Friday, September 12, 2008
A few 2005 Bordeaux
Zachys retail had a walkaround tasting of some 2005 Bordeaux Wednesday night, so a few of us went over to promote the upcoming auction and do some tasting. Figeac was a huge disappointment; you could tell how great the juice itself was but it was oaked into absolute submission. A friend who tasted it in barrel said that it was showing far oakier now than it had then, when he loved it, so perhaps it was just a poor sample. Similarly, Mouton Rothschild seemed like a not-great wine but man did that oak taste expensive.
The shocker for me was how much I liked Leoville Las Cases. The wine was balanced, which is a rare commodity these days; Parker's note says the alcohol is 13.1%, quite modest for a modern Bordeaux; it had great fruit but was not heavy or overextracted, just an elegant wine with all of its components in harmony. A truly great wine.
I haven't had the Hermanos Sastre Pesus 2003, but I imagine it's the kind of wine I hate, which is why I'm posting this story. This wine that I'd never heard of prior to doing a google search for "300% new oak" scored 98 points from the Wine Advocate's Jay Miller, who described the 100-case cuvee as "surely one of Spain's greatest wines."
What's 300% new oak, you ask? Well, I was already familiar with 200% new oak, a treatment promoted by, among others, Burgundy negociant Dominique Laurent. The technique involves aging the wine for a while in new oak, and then transferring it into another new oak barrel for further aging. This is the same, only with yet another new oak barrel.
Allow me to set the scene here. The wine has spent a couple of years in two different new oak barrels. The winemaker, property owner, consultant, perhaps people from neighboring estates are in the cave. They draw out samples of the wine from barrel, pass them around, taste. They contemplate the wine for a while. Finally, someone speaks up. "Well...it's pretty oaky..."
The shocker for me was how much I liked Leoville Las Cases. The wine was balanced, which is a rare commodity these days; Parker's note says the alcohol is 13.1%, quite modest for a modern Bordeaux; it had great fruit but was not heavy or overextracted, just an elegant wine with all of its components in harmony. A truly great wine.
I haven't had the Hermanos Sastre Pesus 2003, but I imagine it's the kind of wine I hate, which is why I'm posting this story. This wine that I'd never heard of prior to doing a google search for "300% new oak" scored 98 points from the Wine Advocate's Jay Miller, who described the 100-case cuvee as "surely one of Spain's greatest wines."
What's 300% new oak, you ask? Well, I was already familiar with 200% new oak, a treatment promoted by, among others, Burgundy negociant Dominique Laurent. The technique involves aging the wine for a while in new oak, and then transferring it into another new oak barrel for further aging. This is the same, only with yet another new oak barrel.
Allow me to set the scene here. The wine has spent a couple of years in two different new oak barrels. The winemaker, property owner, consultant, perhaps people from neighboring estates are in the cave. They draw out samples of the wine from barrel, pass them around, taste. They contemplate the wine for a while. Finally, someone speaks up. "Well...it's pretty oaky..."
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Opposite week continued: California Pinot edition!
I actually had this a couple of days after the Kistler, but haven't posted on it.
At my roommate's recommendation, we picked up a bottle of W.H. Smith Maritime Pinot Noir 2006. I haven't been too high on New World pinot, since I am generally averse to the structure--there are plenty of wines where I can tolerate extraction, but low acidity is a fatal flaw for me--but this was good. I didn't try it when it was opened, but I was informed that it was showing a ton of extraction. It settled down half an hour or so later, and we thought that if you served it to people blind and just let them smell it, but not taste it, that they could easily mistake it for Burgundy. Which doesn't sound crazy. He had La Tache '93 recently, and after introducing the comment with, "You're going to laugh," said that it was very similar to that nose (red fruits, some savory spices). Anyone wanting to educate me on the subject is welcome to!
The palate was good, pretty complex, lots of red fruits and some earthiness. It even had nice structure, at least for the half an hour it was at peak. Still, that's quite a comment on the wine, that's a 2006 that really only had about half an hour where it was impressive.
At my roommate's recommendation, we picked up a bottle of W.H. Smith Maritime Pinot Noir 2006. I haven't been too high on New World pinot, since I am generally averse to the structure--there are plenty of wines where I can tolerate extraction, but low acidity is a fatal flaw for me--but this was good. I didn't try it when it was opened, but I was informed that it was showing a ton of extraction. It settled down half an hour or so later, and we thought that if you served it to people blind and just let them smell it, but not taste it, that they could easily mistake it for Burgundy. Which doesn't sound crazy. He had La Tache '93 recently, and after introducing the comment with, "You're going to laugh," said that it was very similar to that nose (red fruits, some savory spices). Anyone wanting to educate me on the subject is welcome to!
The palate was good, pretty complex, lots of red fruits and some earthiness. It even had nice structure, at least for the half an hour it was at peak. Still, that's quite a comment on the wine, that's a 2006 that really only had about half an hour where it was impressive.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Chateau Gazin 1966
This was part of a mixed lot of '66s purchased at auction earlier this year; we drank through most of them at a big tasting, but there were a few duplicates and this seemed perfect to accompany a rib-eye the size of my head.
It was uncorked, but not poured, 4 hours before serving in accordance with the "Audouze method." It's impossible to say whether it would have been an improvement on a standard treatment, since we did not have a second bottle to handle that way, but the wine showed perfectly well, so that's that.
It's the kind of wine that they used to make routinely. Mid-weight, Pomerol-type earthiness when it was opened, later developing some red fruits. Traditional claret for sure; I like to think that if I'd been served it blind, I would have worked out that it's a Pomerol. It smelled great; the main problem with it is that while the attack was really nice, the flavors just dropped off a cliff, leaving us with no fruit on the finish at all, just the memory of the acidity. It's not a great wine, but it's a good one, reasonably complex, pretty tasty, without any harsh edges, interesting, and with the right amount of alcohol.
It was uncorked, but not poured, 4 hours before serving in accordance with the "Audouze method." It's impossible to say whether it would have been an improvement on a standard treatment, since we did not have a second bottle to handle that way, but the wine showed perfectly well, so that's that.
It's the kind of wine that they used to make routinely. Mid-weight, Pomerol-type earthiness when it was opened, later developing some red fruits. Traditional claret for sure; I like to think that if I'd been served it blind, I would have worked out that it's a Pomerol. It smelled great; the main problem with it is that while the attack was really nice, the flavors just dropped off a cliff, leaving us with no fruit on the finish at all, just the memory of the acidity. It's not a great wine, but it's a good one, reasonably complex, pretty tasty, without any harsh edges, interesting, and with the right amount of alcohol.
