TN: Chavannes, Haut Bailly, Doisy-Vedrines, Huet Petillant, Meulenhof

originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I'm a huge fan of the Ambassades. The house style seems very consistent. The '09 tastes pretty much like the last few vintages, and not much like other '09s.
Click to expand...

And you like this consistency?
Click to expand...
I certainly like it to the extent it's consistently the kind of wine I adore. But I admit that I had been hopeful the 2009 would express itself in a somewhat different idiom, and it did not seem to do that.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Interesting. Consistency is soothing, but suggests result-oriented winemaking, rather than process-oriented, to use the Monkey's useful distinction.
Click to expand...
Why so? It could just as easily suggest an individual terroir that asserts itself through all different kinds of growing seasons.
Click to expand...

I agree with Oswaldo. I like the way he thinks.

2005-2009 all tasting similarly despite radically different conditions from year to year sounds unlikely.
 
originally posted by Marc D:
originally posted by Brian C:
originally posted by Marc D:
originally posted by .sasha:
Marc, Pierreux is a Brouilly, not a CdB.
Click to expand...
Ah thanks.
Its a low land wine, explains the richness )
Click to expand...
I thought the Brun CdB was pretty stunning in this vintage too...maybe that was the sweet spot.
Click to expand...
I've been waiting on mine. Have you drank any recently?
Click to expand...
A couple months ago. Depending on how much you have I'd wait. I couldn't keep my greedy hands off of mine and now regret it a bit as I drank right through my stash. They took some air time to blow off some baby fat. No doubt they'll be better in a bit but the perfume on those really hooked me.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg: I certainly like it to the extent it's consistently the kind of wine I adore. But I admit that I had been hopeful the 2009 would express itself in a somewhat different idiom, and it did not seem to do that.
Click to expand...

I sort of see where you're coming from. And I might agree to a certain extent. But as mentioned above, if a wine tastes the same across 2005-2009 then even if it's ostensibly a style I like, then there is probably something else going on that will detract from my pleasure.

But I've yet to try this wine so I'll defer judgment on Chavannes until that happens.
 
I'm confident that there's nothing "going on" that would detract from anyone's pleasure from this wine, if this is the kind of wine you like. Note that "consistent" doesn't mean identical.
 
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Interesting. Consistency is soothing, but suggests result-oriented winemaking, rather than process-oriented, to use the Monkey's useful distinction.
Click to expand...
Why so? It could just as easily suggest an individual terroir that asserts itself through all different kinds of growing seasons.
Click to expand...

I agree with Oswaldo. I like the way he thinks.

2005-2009 all tasting similarly despite radically different conditions from year to year sounds unlikely.
Click to expand...

I think this just about nails it.

originally posted by .sasha:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Interesting. Consistency is soothing, but suggests result-oriented winemaking, rather than process-oriented, to use the Monkey's useful distinction.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love drinking the process ?
Click to expand...

My mind is into process, my nose & mouth are into results. That's why the question came out rhetorical.
 
Consistently good and consistently similar suggests results oriented. Consistently good and consistently reflective suggests process oriented. But this is linguistic logic; the separation is not so cut & dry. Even the most process oriented winemakers are loath to let the chips fall just wherever they may.
 
Romanee-St.-Vivant always seems to taste like Romanee-St.-Vivant, regardless of the vintage. Shall we conclude that all the producers are manipulating the crap out of it?

Seriously, perhaps you guys should learn something about the winemaking process at Chavannes - or at least try the wine! - before jumping to conclusions about the techniques or philosophy there. Who knows, perhaps you'll even disagree with me and find all of the vintages vastly different from each other.
 
Anyway, we just had the second half of the Chavannes, sequestered overnight in a 375 bottle a la Cliff, and, consistent or not, it is a pure pleasure to drink. Food-friendly, too. For $18, most concerns about the wine can be addressed by buying a bottle.
 
Unless y'all are tasting 2005 through '09 at the same time, your assessment that they taste similarly is not very meaningful. I suspect if you did taste them that way, the vintage differences would make themselves known quite articulately. Or are you suggesting that Morgon from say, Foillard, across those years taste more differently, one from another, than CdB from Thivin? I'm highly skeptical.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Even the most process oriented winemakers are loath to let the chips fall just wherever they may.
Click to expand...

Indeed there must be some level of process control or the results likely won't be worth caring about (the normal destiny of this vinous stuff being vinegar). Results are part of a process (the output) - and as such they are inseparable from each other.
 
originally posted by .sasha:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Interesting. Consistency is soothing, but suggests result-oriented winemaking, rather than process-oriented, to use the Monkey's useful distinction.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love drinking the process ?
Click to expand...
Right, the operation was a success, however the patient ....
 
This thread is getting insane. I'd like to get clear on this, how many of you have actually drunk the 09 Chavannes? Please go back to your books. You think too much.

My take on the 09 Chavannes Ambassades - pretty outstanding CdB. I had long thought this was some lame Thivin wannabee but I've been educated. Classic style, well delineated, great cellar candidate, complex nose. Different than the Thivin, less dense, I am guessing they got the non-south facing vineyards.

The Brun CdB is in my top three 09s, but then I haven't had it for a few months now.
 
In my experience there's nothing about Chavannes worth building a platform on for dogmatic ideologies.
Several experiences with their wine from each of the last five vintages have brought me many happy bottles, never mind blowing but occasionally startlingly good, and always honest. Inexpensive, humble, and smile inducing. I have not noticed the "sameness" other than that they strive for elegance over extract.
The intellectual posturing is just fine, these guys ain't your poster child though.
 
originally posted by BJ:
This thread is getting insane. I'd like to get clear on this, how many of you have actually drunk the 09 Chavannes? Please go back to your books. You think too much.

My take on the 09 Chavannes Ambassades - pretty outstanding CdB. I had long thought this was some lame Thivin wannabee but I've been educated. Classic style, well delineated, great cellar candidate, complex nose. Different than the Thivin, less dense, I am guessing they got the non-south facing vineyards.

The Brun CdB is in my top three 09s, but then I haven't had it for a few months now.
Click to expand...
Whoops BJ beat me to it. I don't know how you winemakers can take it around here. Bless the few of you for sticking with us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top