PSA: Decant the 2009 Baudry Grezeaux

tasting 05 reds on release was a funny experience, given the tales of gobs I had been told by the best of tasters and friends

gobs may have been there, but completely overwhelmed by structure, particularly tannin - extremely ripe, reasonably fine, but very powerful nonetheless.

the beautiful thing about those wines is that it doesn't matter how long they'll take - you won't be missing anything in the interim that you can't get later
 
originally posted by VLM:
the 2004s are better balanced and the more interesting wines in the long term.
Click to expand...

Actually, you've made me quite curious to check in on 2004. But how would you advise those of us with but a singleton left of '04 Grezeaux?
 
originally posted by slaton:
originally posted by VLM:
the 2004s are better balanced and the more interesting wines in the long term.
Click to expand...

Actually, you've made me quite curious to check in on 2004. But how would you advise those of us with but a singleton left of '04 Grezeaux?
Click to expand...
I would be inclined to wait a bit. You won't be unhappy in the next decade or more, but I don't see any rush.
 
I would wait as well. Or if it's giving you too much angst, just give it to VLM.

Monkey, not my experience, which is why I'm so curious. Ripe wines, yes, but not freaks. Some winemakers who I think did not have such freaks: R-N Legrand, Clos Neuf des Archambaults (Dehelly), Villeneuve, Chevalerie, Amirault (especially the Quartiers, which I found elegant). To be honest, I didn't think the Baudry wines so outlandish either. Joguet, maybe, although that was Delauney's last (2nd last?) vintage before FX took over (and how he's running a negoce operation).
 
Should I be trying Villeneuve? Available locally.

I am OK with VLM characterizing 05 as highly unusual. "Freaky" tends to be associated with over-the-top fruit qualities, but it doesn't have to be.
 
dotster, I think it's fine, but I have limited cellar space and liver function (and money, sadly). In the area, I thought Roches Neuves had some good 2005s but remember being put off by the prices. I don't have good notes for Hureau, unfortunately, and must admit I hardly ever drink them with meals. Further east I've really liked the Amirault wines and even the oakier cuvees seem to be integrating, albeit only structurally (as opposed to aromatically) based on tasting this month. Chevalerie as well, but with the caveat that we speed-tasted through about 20 vintages there.

The 1997s all seem to be drinking well now. Dehelly still has magnums of the latter for sale, and everything from Legrand showed well. Straying from the Loire but staying with Cab Franc, in Hong Kong last year we had a very fine Alzero from the same vintage. Surprised me because I had dismissed the wine ten years ago; one learns something new every day.
 
I'm okay with 2005 being a great vintage, and all the corroborating analytical data. This was apparent in 2006 when we started to taste. It is a truism that a great vintage is highly unusual. But I never heard any talk that 2005 was something beyond experience, qualitatively (or quantitatively) distinct from other great vintages. There was some such talk after the 2003 vintage, which in the Touraine, most people I know seemed fairly pleased with.

1989 Grézeaux is pretty hard to equal, though 1989 Perrières from Pierre Breton might do so. Signature/Croix Boissée from 1995 and 1996 can convince you in the moment that wine doesn't get better than this. Analytic results for 1976 and 1947 (if they exist) show these two vintages as statistical freaks (is there any other kind?) I suspect more than 2005. And delve into your 1993s now for evidence that it's the average vintage that often turns out best. If we're talking recent vintages of Baudry Chinon, consider 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2009 - and yes, also, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Which of these wouldn't you want to keep around in your cave for awhile.

What I want to know is who the hell was Delauney, and who the hell cares? 1995 was Joguet's last vintage - and I credit him with 1996 as well. After that it was shocking how quickly the wines became unexceptional.
 
originally posted by Yixin:
dotster, I think it's fine, but I have limited cellar space and liver function (and money, sadly). In the area, I thought Roches Neuves had some good 2005s but remember being put off by the prices. I don't have good notes for Hureau, unfortunately, and must admit I hardly ever drink them with meals. Further east I've really liked the Amirault wines and even the oakier cuvees seem to be integrating, albeit only structurally (as opposed to aromatically) based on tasting this month. Chevalerie as well, but with the caveat that we speed-tasted through about 20 vintages there.

