2009 Cru Beaujolais tasting

originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Mark Davis:

4,8,16,24...The point is that this method is widely accepted as a way to understand how the wine interacts with Oxygen.
Click to expand...
Wide as I may be, I can't buy in to this.
Click to expand...

I can't say I've done extensive controlled studies on the matter. I am not a chemist (and don't play one on TV) -- But, we are in luck because I thought there were a few who posted here? (hopefully none of those who told me I was full of shit yet) So please correct me if I am wrong. I'm interested in thoughts comparing wine exposed rapidly to oxygen for 4,8,12,16,20,24 hours vs. the same wine exposed for 4,8,12,16,20,24 years (or take any arbitrary timeline) -- amounts consistent with the high and low end of permeability of typical corks in the later case. Surface areas consistent with a half full bottle (full bottle diameter) vs. neck diameter of 750ml bottles. Oxygen and volume levels consistent with typical air vs. that which leeches across the cork -- ie. do the molecules of air permeate across the cork equally? I assume the gaps are so large they do? I don't remember any of this Chemistry shit from college/grad school. I also expect temperate to be a key factor, slowing down the process as the atmosphere cools.

The theory is that the mapping of time would vary drastically between wines, but such a mapping exists for all wines...and, for all wines., the progression is the same...but faster with more surface area exposed to non-inert elements of the atmosphere, or more of it, or quicker or at higher temperature (excluding temps that cook the wine). Or, alternatively, would you expect a completely different interaction to occur?

-mark
 
originally posted by Mark Davis:
Or, alternatively, would you expect a completely different interaction to occur?
Click to expand...
You assume that exposure to oxygen is the only process that occurs over time.

You also assume that a short exposure to a lot of oxygen is the same as a long exposure to a little oxygen.

Almost certainly neither one of these is true.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
originally posted by Mark Davis:
Or, alternatively, would you expect a completely different interaction to occur?
Click to expand...
You assume that exposure to oxygen is the only process that occurs over time.

You also assume that a short exposure to a lot of oxygen is the same as a long exposure to a little oxygen.

Almost certainly neither one of these is true.
Click to expand...

Two potentially valid points -- the second is the one I'd like to test.

Your first point is almost certainly true, but I would suspect Oxygen exposure is the first order effect???
 
originally posted by Mark Davis:
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Mark Davis:

4,8,16,24...The point is that this method is widely accepted as a way to understand how the wine interacts with Oxygen.
Click to expand...
Wide as I may be, I can't buy in to this.
Click to expand...

I can't say I've done extensive controlled studies on the matter. I am not a chemist (and don't play one on TV) -- But, we are in luck because I thought there were a few who posted here? (hopefully none of those who told me I was full of shit yet) So please correct me if I am wrong. I'm interested in thoughts comparing wine exposed rapidly to oxygen for 4,8,12,16,20,24 hours vs. the same wine exposed for 4,8,12,16,20,24 years (or take any arbitrary timeline) -- amounts consistent with the high and low end of permeability of typical corks in the later case. Surface areas consistent with a half full bottle (full bottle diameter) vs. neck diameter of 750ml bottles. Oxygen and volume levels consistent with typical air vs. that which leeches across the cork -- ie. do the molecules of air permeate across the cork equally? I assume the gaps are so large they do? I don't remember any of this Chemistry shit from college/grad school. I also expect temperate to be a key factor, slowing down the process as the atmosphere cools.

The theory is that the mapping of time would vary drastically between wines, but such a mapping exists for all wines...and, for all wines., the progression is the same...but faster with more surface area exposed to non-inert elements of the atmosphere, or more of it, or quicker or at higher temperature (excluding temps that cook the wine). Or, alternatively, would you expect a completely different interaction to occur?

-mark
Click to expand...
How many bottles do you think you'll need to run this study?
 
originally posted by Mark Davis:
$22.86 750ml 2009 Domaine des Terres Dorées (Jean-Paul Brun) Moulin-à-Vent

really structured, yet pretty well balanced wine on day 1...astringent and tannic on day 2...will age well. Of all the Brun's, this is the one I would buy...I find most of the others too atypical for their appellation. #2 of 3 in flight 4.
Click to expand...

I am not finding this astringent at all on day 2 here. As much fun as it was when first opened last night, I actually prefer it at this point - it's cooler, brighter, a touch minerally, nicely balanced, and given that it's no longer all fireworks in mid-palate, one can actually appreciate its considerable finish.

So why all this talk about 1991? Why isn't 1989 mentioned in this context? Some of them are still wonderful now, and warm vintage beaujolais do not suffer from the same perceived shortcomings as their equivalents in the cote d'or do. They are fun.
 
I have to admit I'm struggling a bit with some 09s right now. I have never viewed the more long haul wines as something to open now. These I think will be fabulous at the right time. But some of lesser wines which really sang at release seem to have lost some of the fresh energy and have put on some weight, losing focus in the process. The Thivin Brouilly was electric at the domaine last summer and I was thrilled to see it arrive here in the NW, and I bought a case. First bottle was ok but lacked the charged intensity of last year. It IS possible it is still a little travel shocked since it just showed up. Last week we also had a Cheysson Chiroubles which I preferred to the Thivin but it too was a bruiser, weighing in almost like a Cotes du Rhone. Neither of these wines strike me as something to lay down.

I'll report back in on the Brouilly as it's just hard for me to believe it's shifted so much. Also, could just be bottle/barrel/foudre variation.

The Brun CdB remains my favorite 09. It is a really special wine.
 
According to Peynaud, "...the quantity of oxygen that normally penetrates bottles corked and laid down, a position in which the cork is soaked and swollen, is negligible, if not entirely nonexistent." (pg 253, Knowing & Making Wine). Not only that, but the general aging process in a cellared, sealed bottle over long periods is so different than the same wine being briefly open to relatively large amounts of oxygen as to make comparisons between the two totally meaningless (at least according to my limited knowledge).

I'm not saying that it isn't interesting and fun and potentially delicious to drink a bottle over a longer period, assuming it can take it, but it doesn't seem to me that arranging your cellaring according to the results would be useful.
 
originally posted by BJ:
The Brun CdB remains my favorite 09. It is a really special wine.
Click to expand...

So far, my fave 09 is the Desvignes Javernières that was being served at the Dressner shindig. But maybe that was partly the result of surprise; Desvignes is usually so unyielding in diapers.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by BJ:
The Brun CdB remains my favorite 09. It is a really special wine.
Click to expand...

So far, my fave 09 is the Desvignes Javernières that was being served at the Dressner shindig. But maybe that was partly the result of surprise; Desvignes is usually so unyielding in diapers.
Click to expand...

Surprises me too. That always goes straight to my cellar.
 
It is comforting when an authority like Premier Cru assures me that '09 was the best vintage since '47, or maybe '45.

Die like a dog, Levi Dalton!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top