Side by Side

S

Steven Spielmann

Steven Spielmann
We did a matchup of Marcel Lapierre MMVII and 2007 Jean et Agnes Foillard 3.14 this afternoon. Both very good wines. I suspect both will be better in five years. Are both oak treated? It seemed to be so. The Gamay here is almost like Northern Rhone Bonarda, if such a thing existed, but in a good way.

The comparison was exactly what I often find to be the comparison between the regular cuvees from these two: Lapierre was more elegant and had purer aromatics, Foillard was denser and sappier with more going on on the palate. Both were very long with white pepper/christmas spice (ML) or black pepper/brown spice (JAF) on the finish. Except for the telltale Gamay sweetness/lift on the midpalate it would have been hard to place either of these blind, I suspect.

Sometime in the middle of the tasting someone opened Lapierre's '08 Morgon normale for another data point. Pure strawberries and cream, acid and fruit in balance - it made you want to eat - an excellent Thanksgiving or everyday wine. Ready to go. Certainly there were things the other two bottles offered that this one didn't, but in a way it was the most perfect of the three nonetheless.
 
Had regular 08 morgon from both producers over the past week. I think that while both need about the same amount of time in bottle, Lapierre absolutely requires it, while Foillard could optionally be approached now.
 
originally posted by Steven Spielmann:
Side by SideWe did a matchup of Marcel Lapierre MMVII and 2007 Jean et Agnes Foillard 3.14 this afternoon. Both very good wines. I suspect both will be better in five years. Are both oak treated? It seemed to be so. The Gamay here is almost like Northern Rhone Bonarda, if such a thing existed, but in a good way.

The comparison was exactly what I often find to be the comparison between the regular cuvees from these two: Lapierre was more elegant and had purer aromatics, Foillard was denser and sappier with more going on on the palate. Both were very long with white pepper/christmas spice (ML) or black pepper/brown spice (JAF) on the finish. Except for the telltale Gamay sweetness/lift on the midpalate it would have been hard to place either of these blind, I suspect.

Sometime in the middle of the tasting someone opened Lapierre's '08 Morgon normale for another data point. Pure strawberries and cream, acid and fruit in balance - it made you want to eat - an excellent Thanksgiving or everyday wine. Ready to go. Certainly there were things the other two bottles offered that this one didn't, but in a way it was the most perfect of the three nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Re "Are both oak treated?" I asked Mathieu Lapierre recently about whether the oak regime [which has always been pretty old oak, the website which is not up to date states 3 to 13 years old] was different for the Cuvee Marcel. Specifically if any new oak was used.

His response was brief [sic]: "we d'ont have any new oak barel so we d'ont use some in any cuves ??? "

He also said "the foudres we have are betwen 60 and 100 years old" and it therefore seemed clear that the wines, including Cuvee Marcel are not oak treated even if they are raised in old to extremely old oak.
 
He also said "the foudres we have are betwen 60 and 100 years old" and it therefore seemed clear that the wines, including Cuvee Marcel are not oak treated even if they are raised in old to extremely old oak.
Click to expand...

And you guys can still taste the oak? You're better men than me.
 
originally posted by MarkS:
He also said "the foudres we have are betwen 60 and 100 years old" and it therefore seemed clear that the wines, including Cuvee Marcel are not oak treated even if they are raised in old to extremely old oak.
Click to expand...

And you guys can still taste the oak? You're better men than me.
Click to expand...

I won't speak for the others, but isn't the oak influence here felt more through the texture and the development of the flavors that comes from oak aging, as opposed to a literally oaky taste.

Surely you've noticed taste differences between oak and tank raised wines?

(Not that I'm putting myself on the line for a blind tasting challenge or anything).
 
yes, the two 07s mentioned in the original post

but my question was ridiculous perhaps, if both wines undergo carbonic
 
The wines had tannin-for-beaujolais, especially the Foillard, and there was a slight woody/stemmy character in each, which was definitely a feature in terms of complexity and 'seriousness'. This does not have to come from the use of wood, but it can, I think.
 
So from Nigels comments above it sounds like these wines are not given radically different treatments in the cellar at least in terms of wood? How do people account for the very different character than the crus? It seems that the 3.14 and C. Marcel wines are much more polarizing or at least considered to be lacking in typicy by folks around here.
Not just old vines I'd imagine. Later harvest? Some destemming?
I have a couple but haven't tried any of them yet.
 
originally posted by .sasha:
yes, the two 07s mentioned in the original post

but my question was ridiculous perhaps, if both wines undergo carbonic
Click to expand...

"ridiculous perhaps, if both wines undergo carbonic".

Why ridiculous since it appears fairly clear that these semi-carbonic regimes are not absolutely qualified by whether the grapes are destemmed or not.

I think the assumption made about maximising the carbonic maceration [seeking maximum within-grape enzymatic development] and how the damage that [mechanical] destemmimg might inflict on the grapes compromises that is not a significant factor in these semi-carbonic regimes where maxing the initial development does not appear to me a sine qua non in it.

Destemming, or more particularly how it is done, may be some sort of very variable dividing line between the carbonic approach and others but apparently not a rigid one and some appear to destem and others may not - or a bit of both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top