The 1997s all seem to be drinking well now. Dehelly still has magnums of the latter for sale, and everything from Legrand showed well. Straying from the Loire but staying with Cab Franc, in Hong Kong last year we had a very fine Alzero from the same vintage. Surprised me because I had dismissed the wine ten years ago; one learns something new every day.
Click to expand...

How about the itsiest of bitsiest of trip reports? At the very least, gross generalizations about 2010.
 
Don't need trip reports when Jeff Connell pipes up - would you rather hear about a long, involved love affair, or sustained bouts of speedfuckingTM? Although I would give the new folks at Joguet some more time.

Tough to generalise about 2010, but I've tended to like it a bit better than 2009 in most of the regions. A bit more precision for the whites (a structural consideration), and fruit purity (a flavour consideration) for the reds. But sometimes one wants the extra fat, e.g. Michel Grisard's 2009 Prestige from barrel (we tasted 5, plus 2 different assemblages) was stunning wine. I'm buying magnums of that for my nephew.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Prieure St. Christophe? Who carries that? Or do you order direct?
Click to expand...

I live in a different part of the world, remember? For the US, he's worked with Kermit Lynch before.
 
originally posted by Jeff Connell:
I'm okay with 2005 being a great vintage, and all the corroborating analytical data. This was apparent in 2006 when we started to taste. It is a truism that a great vintage is highly unusual. But I never heard any talk that 2005 was something beyond experience, qualitatively (or quantitatively) distinct from other great vintages. There was some such talk after the 2003 vintage, which in the Touraine, most people I know seemed fairly pleased with.
Click to expand...

The difference with 2005 was that there was so much of everything.

2003s turned out great from the best terroir and the best producers.

1989 Grézeaux is pretty hard to equal, though 1989 Perrières from Pierre Breton might do so. Signature/Croix Boissée from 1995 and 1996 can convince you in the moment that wine doesn't get better than this. Analytic results for 1976 and 1947 (if they exist) show these two vintages as statistical freaks (is there any other kind?) I suspect more than 2005. And delve into your 1993s now for evidence that it's the average vintage that often turns out best. If we're talking recent vintages of Baudry Chinon, consider 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2009 - and yes, also, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Which of these wouldn't you want to keep around in your cave for awhile.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this, although I think the 1996 Grezeaux might give the 1989 a run more so than the 1989 Perrieres, but we are splitting hairs.

I don't have any more of the 1995 Signature, but do have a few more 1996 Croix Boisee. For my money, I saw the 1995 at apogee and drank it.

The 2006s, especially the Domaine, are awesome right now.
 
I have had a couple of 1995 Signatures in the last year or two that have not shown well. Limited aromatics, a bit clipped? I wonder about TCA but couldn't find it.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
I have had a couple of 1995 Signatures in the last year or two that have not shown well. Limited aromatics, a bit clipped? I wonder about TCA but couldn't find it.
Click to expand...

Between Ken and I (and mostly together) we've been through a good 18 bottles of this over the last half dozen years or so. It is all over the place, from what you found to something really ethereal and beautiful. I've had musty bottles, but can only recall one corked one.
 
So Friday night I had the 2005 and 2006 Croix Boissée as well as a 2006 Domain (my last bottle of 2004 was sadly, corked).

The 2006 was spectacular and exactly what I expect from Croix Boissée. That is, chalky mineral driven fruit with lots of nuance and verve. It was delicious. It did eventually shut down after a few hours into a sweet tart sort of shell. The 2005, by comparison, was rich and savory and unlike any Croix Boissée I or anyone at the table has ever had. This is consistent with the 8-10 times I've had this wine.

2005 is a strange vintage in this part of the universe. IME, it is very different from other "hot" vintages like 1997 and 2003.

FWIW, wines from Foucault and Breton Perriers haven't been savory in the same way. Maybe the soil composition? Nuclear power plant?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top