Charvin

[Jonathan Loesberg]

OK so I'm not going to go through the whole Charvin tasting. There was a lot, it was all good and some surprising in different ways. For instance,the 2007 is actually turning into a Charvin and a much better wine than I would have guessed, indeed a wine that could convert 2007 haters.

But the moment boulversant of the visit was a 1993 CdP, which still tasted young, fresh and vibrant, with a nose one would have taken for a wine from 98 or 99. One could tell its age from its color, but not from anything else. I wish I had bought a bunch when it was there and I'm starting to understand BJ's tasting notes of 93 CdPs that have appeared here now and again.

Without drawing invidious comparisons, if you find Charvin from supposedly off years, say 2008 or 2004, buy enough to have some now and have some later. As one might say, it's criminal how good his wines are.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

Are you back in the SoF for the holidays?

 

[BJ]

Cool. I too have been really surprised by the durability of the 93s - certainly in better shape than the 94s, which are almost all sandalwood now. We had a 93 Santa Duc tradition last month that rocked my world, lovely acid texture, linear, sinewy, with a tremendous nose. "Burgundian" as they would say. I continue to believe strongly in 93, 96, and 99s. I do need to start tucking into the 95s but I sense those are still too early.

Oh yeah, the 97 Vieux Donjon - amazing. I'll post a note on that later.

I think basically that the cooler years down south are where its at. The wines age great, and develop along the lines of their northerly brethren, making them much better at table. The noses are terrific.

All of which to say I have no idea where to turn for the last decade. I was out to dinner a few nights ago and had a taste of the 08 Brusset tradition. It was so oversize as to be undrinkable for me. I just laughed. And I just have no sense for how it would age. It seemed like it would have balance, and maybe it will calm down - I just don't have enough long term experience to know.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

I think basically that the cooler years down south are where its at. The wines age great, and develop along the lines of their northerly brethren, making them much better at table. The noses are terrific.

I agree. It's not like the area often has trouble ripening its grapes. Although there are some very good warm years, I am often pleasantly surprised (or should I be at this point) by "off-year" Chateauneuf and its brethren. Paso Robles has the same issue, what are often less celebrated years for other, cooler coastal regions are better for Paso.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

I didn't buy enough 97s to know. I did buy a bunch of 93s and they went south early for me (by age 10). To judge from the Charvin, I just got the wrong ones. My 94s are doing fine, but my remaining 94s are Beaucastel, Pegau and VT. I have absolutely no faith in 95s that didn't come around by age 10. They are mostly ready now, interesting to drink, usually quite austere.

Although by alcohol there is no difference, to get what you are looking for, BJ, you might look for 04 and 08 from Charvin. His 08, when you can find it, is a great wine for still a buyable price in the US. Although I don't think the comparison works, and although I only just tasted barrel samples, I expect the 11 may turn out in that style as well.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by BJ:
I do need to start tucking into the 95s but I sense those are still too early.

Just the opposite. Dried out and hollow with no hope of becoming anything. Prof. Loesberg was correct and I was very wrong about this vintage.

 

[BJ]

Bummer. I've just been letting them sit there.

 

[Marc D]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by BJ:
I do need to start tucking into the 95s but I sense those are still too early.

Just the opposite. Dried out and hollow with no hope of becoming anything. Prof. Loesberg was correct and I was very wrong about this vintage.

Does this include the 95 Domaine du Vieux Télégraphe?
It has been a few years since I tried one but at least then it was the opposite of what you are describing.

 

[BJ]

I'm going to do a '95 CNP cellar crawl tonite. I'm on a mission.

 

[MarkS]

...if you find Charvin from supposedly off years, say 2008 or 2004, buy enough to have some now and have some later. As one might say, it's criminal how good his wines are.

word.

 

[BJ]

This 95 Chapoutier Gigondas I'm drinking isn't wowing me.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Marc D:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by BJ:
I do need to start tucking into the 95s but I sense those are still too early.

Just the opposite. Dried out and hollow with no hope of becoming anything. Prof. Loesberg was correct and I was very wrong about this vintage.

Does this include the 95 Domaine du Vieux Télégraphe?
It has been a few years since I tried one but at least then it was the opposite of what you are describing.

The 95 VT has done better than others, but I've always preferred the 94s. By the way, my evaluation of 95s is for the wines you would normally lay down for 5 or so years for them to be at their best. I had numbers of very nice Gigondases from that year that I started drinking happily at age 5. I will age CdPs happily to 20 or so and not be surprised to see them go longer. But with few exceptions--Cayron and Raspail Ay from the old days--I don't expect Gigondas to do that. They are great at 10-12, but for me always showing a point (add an accent over the a and pronounce that as if you were Peter Sellars playing Inspector Clouzot).

 

[Jay Miller]

fwiw 1994 and 1995 Clos des Papes are 2 of the very few Chateauneufs that have actually wowed me.

 

[Peter Creasey]

I've got a few Ch de Beaucastel CNdP '95 left but haven't sampled it in a few years.

It was fine a few years ago. Any opinions on it now?

. . . . . Pete

 

[BJ]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Marc D:

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by BJ:
I do need to start tucking into the 95s but I sense those are still too early.

Just the opposite. Dried out and hollow with no hope of becoming anything. Prof. Loesberg was correct and I was very wrong about this vintage.

Does this include the 95 Domaine du Vieux Télégraphe?
It has been a few years since I tried one but at least then it was the opposite of what you are describing.

