PSA: Decant the 2009 Baudry Grezeaux

Too much shorthand!

And not even Google is my friend about it.

psa.jpg
 
2005 is very savory right now, decant or no.

If I only had a few bottles, I wouldn't open yet. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the Croix Boissée is showing pretty well right now.

2005 is such an anomalous year, it is tough to know what to make of them. I'll stick by my thinking that the 2004s are better balanced and the more interesting wines in the long term.
 
originally posted by VLM:

2005 is very savory right now, decant or no.

If I only had a few bottles, I wouldn't open yet. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the Croix Boissée is showing pretty well right now.

2005 is such an anomalous year, it is tough to know what to make of them. I'll stick by my thinking that the 2004s are better balanced and the more interesting wines in the long term.
Click to expand...

Depends on the soil, monkey boy.
 
originally posted by Yixin:
originally posted by VLM:

2005 is very savory right now, decant or no.

If I only had a few bottles, I wouldn't open yet. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the Croix Boissée is showing pretty well right now.

2005 is such an anomalous year, it is tough to know what to make of them. I'll stick by my thinking that the 2004s are better balanced and the more interesting wines in the long term.
Click to expand...

Depends on the soil, monkey boy.
Click to expand...

That's what your mom said.
 
originally posted by VLM:
2005 is very savory right now, decant or no.

If I only had a few bottles, I wouldn't open yet. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the Croix Boissée is showing pretty well right now.

2005 is such an anomalous year, it is tough to know what to make of them. I'll stick by my thinking that the 2004s are better balanced and the more interesting wines in the long term.
Click to expand...
To savour, yes? How is 2005 anomalous? I would have thought perhaps archetypical. My thinking, whether I stick by it or no, is that your question about 2004 and 2005 will not be answered in the long term.
 
originally posted by Jeff Connell:
originally posted by VLM:
2005 is very savory right now, decant or no.

If I only had a few bottles, I wouldn't open yet. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the Croix Boissée is showing pretty well right now.

2005 is such an anomalous year, it is tough to know what to make of them. I'll stick by my thinking that the 2004s are better balanced and the more interesting wines in the long term.
Click to expand...
To savour, yes? How is 2005 anomalous? I would have thought perhaps archetypical. My thinking, whether I stick by it or no, is that your question about 2004 and 2005 will not be answered in the long term.
Click to expand...

2005 was anomalous in that it was far outside anyone's range of experience and no one really had concrete ideas about how the wines would evolve. Matthieu and I have discussed this at length. It was in English, though.

Does the short term already provide the answers?

Good to *see* you.
 
originally posted by VLM:

2005 was anomalous in that it was far outside anyone's range of experience and no one really had concrete ideas about how the wines would evolve.
Click to expand...
I haven't dipped into 2005s so much--what about them was so outside the range that included a crazy year like 2003 or warm 1997 or 1989, or what have you?

What were the key factors?
 
originally posted by VLM:

2005 is very savory right now, decant or no.

If I only had a few bottles, I wouldn't open yet. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the Croix Boissée is showing pretty well right now.

2005 is such an anomalous year, it is tough to know what to make of them. I'll stick by my thinking that the 2004s are better balanced and the more interesting wines in the long term.
Click to expand...

Is 04 vs 05 at Baudry anything like 04 vs 05 at Breton, or am I completely on the wrong, ahem, bank here ?
 
What are you guys talking about? For a statistician, dear monkey, you're drawing a lot from anecdotal observations.
 
Well, to since you are being all fatboy, I've had every wine from every major producer of Chinon, Bougueil and Rougeard from 2004 and 2005 at least twice for each vintage, some many more times than that. That is on the back of drinking these wines for a considerable amount of time and having hundreds of bottles in the cellar that I drink with regularity.

So, according to my calculations, I have sufficient statistical power to detect a difference.
 
originally posted by VLM:
Well, to since you are being all fatboy, I've had every wine from every major producer of Chinon, Bougueil and Rougeard from 2004 and 2005 at least twice for each vintage, some many more times than that. That is on the back of drinking these wines for a considerable amount of time and having hundreds of bottles in the cellar that I drink with regularity.

So, according to my calculations, I have sufficient statistical power to detect a difference.
Click to expand...
But for those of us who haven't been guzzling as diligently, what marks '05 as so distinct? My more limited sample would certainly tell me that it's different from '04, no argument there, but what are the unique properties of '05 in your mind?
 
originally posted by VLM:
Well, to since you are being all fatboy, I've had every wine from every major producer of Chinon, Bougueil and Rougeard from 2004 and 2005 at least twice for each vintage, some many more times than that. That is on the back of drinking these wines for a considerable amount of time and having hundreds of bottles in the cellar that I drink with regularity.

So, according to my calculations, I have sufficient statistical power to detect a difference.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's called Saumur-Champigny. In fact, there's more than one Foucault...

But I have the same question as Joe - what makes 2005 so different? Less acute palates like mine could do with some education.
 
originally posted by Yixin:
originally posted by VLM:
Well, to since you are being all fatboy, I've had every wine from every major producer of Chinon, Bougueil and Rougeard from 2004 and 2005 at least twice for each vintage, some many more times than that. That is on the back of drinking these wines for a considerable amount of time and having hundreds of bottles in the cellar that I drink with regularity.

So, according to my calculations, I have sufficient statistical power to detect a difference.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's called Saumur-Champigny. In fact, there's more than one Foucault...

But I have the same question as Joe - what makes 2005 so different? Less acute palates like mine could do with some education.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought I said this above. Startling levels of tannin, dry extract and alcohol all in one. Not terrible acidity levels either. Noneof 1989, 1997, or 2003 were close on any of those counts, IIRC.

They truly are a freak show. I'm glad I own a lot of them, but 2004 seems to provide a better classical experience (while not 2002).

Rougeard is the only one I drink and cellar with depth and breadth. I like Antoine Foucault's wines the dozen or so times I've had them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top