Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
I passed on the query to a friend who knows the Rinaldis and their answer was that the Langhe Nebbiolo grapes are all from young vines in Barolo, mostly from the Ravera parcel, next to their home.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CWD: 2018 Southern Jeebus Part 1 wines w/multi-course
- Thread starter VLM
- Start date
I passed on the query to a friend who knows the Rinaldis and their answer was that the Langhe Nebbiolo grapes are all from young vines in Barolo, mostly from the Ravera parcel, next to their home.
Mike Evans
Mike Evans
originally posted by MLipton:
Wow, guys, fantastic lineup of wines and great notes. Thanks so much for the writeups. VLM, that menu looks phenomenal as well. Any thoughts about the food/wine interactions?
Mark Lipton
The food was excellent and went well with the wines. I thought the 1985 worked best with the first course, but the rich and flavorful broth brought out something different in each wine. The third course was probably my favorite pairing and the zingy 2002 was particularly nice with the pheasant. Nathan had talked up the hazelnuts, but they may have surpassed expectations. I realize in hindsight that it has been a long time since I’ve had a hazelnut that wasn’t at least a little rancid.
Mike Evans
Mike Evans
As a side note on the Rinaldis, looking back over my pictures from Friday night, the 1982 and 1985 were Brunate Riservas (the designation is on the neck label), the 1990 was also a Brunate Riserva with the designation on the face label, the 2006 was the Cannubi S. Lorenzo - Ravera bottling, and with one possible exception the other vintages were all labeled as Brunate - Le Coste.
The exception is the 1996, which just has Barolo on the label (and was my favorite in its flight). The picture I took only includes the vintage label and front label so I'm not sure if there was a neck label showing a different designation. The label also matches the image of the 1995 Barolo at Ken Vastola's fairly comprehensive chart (http://finewinegeek.com/rinaldig/), not the labels of the 1996 Brunate - Le Coste or Cannubi S. Lorenzo - Ravera that Ken has images of, but Ken doesn't show that Rinaldi made a 1996 Barolo normale. Maybe someone else has a picture or more information that will clear up the mystery.
I want to be clear that this post is just an expression of curiosity tinged by pedantry and should not be interpreted as any form of complaint with or criticism toward Jamie, Nathan, Rue Cler, the Rinaldi family and estate, the politburo, or any other person or entity, whether animal, vegetable, mineral, or of non-specific classification, real or imaginary, living or deceased, past, present, future, or existing outside the space-time continuum that I perceive.
The exception is the 1996, which just has Barolo on the label (and was my favorite in its flight). The picture I took only includes the vintage label and front label so I'm not sure if there was a neck label showing a different designation. The label also matches the image of the 1995 Barolo at Ken Vastola's fairly comprehensive chart (http://finewinegeek.com/rinaldig/), not the labels of the 1996 Brunate - Le Coste or Cannubi S. Lorenzo - Ravera that Ken has images of, but Ken doesn't show that Rinaldi made a 1996 Barolo normale. Maybe someone else has a picture or more information that will clear up the mystery.
I want to be clear that this post is just an expression of curiosity tinged by pedantry and should not be interpreted as any form of complaint with or criticism toward Jamie, Nathan, Rue Cler, the Rinaldi family and estate, the politburo, or any other person or entity, whether animal, vegetable, mineral, or of non-specific classification, real or imaginary, living or deceased, past, present, future, or existing outside the space-time continuum that I perceive.
originally posted by Rahsaan:
We did it againNight 2 was another success. Everything showed well and was at least very good. Not sure if anyone took notes. Or even noted all the bottles!
Some of the more interesting drinks for me were the 2006 Rougeard Poyeux and Bourg. My heyday of drinking Rougeard was around 2002-2005, when I had easy/cheap access to 89, 90 and the mid-90s vintages, plus the recent releases. At the time, I thought they were polished full-bodied (even chocolatey in the ripe vintages) versions of Saumur that married Bordeaux-Saumur elements. Last night, the two 06s made me think more of Burgundy, with ripeness married to such seamless gentle elegance. Very nice.
Otherwise, everyone was excited to taste the 1999 Clos Rougeard l'Orphelin rose which was a generous contribution from Michael and definitely curious, if not mindblowing.
