Craig's Wine Notes

This was not tasted under ideal circumstances, as a group of my co-workers and I had it on a Metro-North train coming home from work.

Not a bad wine, although at age 8 I thought it was already likely past its best; it didn't taste like it was oxidizing, but the color was almost butterscotch, which isn't a great sign. It had a fair amount of oak, as expected, although it wasn't overbearing; the acidity wasn't bad, but it didn't have the freshness of white Burgundy. At the prevailing price (it's widely available between $80 and $100) I think it's a poor value, but I did like it enough to pour a refill, which I would not have expected. I am not sure how I would have responded to it blind, but in general I find these wines clumsy compared to better white Burgundy.

Labels: kistler, train

This was one of 20 half-bottles purchased a year or so ago by two friends, but the first one I tried. I was told that most, despite good fills, were in poor condition and varied from undrinkable to acceptable. I, therefore, was extremely lucky to have been there when this one was opened, as it was quite good, with lots of mint on the nose (mint leaves, this time), pretty good fruit, quite a bit of tannin left. Richer but less complex than last week's Sterling. It didn't hold up in the glass nearly as well as the Sterling did, and overall I liked it less, but it was quite a good wine.

I suspect, based on the reports from the rest of the case, plus tasting notes people I trust who've had the wine from sound bottles and my experiences with neighboring Mayacamas vintages (this was my first encounter with the '74) that the wine was somewhat affected by storage and not showing at its best.

This was a bottle from a case that two friends and I purchased at auction and split up. I am almost positive that the seller bought it on release and never moved the wine, judging from the sediment in the bottle and on the cork.

We opened it around 8pm and tried it; it clearly needed some time to come around, but was really promising. There was no bricking at all and the color was extremely deep for a 34-year-old wine. We poured tastes just to track it in the glass and then, around 9:30 when dinner was more or less ready, poured normal glasses.

This couldn't have been anything other than 1970s California Cabernet. There was that classic mintiness (toothpaste-y, in a similar way to the Mondavi Reserve 1974 posted on recently) but in contrast to the Mondavi this had much more Cabernet fruit, and a sense of sweet fruit (not actual sugar, not heavy concentrated fruit, just an impression of ripeness) that screams of 1970s California winemaking. There's still a lot of grippy tannin in the wine, but it's not harsh; rather, they're smooth enough that it helps the flavors to go on and on. Great wine.

Today's cult winemakers could take a lesson from the fact that this came in at 12% alcohol, has aged brilliantly and was plenty concentrated.

Labels: 1974, cabernet, sterling

Our host was taken ill and thus the event has been postponed. In the meantime I'll post some notes on an older California tasting held last year (tomorrow, if I can find the time to do it).

My Westchester-based blind tasting group last did one of our "normal" format events in June (the same group did the Clos Vougeot tasting last month, non-blind). Our host, Cathleen Burke-Visscher, did a great job both in choosing the bottles and organizing them into flights.

We usually start out with a non-blind Champagne, but this time Kathleen had chosen to get us going with two whites, followed by four blind sparklers. I don't recall if they were served blind or not, but they were Meursault Les Perrieres Pierre Morey 1990, which for that year and vineyard was a serious disappointment (perhaps they over-harvested?) and a very nice bottle of Gewurztraminer Clos Windsbuhl Zind-Humbrecht 1996, a wine I've liked in pretty much every vintage I've tried.

The first sparkling wine was quite pale, medium bodied, with lots of acidity; it wasn't that complex, but it was also pretty obviously a young wine. John Gilman described it as having a "blaze of minerality." The next was quite acidic as well but with much more age apparent, especially on the finish, where a lot of caramelization came out. These were William Deutz Blanc de Blancs 1998 and 1988, both showing surprisingly well (I have had very few Deutz wines).

The other pair of wines both showed a good bit of bottle age. The first seemed to be a middle-aged Champagne, with a lot of bubbles left but also some real weight to the texture and a heavy caramel element. The fourth was quite dark, clearly fully mature, even starting to show some oxidation. I thought the first might well have been Dom Perignon, but they turned out to both be Taittinger Comtes de Champagne, the 1989 and 1975. We were all pretty surprised when the bottles were revealed, as I don't think anyone expected the Deutzes to show so well against the Comtes (Comteses?).

