TN: Occupy Spoof (Mar 17, 2012)

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by MarkS:
Jeff, that's quite a point spread (or "double-plus-good" spread, as the case may be) between the regular and tardive Coudert; I've usually found the spread to be a magnitude of "1" better.

Actually, I am not often a big Coudert fan. (See other threads around here.)

But the Tardive is really amazing.

 

[Jeff Connell]

originally posted by Chris Coad:

originally posted by Yixin:
Seguret is 99% Grenache.

It's that 1% of petit verdot that makes all the difference.

2%

 

[Chris Coad]

originally posted by Jeff Connell:

originally posted by Chris Coad:

originally posted by Yixin:
Seguret is 99% Grenache.

It's that 1% of petit verdot that makes all the difference.

2%

I figured there was some built-in wiggle room on that. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

Brun Cote de Brouilly requires further analysis, got a bottle in the queue for the weekend. It showed little, but in a very intriguing sort of way.

I found this wine very frustrating. In most vintages I like it quite a bit. And, clearly, the 2010 vintage is a-ringing my bells. But not the CdB, and for the second year in a row. Has JP changed something?

So a bottle of this did turn out to be kind of frustrating. There is a black cherry richness and density which requires work. By no means fat or too opulent, but fairly monolithic nevertheless. Brighter on the second day, very focused, vertical, still not very expressive.
Should a young Cote de Brouilly be like this? This is behaving more like a Moulin-a-Vent; CdB is fantastic dirt with good ageing potential, but I think of them as much more stony and more perfumed, even at a young age.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by .sasha:
Should a young Cote de Brouilly be like this?

I think of it as arriving at the table in a pichet and going ::glug::.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by .sasha:
Should a young Cote de Brouilly be like this?

I think of it as arriving at the table in a pichet and going ::glug::.

You are not confusing it with Brouilly by chance ?

Never hurts to eliminate the unlikely.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by .sasha:
You are not confusing it with Brouilly by chance ?

Now that you say it... yes, I am.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by .sasha:
Should a young Cote de Brouilly be like this?

I think of it as arriving at the table in a pichet and going ::glug::.

Anyone try the '10 from Thivin? I am not sure what to make of it. Good wine, a proper CdB with its rocky power, amazing resistance to oxidation; yet, I am failing in my search for the kind of pure sappy fruit we are being spoiled with nowadays, by our favourite Beaujolais producers. Have to add a disclaimer that I have next to no experience with this highly regarded producer, so not sure how the wines typically behave when young.

 

[Steve Edmunds]

Sasha, I liked it just fine, and also felt I was drinking it way too soon (of course). It seems like the pure sappy fruit wants to peek out, and the marvelous structure behind it just won't quite let it go.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

Fwiw, I stumbled across Thivin's CdB in 2005 and was immediately by the way its structure crowded out any trace of the typical Beaujolais fruitiness. I liked the structure, personally, and now, with time and air, a beautiful core of pure cherry fruit flavor is starting to emerge from it.

I haven't tried the '10, but I have acquired some generic faith in the wine-maker.