Friday, January 16, 2009
Two in one day
Each year, early in January, a couple of good friends organize a major tasting lunch at Gramercy Tavern. The theme is always the same: bring a great bottle at least 20 years old, and another of the same age that, while not considered legendary, will be high quality and interesting. This year 15 wine lovers showed up for a really fun afternoon of tasting.
That's been on my calendar for months; then, about 2 weeks ago, a friend invited me up for a blind tasting the same evening. Last year was insanely fun, with bottle after great bottle coming up from his cellar (we ended up having nearly 3 per person!), so I was not about to miss this one. I figured I could just spit a decent amount of the Gramercy wines and I'd have at least 3 or 4 hours between events to rehydrate and recover.
We were greeted with pours of Krug 1988 from magnum, which was unsurprisingly showing extremely young. Nice toasty nose, lot of citrus and acidity on the palate; a great wine but not close to maturity in this format.
The first few wines were sampled while we milled around and chatted, before the lunch service started. I tasted them a bit out of order, as the two whites from this group were both Zind-Humbrecht and I thought that there was a good chance they'd be so rich and thick that the reds would suffer if tasted after them. Unfortunately, no one else had that idea, so after one red I went to the whites so that I could participate in the conversation.
I started with the Gemello "Reminscence" Zinfandel, a blend of the 1972 and 1975, bottled in 1976. This was nice, soft red fruits and typical old zinfandel earthiness, with great but not overbearing acidity. 13.8% alcohol, which was typical of the era, and it carried it very well. This opened up some and improved over a couple of hours.
At that point, I went for the whites after all. Both were very typically thick-textured Zind-Humbrechts. I liked the Riesling Clos St Urbain 1989 more than the Pinot Gris Clos Jebsal VT 1990, although the latter, after a couple of hours, saw the sweetness integrate nicely. At the start, while the flavors were really good, the sweetness was too overt to really make me like this. The riesling had really nice flavors and was merely off-dry, not sweet, which I found much more to my taste.
The next red was Montrose 1966, a wine I've had a couple of times before. This was weaker than those bottles; it had a little tobacco on the nose, but also some green astringency; there was a real harshness that most of the tasters understandbly found to be a fatal flaw. Next up were two Rhones that I really enjoyed. The first was Chateauneuf du Pape Beaucastel 1990, which seemed quite young but also classic, with a typical Beaucastel gaminess, nice fruit, good structure; it was a little rough around the edges but excellent. The other, Cornas VV Noel Verset 1990, was also rustic, but had the flavor profile of a classic Hermitage. I thought it was outstanding, but agreed with Mark that it lacked the precision of a great Hermitage.
The final pre-lunch red was Henschke Hill of Grace 1991, which was a huge, purple, palate staining Australian fruit bomb. For that genre, it was well made, with nice fruit, but I thought it was terribly clumsy and boring next to the two Rhone wines. Finally, I tried the Gravner Ribolla Gialla 2001, which was really nice; moderate weight, not a lot that reminded me of
an actual fruit but really tasty and fairly complex.
We sat down and began with three whites. Laville Haut Brion 1994 was really good; well structured, lots of sauvignon blanc flavors, and a hint of what I called lanolin and someone else described as candle wax, suggesting that it's entering its plateau of maturity. Egon Muller Scharzhofberger Auslese 1991 was fresh, just starting to develop some of the petrol that comes as rieslings age. I thought it was too overtly sweet, but otherwise excellent. Finally, a controversial bottle of Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche 1985. I think of Laguiche as the lightest bodied of the major Montrachets, and this certainly had that characteristic; I thought it was a bit simple, showing the "movie popcorn" I usually find in Laguiche as it gets older, but several people who were familiar with the wine thought it was a poor, possibly oxidized example.
The first red flight was three Burgundies. Grands Echezeaux DRC 1972 had a nice, secondary, foresty-cherry nose; on the palate, it didn't quite follow through (I think the high acidity muted the fruit on the palate), and showed signs of possible chaptalization. Two vintages of Clos de la Roche VV Ponsot were served alongside. The 1988 looked like a rose, but had dense structure, with a lot of tannin and acidity, not unexpected in this super-structured vintage; the fruit was nice, but currently partially hidden below the structure. The 1990 was much better than my previous encounter with the wine two months before. It was extracted, and not as good as it was 5 or 6 years ago, but quite rich and long; the flaws were too little acidity, and it just wasn't that complex.
A blind flight of four followed, the point being to see if the room could spot the one that didn't fit in with the other three. (Anyone who really cares can email me for the background story.) The first wine, La Mission Haut Brion 1975, was completely madeirized. Terribly disappointing as I have had two other bottles from the same source that were incredible. I quite liked the next wine, La Tour Haut Brion 1975, which was a little rustic, but very rich, fruity, turning secondary but still with a lot of tannin coming out on the end. The third wine in the flight was correctly identified by nearly everyone as the outlier. It too had nice structure, but less fruit and body, and pretty obvious Rutherford-type flavors. This one turned out to be Gemello Cabernet Sauvignon 1968. Finally, the last wine in the group, La Tour Haut Brion 1982 was a little less intense than the first, but really beautifully balanced.
