TN: A disappointing evening of Beaucastel 1995 - 2005.

Brad Kane

Brad Kane
Greg dal Piaz invited a few folks to the Snooth offices last night for a 1995 - 2005 Beaucastel vertical. Greg supplied most of the wine, though a few of us contributed some bottles to the cause and to help limit the hit to his cellar. Unfortunately, the wine gods were angry and on a rampage as we were cursed with an inordinate number of wines that were damaged, or did not show to their full potential. Regardless of how most of the wines showed, many thanks to Greg for his generosity. It should be noted that at least nine of the ten wines were purchased on release. I'm unsure what the story is with the '03.

1995 Chateau de Beaucastel- Chateauneuf-du-Pape - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Chateauneuf-du-Pape
First bottle was corked, a backup bottle was heat damaged. NR (flawed)

1996 Chateau de Beaucastel- Chateauneuf-du-Pape - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Chateauneuf-du-Pape
Corked. NR (flawed)

1997 Chateau de Beaucastel- Chateauneuf-du-Pape - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Chateauneuf-du-Pape
Shows an interesting nose that's full of red fruit, light spice, pine and green olives. I was never a real fan of this vintage on release and, indeed, the wine is showing some faults such as a bit of a hollow mid-palate and is overall is a bit simple and light, but there's a pretty core of raspberry fruit with nice, spice, herb and smoky wood, but not in a harsh way. More like the smoky warmth from a fireplace. Nicely softened, but a bit drying on the finish. B+.

1998 Chateau de Beaucastel- Chateauneuf-du-Pape - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Chateauneuf-du-Pape
One of the wines I was most eager to try given reports over its premature decline over the past few years, which have been borne out in the last two bottles I've tried. Unfortunately, this bottle continues the trend of underperforming bottles. On release and for the next nine years, this was one of my favorite Beaucastels of all time, right up there with the '81, '89 and '90. It had a noticeable thickness to he texture, was loaded with fruit, but was balanced nicely. This bottle, along with the past couple, no longer show that wonderful texture. The wine has lost weight, the black fruit shows a more roasted character and there just aren't as many layers as there used to be on the nose, or palate. While still quite pleasant, it's just a shadow of what it used to be. B+/A-.

1999 Chateau de Beaucastel- Chateauneuf-du-Pape - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Chateauneuf-du-Pape
Like the '97, I was never a big fan of this on release. It has a higher percentage of Mourvedre this vintage, which would normally be a plus for me, but I've always felt this wine was just too lean. This bottle still has that leanness, but with the softness that comes from time, so it's not as objectionable, though the wine could certainly benefit from some more flesh to help balance out the acidity and some of the hardness. Still, while softened, the bottle is showing relatively youthfully and fresh. Some pleasant red fruit with leather, spice, earth and game flavors with a hit of aged tobacco. The Italian wine lovers in the group enjoyed the leanness and austerity more than I did. While I liked it, like a Williamsburg hipster, it's a wine that takes itself a little too seriously. Low A-.

2000 Chateau de Beaucastel- Chateauneuf-du-Pape - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Chateauneuf-du-Pape
Maybe it was the downer mood we were in given how poorly so many of the wines showed already, but while tied for my favorite wine of the night, this bottle didn't show quite as well as others I've had, coming across as a bit more simple than usual, with the alcohol maybe sticking out a touch, though I blame the bottle being a little warmer than it should've been for that. It shows a friendly, easy going and open personality as it always does with plenty of sweet red raspberry, spice and light meat notes. Not one you really think about, but just pop, pour and enjoy. Solid A-.

2001 Chateau de Beaucastel- Chateauneuf-du-Pape - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Chateauneuf-du-Pape
Heat damaged and it should be noted that it had a grey market label on it. A real shame as this vintage is one of my favorites and I was looking forward to checking in on it. NR (flawed)

2003 Chateau de Beaucastel- Chateauneuf-du-Pape - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Chateauneuf-du-Pape
Shows the thick texture and plush mouthfeel that the '98 used to have, but is more red fruited than black fruited and is ultimately rather unbalanced, with the alcohol sticking out way too much and the fruit being a bit one-dimensional. While relatively low in acidity, there is more than I expected. Finish is short and a bit flat. Serviceable, but that's about it and certainly not worth the tariff. B.

2004 Chateau de Beaucastel- Chateauneuf-du-Pape - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Chateauneuf-du-Pape
Corked. NR (flawed)

2005 Chateau de Beaucastel- Chateauneuf-du-Pape - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Chateauneuf-du-Pape
Whoah! What happened here? Brett bomb city and completely surprising given how Beaucastel cleaned up with the '95. This was seriously Bretty at the onset, as in '83, '85 Bretty, both on the nose and palate. Thankfully, with air, the band-aid and poop aromas subsided to reveal a tightly coiled wine that exhibited beautiful balance and savory red fruit, game and spice flavors and aromas. Nice persistence to the wine across the palate and with extended air it took on a distinct coffee note, which seemed a bit unusual. I've had better showings, but this tied with the '00 for my WOTN. Solid A-.
 