The 95 VT has done better than others, but I've always preferred the 94s. By the way, my evaluation of 95s is for the wines you would normally lay down for 5 or so years for them to be at their best. I had numbers of very nice Gigondases from that year that I started drinking happily at age 5. I will age CdPs happily to 20 or so and not be surprised to see them go longer. But with few exceptions--Cayron and Raspail Ay from the old days--I don't expect Gigondas to do that. They are great at 10-12, but for me always showing a point (add an accent over the a and pronounce that as if you were Peter Sellars playing Inspector Clouzot).

Interesting, that would not be my take. I think they go a lot longer than that - though my sample size of old Gigondas is much smaller than CNP. In fact, I often feel like CNP is ready, or at pleasurable, earlier than Gigondas. For example, none of the 98-00 Gigondas I've had in the last year or two felt like it was ready - Bouissiere, Pallieres, St. Cosme etc.

My feeling is that the only wine from that area that is really short haul is Cairanne. I've never had a great older Cairanne (meaning 12 years+). Rasteau on the other hand can be real long haul too (again my 98-00 Soumade is just way too young).

 

[nigel groundwater]

originally posted by BJ:
My feeling is that the only wine from that area that is really short haul is Cairanne. I've never had a great older Cairanne (meaning 12 years+). Rasteau on the other hand can be real long haul too (again my 98-00 Soumade is just way too young).

May I ask which of the 4 Andre Romero [I assume] Rasteau cuvees you are referring to? I finished my 98 Basics and Prestiges some time ago without any sense of infanticide - although they weren't about to fall over then either.

OTOH I haven't touched my 2005 Prestiges yet or my 2004 Confiances.

It might just be a difference in taste in addition to which waiting too long at my age might well mean never. However the Confiance and [particularly] the Fleur de Confiance are bigger and much more expensive wines which need time - which is the main reason I have stopped buying them.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Jay: Clos des Papes breaks my 95 rule, as I have enjoyed it every time. But I still prefer the 94--which alas, I didn't buy and have only had a few times.

Pete: My 95 Beaucastels have gone from mute and brooding to elegant in an austere way, at best. They remind me of the 78s, another wine that I like but that has never really come around. Brad Kane has said that he has had 95 Beaus that are great. So there may be heat damaged and non heat damaged batches. But it has been a textbook 95 for me.

BJ, our tastes may differ. I agree about Pallieres from 99 and 00 (I think 98 was the changeover year, and I haven't seen it). My St. Cosme's are drinking well enough, but I don't have plans to hold on to them. On the other hand, that and Buissiere are not my faves. Gour de Chaule from that period I think needs to be drunk. Raspail Ay is doing much better, but I wouldn't say that it has improved after it hit age 7 or so. I started attacking my Soumades from that period--mostly Confiances--with a vengeance at age 10 and have no regrets. My Trapadis, both Adres and Harys, from then do bear you out,though. Overall, I would put all these divergences to different tastes in hang time, though I thought I liked my Rhones older than most people.

 

[Cliff]

I'm not surprised to hear that Charvin's turned out well. I'd be curious to try the 2007, or any other vintage, really. I wouldn't judge anything but the character of a vintage from what he does. That is, his 2007's turning out well isn't much of a clue to how others fared.

I have liked my 1995 Beaucastel more than Jonathan, but I wouldn't say it's a great version. The characterization sounds familiar, though. It's denser and more austere than usual, in an appealing way.

I just can't see holding Gigondas longer than CNP. Most open up after about five years or so. Apart from 2003, Buissiere has not impressed me lately; maybe I haven't held them long enough? Raspail-Ay made a spectactular 2001. I thought it had real stuffing and should have bought tons, but I did not and thought they turned out great wines every year. I like them a lot, but no other recent vintage has struck me that way. The 2004, which was dense and austere for awhile, has moved very quickly. I could see les Pallieres doing well with extended cellar time but don't have any experience. Among other satellites, Sang des Cailloux' Lopy does well in the cellar. The 1999 from magnum had barely budged about a year ago. Chateau des Tours also improves much longer than most of its neighbors. Even there, I suspect Jonathan is right that it is no longer lived than most CNP, if in fact it improves as long. The one wine I could imagine having a real long plateau is les Adres: the oldest I've had was 8-10 years old and it wasn't really mature. The 2004 Jonathan and I had last Christmas was closed pretty hard. I'm not as big a fan of Soumade.

 

[BJ]

originally posted by nigel groundwater:

originally posted by BJ:
My feeling is that the only wine from that area that is really short haul is Cairanne. I've never had a great older Cairanne (meaning 12 years+). Rasteau on the other hand can be real long haul too (again my 98-00 Soumade is just way too young).

May I ask which of the 4 Andre Romero [I assume] Rasteau cuvees you are referring to? I finished my 98 Basics and Prestiges some time ago without any sense of infanticide - although they weren't about to fall over then either.

OTOH I haven't touched my 2005 Prestiges yet or my 2004 Confiances.

It might just be a difference in taste in addition to which waiting too long at my age might well mean never. However the Confiance and [particularly] the Fleur de Confiance are bigger and much more expensive wines which need time - which is the main reason I have stopped buying them.

Prestige and Confiance. Last time I checked in they were wholly primary (though I must say now that does not extend to 98, it's a run of 99-01 I have).

 

[BJ]

Well, I'm definitely more a tertiary guy - probably more in the English vein. But even Nigel seems to think I'm overdoing it.

Bear in mind that at least half of those 92-94 S. Rhones I've been throwing out notes on are from the the Cairanne - Vacqueyras crescent, and everyone seemed to think they sounded cool (at least Prof. Loesberg). I don't think I was over hyping them. Which makes me think esp. 99s and 01s from the area would do as least as well.

And I'm not really a Soumade fan either - those bottles are residual to an earlier time.