We moved on to a strange flight of wines that were pretty obviously all Burgundies. The first was a bit volatile, and my note reads "sweaty;" it did have some reasonably nice cherry fruit in there as well. The second was also volatile, but this had a lot of mint and red and black fruits on the nose, with the palate dominated by cherry flavors. The third bottle was more like medicinal/Kool-Aid cherry, and also had a healthy dose of tannin; one taster thought it might have been "helped along" (i.e., by blending in a bit of some heartier wine). These three turned out to be Musigny Prieur 1985, Musigny Jadot 1979, and Echezeaux VV Mongeard-Mugneret 1988. Gilman suggested that the Jadot showed evidence of the high-temperature fermentation in favor at the domaine.

The next group was another flight of three. The first was pretty awful; "fecal" was the word used by more than one person at the table. The other two made up for that, with both showing a lot of mint; the second was almost like a toothpaste flavor. They were Olga Raffault Chinon 1990 (a recent release), and Robert Mondavi Winery Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon 1985 and 1974. My notes are posted out of order but this is where my recent run of good older Mondavis started.

Flight four was a pair. The first was medium weight, with nice texture; it had a good bit of cassis fruit, and while it was good while it lasted, it did not hold up in the glass. The other was a touch medicinal on the palate but had lots of nice cherry fruit, and a long finish. These were Trotanoy 1989 (a bit of a disappointment) and Petit Village 1989.

We wrapped up with a final flight of two. The first, my wine of the night, had some mint but a lot of black fruits on the nose; on the palate there was some volatile acidity in evidence, but that helped to carry a nice sour cherry flavor through. That note might not make it clear, but it was just a great wine. The other had a LOT of acidity, almost becoming citrusy, and some tannin in evidence; the flavors were quite good but dominated by the structure. The first was Cote Rotie La Landonne Guigal 1980, and the second was a Conterno 1985 but I am not sure which Conterno or which vineyard (sorry about that!).

I am a huge fan of older California cabernets, and over the past month a friend has opened three Mondavi non-reserve Cabernets purchased from the Graham Lyons cellar earlier this year. The first, opened at Momofuku Ko, was the 1974. I had heard that this was almost as good as the legendary 1974 Reserve, and it was indeed excellent, pretty rich, complex but not getting at all tired.

Last week we tried one of the 1973s, which was not up to that level, but still quite nice. It's neither that concentrated nor that complex, but it's tasty, and the structure is impeccable, with the acidity, frut and tannin in perfect balance. Yesterday we tried the 1969; while everyone agreed it was respectable, the owner thought that it was showing some signs of improper storage (based on other experiences with the Lyons cellar, that was almost certainly before it was purchased by Mr. Lyons). While it did have some madeirized notes on the finish, it was a reasonably good wine, a little more complex than the 1973 but less well integrated. I thought that it was just an example of a wine allowed to linger a decade or more past its best drinking window.

Coming attractions: Coche-Dury red wines, a recent blind tasting and my group's summer Champagne dinner

By coincidence, we have a sample bottle open in the office today of Clos Vougeot Domaine Leroy 2000. While the bottle itself appears to be in sound condition (usually, when we have bottles open it is to verify the storage conditions of the wine), it's just not all that good. The oak was really aggressive when first poured; it's moving into the background a bit on the nose but it's still an assault on the palate. Some cherry fruit and brambly notes but it's a pretty anonymous wine, and not a very well made one.

I haven't been doing much tasting over the last month, and I unfortunately have not been able to find my tasting notebook since I moved, so I haven't had much to post lately. I do have a tasting scheduled in a couple weeks (Coche red wines) so I will post on that after it happens.

A few odds and ends: I was at a tasting of recently released, NV Champagnes in preparation for a review a writer friend of mine is planning. The highlight was a producer I'd never heard of, Bernard Bremont. We had a couple of different bottlings that were excellent. Not to our taste at all was something called Pol Roger Rich, which is a new bottling with a higher dosage (i.e., more sugar) than usual. Boring and unpalatably sweet.

My tasting group met about 3 weeks ago and the theme was a Clos Vougeot overview. Overall, the wines justified their reputation as one of the weakest grand crus, especially the bottle from Vincent Girardin (1999, I think, but I am not sure). Hudelot-Noellat's 1990 and 1999 were quite good, and Mongeard-Mugneret and Daniel Rion 1985 were respectable, but the evening did nothing to make me believe that this vineyard deserves to be a grand cru.