Brad, Good grief! What a travesty with great wines!

I vaguely recall that some of the past vintage(s) (perhaps in the '90s) were found to have not shipped in temperature controlled containers. Thus, I have always been careful to check for cork protrusions and soiled labels (neither being foolproof checks).

Even so, as many Beaucastels as I have had over the years and I can't recall any anomalies like you experienced.

[EDITED TO ADD] I have always absolutely loved the '90 (and, of course, the '89).

. . . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Out of curiosity, why were these poured oldest to youngest?

Because that's how we like to roll.

There certainly are arguments for youngest to oldest, but I and others prefer oldest to youngest as a general rule so one may try the wines with the most nuance and complexity before one's palate is fatigued.
 
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
Had the 1990 Beaucastel recently--beautiful bottle, perfect shape, and not a trace of Brett.

I can't recall ever having a bottle of '90 sans Brett. Varying degrees, yes, but always there.
 
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
Had the 1990 Beaucastel recently--beautiful bottle, perfect shape, and not a trace of Brett.

I can't recall ever having a bottle of '90 sans Brett. Varying degrees, yes, but always there.
Can't rule out trace amounts (ppb), but not much beyond that...
 
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Out of curiosity, why were these poured oldest to youngest?

Because that's how we like to roll.

There certainly are arguments for youngest to oldest, but I and others prefer oldest to youngest as a general rule so as you can try the wines with the most nuance and complexity before one's palate is fatigued.
Wine groups I've known have always preferred oldest to young. Poured 01 with Cassoulet, Hoke, Jason, Bree, Anisman a couple of weeks ago., showing well with plenty left to go.
 
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
Had the 1990 Beaucastel recently--beautiful bottle, perfect shape, and not a trace of Brett.

I can't recall ever having a bottle of '90 sans Brett. Varying degrees, yes, but always there.
Can't rule out trace amounts (ppb), but not much beyond that...

Oy. Where's Charles Collins when you need him?
 
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
Had the 1990 Beaucastel recently--beautiful bottle, perfect shape, and not a trace of Brett.

I can't recall ever having a bottle of '90 sans Brett. Varying degrees, yes, but always there.
Correction. The guy who brought the wine said he did pick up some Brett when he first opened it--a sort of high toned metallic note. No horsey notes, however, and certainly not much (if anything) like that at dinner.
 
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Out of curiosity, why were these poured oldest to youngest?

Because that's how we like to roll.

There certainly are arguments for youngest to oldest, but I and others prefer oldest to youngest as a general rule so as you can try the wines with the most nuance and complexity before one's palate is fatigued.
Kane is always bitching about opposition to his opinions on this board, so I declare that older wines first is the proper order of things. He should be happy.
By the way had some 01 Beaucasted with cassoulet the other night, it's drinking well now and will improve.
 
We always want the drama to build toward the end with the oldest wines.

In virtually all of our tastings, including a Margaux tasting from 1800s to current a few years ago with Professor Peynaud, Corinne Mentzelopoulos, etal, we go youngest to oldest.

. . . . . . Pete
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
originally posted by Brad Kane:
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
Had the 1990 Beaucastel recently--beautiful bottle, perfect shape, and not a trace of Brett.

I can't recall ever having a bottle of '90 sans Brett. Varying degrees, yes, but always there.
Can't rule out trace amounts (ppb), but not much beyond that...

Oy. Where's Charles Collins when you need him?

In a serious note, has anyone heard what has become of Charles? He and his wife were extraordinarily hospitable to me back in the day and I've wondered where he ended up after Katrina.

Anyhow, Jamie Goode does not link to any of Charles' original posts, but he does describe his work here. One noteworthy aspect of his analysis is the absence of active Brett cultures in the wine, meaning that the Brett metabolites were likely present from bottling.

I also like his unattributed quote that DAP is "junk food for yeasts."
 
originally posted by Lou Kessler:
Kane is always bitching about opposition to his opinions on this board, so I declare that older wines first is the proper order of things. He should be happy.

Oh, Lou, I was so polite. I was genuinely curious.
 
originally posted by Lou Kessler:
Kane is always bitching about opposition to his opinions on this board, so I declare that older wines first is the proper order of things. He should be happy.

Lou, does this mean we will have to suffer through your 85 Chave after the 83 next time? Twist my arm, please!
 
Back
Top