TN: 2005 Morgon, Lapierre

originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Brian C:
A Lapierre MMIX a couple months ago was the most undrinkable wine I've had in quite some time. Perhaps just a function of trying to make that cuvee in that type of vintage.

As far as aging goes, I still quite like good old L'Ancien with some years on them. I still think its hands down the best value in Beaujolais.

N or S?

S
 
I recently had a 76 and an 89 from Barbet and found them to have aged as well as chateau des jacques in a similar time frame, but far more interesting.

Not sure how Lapierre made its way back into the conversation when I said clearly that I fully agree on their inability to age (in fact, I don't even care for them young anymore). If one is strongly attached to the gang of four but wants to keep bottles forever then yes - a change in style is required, and something like Barbet would already represent a significant shift.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
So my point is that even many of the interesting wine-board-worthy things in these categories are at their high point in the young-and-fresh stage, to a greater extent than is the case in other categories.

P.S. My view on this when it comes to riesling is admittedly a bit controversial. My view on this when it comes to Beaujolais wouldn't be controversial anywhere but here.

Ok, I get what you are saying. Obviously individual preferences can lean toward young and fresh riesling. I assume you mean off-dry versions, the dry wines don't give nearly as much in the young and fresh stage IMHO. But at least you acknowledge that denying the virtues of aged riesling is controversial (and probably wrong)!
 
Another positive result from this thread is that I am hearing about Barbet for the first time. Something to look out for.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
Another positive result from this thread is that I am hearing about Barbet for the first time. Something to look out for.

I am usually not into red wine with cheese at all, but do try Billards St Amour with a decent Mont d'Or.
 
originally posted by Brian C:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Brian C:
A Lapierre MMIX a couple months ago was the most undrinkable wine I've had in quite some time. Perhaps just a function of trying to make that cuvee in that type of vintage.

As far as aging goes, I still quite like good old L'Ancien with some years on them. I still think its hands down the best value in Beaujolais.

N or S?

S

does Cuvee Marcel come in S and N?
 
originally posted by Pavel Tchichikov:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Of the Go5, in my experience, Chamonard ages best. The 97 and 98 are drinking beautifully.

I am sorry, to use a quote from Tin Cup, Go4 and Chamonard do not collide in the same sentence - as much as I am sure Go4 would like to think otherwise. Or for that matter, their importer(s).

Opinions differ.
 
Good thoughts here. I generally don't even lump Desvignes or Jadot into the category of "Beaujolais" given their vinification difference - Joe D once berated me here for using the term "Burgundian" so I'll avoid it - and if I'm honest, I don't love those wines either, as they seem to take away their exuberance and into something more like a dense, high quality Touraine Gamay. One of the wonders of semi-carbonic vinification is the accelerated aging profile - a decade plus or minus does the trick.

Of course other nice agers are Coudert, Chermette, Jean Paul's crus, Pavillon de Chavannes...anything with balance and acid. I'm never quite sure what to make of Thivin - it always feels a little hard to me, but I wonder if a lot of patience would yield something special.

I would not agree that Lapierre won't age, at least Marcel's...about 15 years ago we drank our way back about 15 years with him at the domain, and it was one of the coolest, most sublime, and interesting wine experiences I've had. Everything stood up, each a completely interesting yet different wine.

BTW, the 16 Lapierre Julienas is fairly glorious, with nary a hint of brett, at least here in Jet City.
 
originally posted by BJ:
I'm never quite sure what to make of Thivin - it always feels a little hard to me, but I wonder if a lot of patience would yield something special.

Thivin is one of the most underrated Beaujolais producers out there. Pure and sappy without over-extraction. I'll take Claude Geoffray's Cote de Brouilly over Foillard's Cote du Py every time. But I am also of the opinion that a little too much carbonic maceration is way too much carbonic maceration (not that this is an issue with Foillard, see Coquelet).

I was chatting with Thibault Liger-Belair a few months ago. He has an operation in Moulin-a-Vent and even his Beaujolais-Villages is vinified without carbonic maceration with the intention of fully expressing terroir.
Thibault cited Thivin as his personal favorite producer. The stylistic connections are clear.
 
