really nothing to quibble with here: this is about as well-realized as wines get.
Let it be recorded that in the last few days I have drunk a 1999 Chateau de Pommard, a 2005 Faury St. Joseph VV, and a Larmandier-Bernier NV Rose.
The CdP I couldnt understand. It smelled like pinot. Sometimes I thought it was too simple, but then there would be hints of interesting complexity deep down. Sometimes I thought it was too light, but then there would be a hint of Pommard richness. And then, it didn't seem ready: there was plenty of acid and potenetial for development even though it was a village wine. This vintage needs 20 years I guess. Anyway, the wine resisted my attempts to dismiss it but didnt give me that much definite to groove on either, though it was balanced and drinkable. Also, my wife liked it, and shes usually right about these things in the end, though she doesnt usually give me her reasons. I did wonder idly for a moment if this wine might be a relic, taking a position in an older constellation of Burgundy values that I'm not old or experienced enough to be fully familiar with.
The St. Joes was its usual beautiful self, light old vines intensity, good capsicum and blueberries. The first bottle of this I had had this appealing bacon thing going on on the finish that threatened to push it into THIS ROCKS territory; the two since have been very good but just not quite as intense somehow. Very burgundian St. Joe though and recommended, though apparently you might need to go to Kermits store in Berkeley to get some.
The champagne was very impressive, on multiple levels. First, it was pinot noir, and no mistaking it: big pinot smells, complex and ever-changing fruit, even looks like a beautiful ruby burgundy in the glass, with bubbles. Second, it was champagne, and no mistaking it: clear regional character at least (I simply dont have enough experience to say whether it speaks of Vertus, but I wouldnt be surprised). Third, there is a long list of fruits that could be used to describe the experience of having it in your mouth. Fourth, the tartness and, for lack of a better word, puke smell that for me often haunt pinot-driven champagnes (I am generally a BdB guy) are not in evidence; there are occasional flashes of tart but they are pleasing and morph into caress on alternate sips. Fifth, works with appropriate food. Very focused, like the other Larmandier-Bernier champagnes Ive had, and if you like a broader/more diffuse character that might be something to note. But there's really nothing to quibble with here: this is about as well-realized as wines get.
