Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by Tristan Welles:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by VLM:
I haven't had a ton of the reds but I was surprised that the Charpentrie was lighter in weight and more incisive than the Ripaille, but they were 2013 and 2015 respectively, so it could have been vintage too. What was the difference? Really just starting in my understanding of the reds. I feel like I have a better grasp of the whites.
Translated my notes:
2009 Domaine Collier (Antoine Foucault) Saumur Rouge La Ripaille 13.0%
Served slightly cold, beautiful, classic aromas, predominantly leather and tapenade. Exemplary structure. Light tannins, ideal weight and balance. No oak or VA. Still very young, in the primaries and secondaries. One of those wines that immediately grabs you with its classiness and the pleasure it gives.
2009 Domaine Collier (Antoine Foucault) Saumur Rouge La Charpentrie 13.0%
Also served slightly cold, on the closed side, showing elegant fruit (blackberries), but no leather and tapenade. Good, but less so, and different from Ripaille. Excellent texture, with surprisingly pungent acidity (esp. for the vintage). Acidity greater than the Ripaille and a bit disproportionate, but at least it's fixed. Good weight and light tannins. No discernible oak. Shows the herbal side of Cab Franc that the Ripaille didn’t, and may need more time than the Ripaille.
I was surprised by how different the aromas and acidity were. A testament to the non-interventionist approach to the terroirs, one assumes and/or hopes. The Charpentrie suffered from the comparison, but was still fine. The Ripaille was pure joy.
if we omit the E in La Charpenterie it perhaps explains the missing oak!
It might have if Charpenterie were the correct spelling.