Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Blind Tasting Group Meeting
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!).
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!).
