Bernard Gripa St. Joseph 'Le Berceau' 2005

originally posted by SFJoe:
Contemporaneous JLL reports 15-20% new wood as typical of the reds (Wines of the Northern Rhone, 2005).

I wonder if there might have been more for the fancy cuvee in '05?
Click to expand...

Correct -- I had just skimmed and took that paragraph as referring to the whites, but it was to the reds. 15-20% is fairly common, maybe even standard, in recent times (at least up to the last time I was in the region, which was a few years back) for producers who are not in the new wood camp. My experiences are that up to about 20% (25%, maybe 30%, if demi-muids are being used) new oak is not really noticeable in the finished wine. Of course, quality of oak and cooper is also a big issue. I've found François Frères to be the most satisfactory to me for Syrah.
 
originally posted by mlawton:
This is not the first time, or the first person who has perceived new oak flavor in this wine. A quick check of the archives shows that this particular bottling and vintage has been "flagged" at least twice in the past by two different people other than the current source. Each time, it's been explained as something that isn't new oak tasting like new oak.

The general premise that something else can masquerade as oak in a Northern Rhone syrah is certainly plausible - but the fact that this particular wine keeps coming up in this context seems a bit beyond coincidental.
Click to expand...
Mike -- I think it's clear that several people have not liked the wine. I don't think your conclusion that it's because of excessive new oak can be called anything more than speculation, especially given the confusion that many people have in finding new oak where there isn't any in Syrah wines.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
My experiences are that up to about 20% (25%, maybe 30%, if demi-muids are being used) new oak is not really noticeable in the finished wine.
Click to expand...

Not my experience.

And I'm curious, Claude, why you don't just post your tasting note for the wine rather than making oblique references to it? Phrases such as "My notes also include discussion of winemaking regime . . ." seem odd. Again, it would be more interesting if you just told us what they are.
 
No pay wall -- yet another example of people here making up their own reality. Does that spill over into your politics as it so often does with others these days? ;-)

My published tasting notes do not necessarily include my full notes on how the wine was made.

Moreover, understand that I have no interest in whether people like the wine or not; my interest is in accuracy for why they don't like it. I've just seen too many careless and/or uniformed comments that don't comprehend what happened -- again, whether people like or dislike the wine is indifferent to me.

Published in 2007 following a visit to the cellar in spring 2007 (sorry, I doubt that the format will come through):

2005 SAINT-JOSEPH (W) 91/A
2005 SAINT-JOSEPH LE BERCEAU (W) 90/A
2006 SAINT-JOSEPH (W) (87-90)
2006 SAINT-JOSEPH LE BERCEAU (W) (89-92)
2005 ST-JOSEPH (R) 90/A
2005 SAINT-JOSEPH LE BERCEAU (R) 92/A
2006 SAINT-JOSEPH (R) (89-93)
2006 SAINT-JOSEPH LE BERCEAU (R) (91-95)
Gripa has long had a justly-deserved reputation as one of the
finest producers of St-Joseph, both in red and in white. He has
two wines in each color, a regular, and one labeled le Berceau
that consists largely or entirely of grapes from old vines in the
St-Joseph lieu-dit (berceau means cradle, and as the appellation
took its name from that lieu-dit, it is the cradle of the appellation).
The 2005 white has acacia and apricot blossom aromas.
Compared Gripa’s St-Péray below, it is stonier and more mineral,
and shows a smooth silky texture. Unusually, and to my
delight, I also find lavender flavors! The 2005 white Berceau,
from vines in the St-Joseph lieu-dit dating to the 1920s and
1980s and a little from vines dating to the 1950s in the Peygros
lieu-dit, is entirely of Marsanne, 20% fermented and raised in
new oak. The wine shows a honeyed, acacia nose, followed in
the mouth by richness, purity, and honeyed flavors, but no
heaviness. In its richness, it is typical of the style of 2005. The
2006 white again is more mineral than the St-Péray, and also
rounder and fleshier, with some honey flavors to complement
the minerality and no sign of heaviness. The 2006 Berceau
white shows fine acidity and dense lime flavors with complexity.
It should be an outstanding wine. Gripa’s 2005 red is dense,
powerful, chewy, and smooth with dark fruits flavors and some
minerality. It will need a few years in the bottle until it begins to
show its best. The 2005 red Berceau, entirely from old vines in
the St-Joseph lieu-dit, is still closed in the nose, but in the mouth
shows purity, minerality, dark fruit, and fine structure. I would
wait to 2012 to begin drinking this gem. As good as Gripa’s
2005s are, the 2006s look to be a step up in quality. These
clearly are wines to stock up on, should you manage to find
them. The various casks I tasted for the 2006 red showed intense
violet aromas and flavors with precise dark fruits, minerality,
and good underlying structure. As good as those wines
were, the 2006 red Berceau appears to be even more special,
with finesse and clarity to its dark fruit, and an overall harmony
making it a Mozart of a wine.
 
