Can 2002 Sancerre be premoxed?

originally posted by .sasha:
I would not mind seeing a bit more of Hippolyte Reverdy on my table, and, atypically for me in Sancerre, in all three colours. This is also true of T-L; I am not even sure I've seen any of his reds or pinks in the States, but the ones presented in the cellar were right up my alley, bearing the mark of a light hand.
Click to expand...

I agree, I think he's a great producer. I haven't had the rose but I really enjoy the red.
 
So another 2002 T-L Buster last night was pretty far down the road. It went into the saute.

Another 2002 LHL sec was a bit advanced, but revived after a decant.

And a 2000 Clos des Briords was pristine.

Go figure.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
Go figure.
Click to expand...

1990 Abtsberg Spatlese Trocken was lovely yesterday evening, but not as pristine as the bottle was had in October.

Go figure!
 
Hmmm 2000....1990....anyone want to yank the chain harder in a Sancerre premox thread.

However I opened a Thomas Labaille Aristides 2011 on Friday and a 2011 Authentique today just for tasting purposes. I didn't pay attention to the cork in the Atistides but was immediately struck by the DIAM3 in the 2011 Authentique.
 
originally posted by nigel groundwater:
Hmmm 2000....1990....anyone want to yank the chain harder in a Sancerre premox thread.
Click to expand...

how hard could I be yanking it with a 1990 Ruwer?

But quickly putting on my other hat, the difficulty (albeit not an impossibility) is to distinguish a pre-moxed bottle from one too advanced for its age, be it due to natural causes ( e.g. botrytis in a 2001 Raveneau ) or irresponsible sailors in the Panama canal. One thing about slightly cooked bottles is that they typically show a uniform deterioration of the wine - finish, aromatics, insufficient fruit cover over structure, loose definition, etc., while this is often not the case in the early stages of pre-mox.
 
One could object to various things in that article.

If one were willing to be sucked in.

But one is stronger than that.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Teh Clivester:

This is where the change in the sort of wine produced today comes in. They are lighter, they mature quicker, they contain less sulphur. They are therefore less protected. They will oxidize sooner. Wines are offered for tasting earlier, and so it is self-defeating to bottle them with the sort of sulphur content we used in the 1970s. They would not attract any sales. It would be idiotic to expect today's wine to be both delicious at a year and a half and to hold up for 15 years thereafter. Something has to give. I regret that it seems to be the ageing potential of the wine.
Click to expand...

One could object to various things in that article.

If one were willing to be sucked in.

But one is stronger than that.
Click to expand...

one is indeed an iron dude.

are there cliffs notes for teh clive? i'm not even smart enough to make sense out of that shit.

fb.
 
originally posted by richard slicker:

are there cliffs notes for teh clive? i'm not even smart enough to make sense out of that shit.

fb.
Click to expand...
You have to adopt a UC British insouciance about the details, and you will skate on through.
 
As Joe said, one could find many things to object to. The idea that all Burgundy is shipped to the US in reefers, for example. But one has better things to do with one's time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top