Had some Clos du Tue Boeuf tonight, 2013 rose. Those guys don't always make a rose. Actually, I can't remember the last one. But in 2013, they just got creamed, and they made a rose of a lot of their gamay and grolleau. Rain at harvest, all the troubles, it wasn't going to be a vintage for red. So they made this rose. Which is actually very pretty, pale and delicate strawberry. And 10% on the label, though Thierry told me it was really 9.5%, their lowest ever.
This is a wine that Clark Smith (and many, many other people) would certainly have been available to "fix." There are many solutions that would have produced a different wine, one that might do better in a blind tasting, one that would be more powerful. But clearly, Thierry and Jean-Marie didn't "fix" this wine. They didn't chaptalize it up to 12%, they didn't thermovinify it, they didn't R/O it to concentrate it. They played the hand they were dealt, and they made a wine of character and interest, that reflected the best face of a very difficult vintage.
This wine is easier to appreciate if you have context for it, know what it is, understand it, and maybe know something about the growers and the vintage. It is the antithesis of the "what's in the glass" school. This wine is plenty tasty on its own, but you could overlook it or misunderstand it if you didn't know the story. And the story is an honest one.
It reminds me and my dining companion of the rose that Ted Lemon made in the big fire vintage of 2008. He could have done some R/O, maybe some charcoal, maybe some thermovinification and flash vacuum, cleaned up the wine. If he'd made red from a lot of those grapes, done a good extraction, they probably would have had too much of the BBQ about them, and you might really have wished that he'd reached for the vacuum flash thingy. Instead, he pressed quickly off the skins and made a rose that accurately reflected the vintage. The wine recalls the crazy fires of that summer.
So again, if you knew nothing, went only by "what is in the glass," you would have experienced a wine with a "flaw." For me, what you have in both these cases is context and interest, what makes wine more fun than many decent beverages manufactured to spec. The context carries into the enjoyment.
Of course, it is even more true if you know the winemakers and have that much more understanding of why they made their choices, why the wines are unusual for them and taste the way they do. But when I taste a wine like that, I lift a glass to a winemaker who has done a lot more for me than make something to wash down dinner--they've brought me to a specific time and place, and a specific cultural context. All the points and blind tastings in the world will never get you there.
This is a wine that Clark Smith (and many, many other people) would certainly have been available to "fix." There are many solutions that would have produced a different wine, one that might do better in a blind tasting, one that would be more powerful. But clearly, Thierry and Jean-Marie didn't "fix" this wine. They didn't chaptalize it up to 12%, they didn't thermovinify it, they didn't R/O it to concentrate it. They played the hand they were dealt, and they made a wine of character and interest, that reflected the best face of a very difficult vintage.
This wine is easier to appreciate if you have context for it, know what it is, understand it, and maybe know something about the growers and the vintage. It is the antithesis of the "what's in the glass" school. This wine is plenty tasty on its own, but you could overlook it or misunderstand it if you didn't know the story. And the story is an honest one.
It reminds me and my dining companion of the rose that Ted Lemon made in the big fire vintage of 2008. He could have done some R/O, maybe some charcoal, maybe some thermovinification and flash vacuum, cleaned up the wine. If he'd made red from a lot of those grapes, done a good extraction, they probably would have had too much of the BBQ about them, and you might really have wished that he'd reached for the vacuum flash thingy. Instead, he pressed quickly off the skins and made a rose that accurately reflected the vintage. The wine recalls the crazy fires of that summer.
So again, if you knew nothing, went only by "what is in the glass," you would have experienced a wine with a "flaw." For me, what you have in both these cases is context and interest, what makes wine more fun than many decent beverages manufactured to spec. The context carries into the enjoyment.
Of course, it is even more true if you know the winemakers and have that much more understanding of why they made their choices, why the wines are unusual for them and taste the way they do. But when I taste a wine like that, I lift a glass to a winemaker who has done a lot more for me than make something to wash down dinner--they've brought me to a specific time and place, and a specific cultural context. All the points and blind tastings in the world will never get you there.