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
My experiences are that up to about 20% (25%, maybe 30%, if demi-muids are being used) new oak is not really noticeable in the finished wine.
Click to expand...

Not my experience.

And I'm curious, Claude, why you don't just post your tasting note for the wine rather than making oblique references to it? Phrases such as "My notes also include discussion of winemaking regime . . ." seem odd. Again, it would be more interesting if you just told us what they are.
Click to expand...

What's your experience, Mark?

How many days have you spent in Northern Rhône cellars over the years?

How often do/did you visit?

Who have you visited?

Do you speak English or French with them (it makes a big difference, in many cases)?

Do you visit on your own or with an importer or an importer's representative?
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Is there any place where people don't make up their own reality?
Click to expand...

i think it depends on the language one speaks with reality. and whether one visits with an importer, or as a pleb.

fb.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
My experiences are that up to about 20% (25%, maybe 30%, if demi-muids are being used) new oak is not really noticeable in the finished wine.
Click to expand...

Not my experience.

And I'm curious, Claude, why you don't just post your tasting note for the wine rather than making oblique references to it? Phrases such as "My notes also include discussion of winemaking regime . . ." seem odd. Again, it would be more interesting if you just told us what they are.
Click to expand...

What's your experience, Mark?

How many days have you spent in Northern Rhône cellars over the years?

How often do/did you visit?

Who have you visited?

Do you speak English or French with them (it makes a big difference, in many cases)?

Do you visit on your own or with an importer or an importer's representative?
Click to expand...

Thanks, Claude, for posting the note. Am I mistaken, or is your tone a tad aggressive?

In any case, I was only referring to my experience tasting wine in general and, yes, being able to detect when small percentages of new oak were present. That's all.
 
My recollection is that the spendier cuvée has more new oak. I visited as a potential importer, spoke very (very!) bad French, and spent more time in the vineyard than in the cellar. Sorry, I have no tasting notes of the wine.
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
I don't understand your point, .sasha. In my experience, it was 1997 that convinced producers of the existence of global warming (and that riper was not always better), not 2005. But either way, I fail to see your connection of 2005 to Brézème's comment, which has to do with new oak. As I indicated above, my notes and the comments of Norman and Livingstone-Learmonth do not indicate that there is ANY new oak on the Gripa's reds.
Click to expand...

1997 - yes, that makes a lot of sense and parallels my experience with Bordeaux. But who is to say all questions were answered and all adjustments were made by 2005. That is, in cases where adjustments were even deemed necessary.

I can't follow this thread. Some of you are saying this 2005 has some new oak, others say it don't. Others are saying neither, but are adding to general confusion nonetheless. And then some of you are fat.

But if there is any new oak, the connection with Eric's post could not be more direct. Perception of new oak, even in reasonable quantities, was blown out of proportion in the late 90s with (and please forgive a gross oversimplification of providing only two high level factors) riper grapes with lower acidity. I will be very careful here and say that this perception may have been limited to early years after bottling; this yet remains to be seen in many cases.
 
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
My experiences are that up to about 20% (25%, maybe 30%, if demi-muids are being used) new oak is not really noticeable in the finished wine.
Click to expand...

Not my experience.

And I'm curious, Claude, why you don't just post your tasting note for the wine rather than making oblique references to it? Phrases such as "My notes also include discussion of winemaking regime . . ." seem odd. Again, it would be more interesting if you just told us what they are.
Click to expand...

What's your experience, Mark?

How many days have you spent in Northern Rhône cellars over the years?

How often do/did you visit?

Who have you visited?

Do you speak English or French with them (it makes a big difference, in many cases)?

Do you visit on your own or with an importer or an importer's representative?
Click to expand...

Thanks, Claude, for posting the note. Am I mistaken, or is your tone a tad aggressive?

In any case, I was only referring to my experience tasting wine in general and, yes, being able to detect when small percentages of new oak were present. That's all.
Click to expand...

Let's call it (more than) a tad frustrated.

I've written several posts in this thread and many in many other threads pointing out errors by people who claim to detect over-use of new oak on Syrah-based wines where, in many cases, there is no new oak, and in others, there is but very little. Obviously, there is a confusion of new oak with other characteristics. You've completely ignored this line of discussion, which questions the correctness of perceptions of new oak, and assumed the answer, that is, that your perceptions are correct. I've come back and asked how you know your perceptions are correct and that what you are calling new oak is not something else that resembles new oak. Until you can answer this question, your observation of new oak is meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top