Those two reds both showed excellently, very composed versions of themselves, with the Poyeux showing a bit more plushness than I associate with this wine (I find it the most linear of the three reds). It's a shame that these wines have grown even more cultish. It's nice to be able to drink them without fetishizing the experience.
The rosé, OTOH, was a completely fetishistic experience. It was all nose and a palate like rainwater. I doubt I'll ever try it again, so it was a real intellectual treat. Stephanie was quite taken with it.
I really enjoyed the 1997 Bongran Macon Clessé Cuvée Tradition Sélection E.J. Thévenet from Mike, mainly because I so rarely drink that style of wine. Succulent and harmonious. Nathan complained about it being too old, but it still had plenty of vigor for my tastes.
Complain is unfair, I was really excited to try it but found it a little long in the tooth for my personal preferences. Stephanie loved it. I just think I would have liked it a bit better a few years ago. I felt the same way about a 2002 we had while in France.
Mike also treated us to the 1995 Denis Azay-le-Rideau Sec which never quite got around to offering me pleasure, but it was certainly fun to smell and taste that unique expression. I believe others got even more from it.
I'm one of those others. I loved this wine and have always had a soft spot for it. Incidentally, I had a wine from someone who has some of the Denis vines at Matthieu Baudry's wine bar in Chinon. It was quite good, if not the same intense monster.
I was happy that my 2009 Rebholz Kastanienbusch Riesling seemed to go over well. It's a full-bodied golden vintage but expressed through the focused and direct Rebholz prism. It was my last bottle and probably my favorite showing.
I thought this showed well. What is the soil here? It had a kind of saltiness under the fruit that I can't quite place. Flint?
Jamie waved the flag for Piedmont with 2007 Accomasso Barolo Rocchette Riserva and I believe we were all impressed. Ripe fleshy year but with clarity to the flavors and the structure.
I liked this a lot more than I expected to. I thought it might be a bit too old school and rustic in all the wrong ways since people are trying to make these wines a thing now by championing the lack of technique. I really liked the shape of the wine and the balance with the fruit.
A couple of Burgundies floated and unfortunately we never got the best of a reductive 2005 Tremblay Les Feusselottes but the 1998 Mugneret-Gibourg Ruchottes-Chambertin was really in the zone, at least for my palate.
It was a shame about the Tremblay since I urged Michael to bring it. Really, though, we had a low flaw rate for the weekend (with notable exceptions).
The Ruchottes was good, but will never be a great wine. I was taken in by the narrative of the low yields form the diseased old vines. It is a very good wine, but I think I drink it with overly high expectations.
A compelling debate swirled all night about whether the 1997 Domaine Filliatreau Saumur-Champigny Cuvée Buster was corked. Probably best left to Nathan and Michael to sort out. For me, it was not corked, but just a frank cabernet franc in all its glory, and quite the contrast to the 06 Rougeards.
This was most definitely corked.
There were also some 08 Ledru Champagnes. First the Cuvée du Goulté which was less my style than the Brut Nature. But I will leave it to the champagne geeks to hash out the minutiae.
There is something utterly unique about the wines. The power of the Ambonnay pinot I suppose.
originally posted by Mike Evans:
Saturday lunch, which lasted pretty much until Saturday dinner, was a treat. I missed the details on the Champagne, but enjoyed it. The 1997, 2005, and 2009 Clos Roche Blanche Côt were each outstanding in their own ways, and Michael’s 2002 Huet Vouvray Petillant Reserve was fresh and delicious without even a hint of premox. The 2000 Domaine de la Pépière Muscadet de Sèvre-et-Maine Sur Lie was in a sweet spot for me, with some roundness and nuttiness from age but with a fresh citrus twist and mineral foundation and a little funky potpourri florality. It illustrated that Nathan and I like the same wines but can prefer them at different stages.
In some ways, the CRB Côt vertical was the highlight of the weekend. The wines are just so compelling and all three showed well. It's also nice to be able to open these with people who properly appreciate them. I regret bottles I've wasted on people who didn't get it or didn't care.
2002 Huet was definitely on and in a good spot.
The 2000 Pépière showed well, just a bit old for my personal tastes. This is where preference is really interesting because I think we agree on the profile and everything, we are just looking for different things.
We should make this an annual habit.
I thought this showed well. What is the soil here? It had a kind of saltiness under the fruit that I can't quite place. Flint?