Liger-Belair makes a terrific vignes centenaires Moulin-a-Vent that I believe is partially pre-phylloxera, and would definitely be on my short list for cellaring... wish it were cheaper though.
 
originally posted by Todd Abrams:

Thivin is one of the most underrated Beaujolais producers out there. Pure and sappy without over-extraction. I'll take Claude Geoffray's Cote de Brouilly over Foillard's Cote du Py every time.

Maybe I haven't been able to properly understand/appreciate the Thivin wines, but they never seem to move me like Foillard (probably because I started out drinking Beaujolais w Foillard, so much of this is personal emotion and history).

But my loss is your gain, because Thivin is roughly half the price of Foillard.
 
originally posted by Todd Abrams:
I was chatting with Thibault Liger-Belair a few months ago. He has an operation in Moulin-a-Vent and even his Beaujolais-Villages is vinified without carbonic maceration with the intention of fully expressing terroir.

This idea that carbonic expresses terroir less than conventional, which I've seen elsewhere, may be a "user illusion".
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by Todd Abrams:
I was chatting with Thibault Liger-Belair a few months ago. He has an operation in Moulin-a-Vent and even his Beaujolais-Villages is vinified without carbonic maceration with the intention of fully expressing terroir.

This idea that carbonic expresses terroir less than conventional, which I've seen elsewhere, may be a "user illusion".

Perhaps. I believe it's an issue of balance. I've certainly had a fair share of Cru Beaujolais with carbonic being the overwhelming characteristic of the wine.

To your point, recent vintages of Maxime Magnon's Rozeta from old vine carignan in Corbieres/Fitou is worth consideration here. It's both clearly semi-carbonic and Mediterranean. In my experience the level of carbonic maceration has changed over time. Presumably in a quest for the proper balance.

I personally do not mind a shift to "Burgundian" techniques in Beaujolais. But I couldn't tell you if it's because I prefer blackberries over strawberries or there is something more to the idea of carbonic masking terroir.
 
I recall a conversation with Jules Dressner at a Real Wine Attack in Chicago. On the topic of CM, he said he wasn’t a fan because all the wines tasted the same to him. I have memories of CM wines from other regions of France that were totally marked by CM character. That was all 5 or so years ago, so producers may well have learned how to tone it down.

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Bill Lundstrom:
originally posted by Brian C:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Brian C:
A Lapierre MMIX a couple months ago was the most undrinkable wine I've had in quite some time. Perhaps just a function of trying to make that cuvee in that type of vintage.

As far as aging goes, I still quite like good old L'Ancien with some years on them. I still think its hands down the best value in Beaujolais.

N or S?

S

does Cuvee Marcel come in S and N?

I'm actually not sure. I replied without checking first as mine was bought in Washington state and we don't get the un-sulphured versions of any of his bottlings.
 
i looked at the bottles i have and there is an "S" designation on the back label of the Cuvee Marcels. Which doesn't mean there are "N" bottlings but perhaps there are.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Larry Stein:
I have a bottle of 2009 "N" in the drinking queue. As I have four bottles, I'm going to try it much sooner than later.
Had one a few months ago, it was DOA.

Opened that bottle of '09 N on Monday with 9 other wine geeks. It started off a bit murky and seemed a touch too ripe. However, enough acidity appeared to balance everything out. It was quite delicious and was a hit with the other folks. It was definitely a drink-now wine so I'll drink my remaining bottles in the near-term. It'll be interesting to see if all the other bottles are as good as this one.
 
originally posted by Larry Stein:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Larry Stein:
I have a bottle of 2009 "N" in the drinking queue. As I have four bottles, I'm going to try it much sooner than later.
Had one a few months ago, it was DOA.

Opened that bottle of '09 N on Monday with 9 other wine geeks. It started off a bit murky and seemed a touch too ripe. However, enough acidity appeared to balance everything out. It was quite delicious and was a hit with the other folks. It was definitely a drink-now wine so I'll drink my remaining bottles in the near-term. It'll be interesting to see if all the other bottles are as good as this one.

Interesting, Larry. I’ve stayed clear of my 09s to let the ripeness subside. Maybe it’s time to crack one or two. I’m pretty sure that I don’t have any Lapierre though: that was the year that the Parker bored “discovered” Beaujolais and all the Lapierre vanished from the shelves locally.

Mark Lipton
 
Back
Top