A quick search for the vineyard site stated: Kastanienbusch soils include Rotliegendes (an iron-rich, red soil mixture of slaty clay and sandstone).
georg lauer
georg lauer
originally posted by mark e:
I thought this showed well. What is the soil here? It had a kind of saltiness under the fruit that I can't quite place. Flint?
A quick search for the vineyard site stated: Kastanienbusch soils include Rotliegendes (an iron-rich, red soil mixture of slaty clay and sandstone).
Indeed. The Kastanienbusch is the only vineyard in the Pfalz that has this soil, afaik.
The winery writes:
This slate gets the red color from its high iron content. “Rotliegendes” is the oldest time of Perm, which began 299 Million years ago and ended 257 Million years ago. Perm is the end of Paleozoic.
Through the irruption of Rhine rift 45 Million years ago earth crust broke into lamellar segments. The edges of the rift fanned out into different layers and the shoulders formed mountains (Schwarzwald, Vogesen and Pfälzer Wald). In some areas the oldest deepest parts came to the top. This the reason for those very old soils in sites like Kastanienbusch at the bottom of Hohenberg, while the top of the mountain contains much younger soils like sandstone.
Typical for Rieslings from red slate are hints of hay, herbs and the significant mineratily of slate. Wines from this soil need time, to develop their full potential.
originally posted by georg lauer:
Indeed. The Kastanienbusch is the only vineyard in the Pfalz that has this soil, afaik...
Typical for Rieslings from red slate are hints of hay, herbs and the significant mineratily of slate. Wines from this soil need time, to develop their full potential.
Any thoughts on aging potential of the Rebholz Kastanienbusch vs. the Sonnenschein wines? I've dabbled in the various riesling GGs from assorted vintages 2009 and afterwards. Cannot really claim to have a comprehensive understanding, but I find the Kastanienbusch to be broader and more powerful. What that means for aging potential/trajectory, I cannot say. But they are all delicious!!
georg lauer
georg lauer
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by georg lauer:
Indeed. The Kastanienbusch is the only vineyard in the Pfalz that has this soil, afaik...
Typical for Rieslings from red slate are hints of hay, herbs and the significant mineratily of slate. Wines from this soil need time, to develop their full potential.
Any thoughts on aging potential of the Rebholz Kastanienbusch vs. the Sonnenschein wines? I've dabbled in the various riesling GGs from assorted vintages 2009 and afterwards. Cannot really claim to have a comprehensive understanding, but I find the Kastanienbusch to be broader and more powerful. What that means for aging potential/trajectory, I cannot say. But they are all delicious!!
Good question. I have drank a lot of the three different GGs over the years and at different ages, but not looked into it systematically. Somehow I always buy quite a bit more Kastanienbusch compared to Sonnenschein and Ganzhorn, despite it being the more powerful and broader wine, which is usually not my style. I think it is because the vineyard and the resulting wine is so different from the rest of Pfalz. Talking to HJ Rebholz he clearly thinks that it differs from vintage to vintage which one is his favorite/might last longer.
I guess I will try a horizontal of an older vintage some time soon as I just realized that I have never done this before.
originally posted by georg lauer:
Somehow I always buy quite a bit more Kastanienbusch compared to Sonnenschein and Ganzhorn, despite it being the more powerful and broader wine, which is usually not my style. I think it is because the vineyard and the resulting wine is so different from the rest of Pfalz.
The Sonnenschein wines are also standouts in the Pfalz, with such raciness. I think that is one reason that Rebholz has touched me so much, because it is an 'extreme' focused/restrained/fresh (all things I usually like) interpretation of the Pfalz.
georg lauer
georg lauer
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by georg lauer:
Somehow I always buy quite a bit more Kastanienbusch compared to Sonnenschein and Ganzhorn, despite it being the more powerful and broader wine, which is usually not my style. I think it is because the vineyard and the resulting wine is so different from the rest of Pfalz.
The Sonnenschein wines are also standouts in the Pfalz, with such raciness. I think that is one reason that Rebholz has touched me so much, because it is an 'extreme' focused/restrained/fresh (all things I usually like) interpretation of the Pfalz.
I do like them all as well. It is the winery I have the most wine of. My first time visit in 1997 was because they had the broadest portfolio of the top producers in the region. And I still love their Pinot Blancs, Muskateller, Pinot Noir, BdN, even Gewürztraminer, just as much as the Rieslings (though the reds are a bit less reliable).