This took us into a flight of 1982s. L'Evangile was great, earthy, minerally, explosive but not overextracted. The Margaux prompted Mark at his first sniff to say that it reminded him of an "Indian spice shop," with "cumin and coriander." The fruit was a little hidden on the palate, but still present, and the finish was quite long and very pure. The Ausone was a favorite of the group, but while I liked it, I wasn't as high on it as the group was. I've heard that Ausone often resembles black tea, which this certainly did; I thought it was a little harsh on the palate.
The last Bordeaux was La Fleur-Petrus 1947 (Belgian bottled), which was very fresh and rich, good flavors but all secondary at this point, vibrant from the acidity. Despite the reputation of the vintage I did not find this superextracted or "port-like" at all. Delicious.
I thought the Barolo Falletto Riserva Giacosa 1989 was a bit madeirized, though OK on the palate; it did improve a bit with air. Its companion, Barolo Cannubi Boschis Sandrone 1989 was a wine I described as "soulless." It was obviously nebbiolo but boring, a little oaky, really just generic.
The final dry red was a spectacular bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape Chateau Rayas 1978, a legendary wine. My previous encounter with this, from the same case, was a terribly corked bottle, so I was incredibly excited to have another go at it. It did not disappoint; it was a little gamy, very complex, perfectly structured and balanced; a great wine captured at a perfect moment in its life, and my top wine of the day.
Three dessert wines followed. The Erbaluce Stravecchio Enrico Serafino 1939 resembed a great Vin Santo, or a tawny port with more acidity. It was sweet but not cloying, with toffeeish flavors and long caramel finish. Finally, a very good bottle of TBA Riesling, Rauenthaler Baiken Schloss Eltz 1976. Also sweet but with its great acidity keeping it from being cloying, it was dark amber (typical for TBA) but not showing madeirization. Its only defect was that it lacked the complexity and intensity of a truly great TBA.
I then had headed uptown to meet my ride for the next event. Fortunately I was only wedged into the back seat of a Mini for an hour and 45 minutes. We opened with a non-blind magnum of Henriot Brut 1990, which was nice, with dense flavors but moderate weight, some toasty oak showing but overall an impression of balance. The rest were all served blind. The first white had a couple of people thinking white Graves; I wasn't convinced, and on our host's recommendation put it aside for a while while we sampled a couple of reds. On returning to it, I thought Alsace, which turned out to be right; I quite liked it, although a couple of people who'd had it before thought it was a slightly off bottle. It had a smoky, tropical nose, good fruit, a lot of weight on the palate, a little saltiness; it became more and more tropical with time in the glass. Turned out to be Clos Ste Hune 1976. The first red was a little green, but with nice cherry flavors; the group correctly identified it as left bank Bordeaux. Turned out to be a really nice bottle ot Beychevelle 1990. The next was almost exotic, but also a touch green; lots of tannins (I thought possibly from stems). I found graphite; Victor described it as "leathery." This was Calon Segur 1982, showing much younger than my previous tasting of it.
The next was also good and also showed graphite; it was a little smoky too, and while it was a little harsh and acidic, it was a perfectly respectable bottle of claret. Sasha, I think, knowing Dan's cellar, correctly guessed Lafon Rochet 1970.
I loved the next wine, which was exotic, explosive, well structured, and full of fruit without being overextracted or one-dimensional. Turned out to be Latour 1986. We followed that up with a slightly nutty white, which had some buttered popcorn and a lot of oak on the nose, but without it being oppressive; clearly it was a very well made wine. Victor identified it as Meursault, but even knowing what the cellar looks like, it took us a while to realize the producer was Coche-Dury. This was Meursault Casse Tete 1985, from a lieu a dit (literally, a "named place," used for a bottling of a single vineyard that is not classified as premier cru or grand cru).
I made a reasonable guess on the next wine, which was amber in color and showed great zippy acidity and good fruit to balance the sweetness. I thought maybe a Foreau 1990; it was actually Clos du Bourg "Biodynamique" Huet 1989.
We then switched back to reds, with a wine that everyone immediately identified as Burgundy. I thought it could be Gevrey, or maybe something like a Corton from Meo (because of the strong oak signature and earthiness). It had nice cherry flavors and a good earthiness, but was also a little vegetal, and scarred by the resinous oak. It was revealed as Vosne-Romanee Genevrieres Leroy 1990. The next wine was very pale, with a slight hint of varnish on the nose, nice flavors but also a little green. We were asked by our host if we thought premier cru or grand cru once we identified it as a Vosne; we all thought premier cru at best, but it turned out to be La Romanee 1990. Ah well, it wasn't exactly a secret that this wasn't a great period for Bouchard.
The next wine was terrific. Very classy, a little sappy, red fruity, some earthiness, and just absolutely first-rate. It may have been a village wine, but when the village is Vosne-Romanee, the vintage is 1993, and the winemaker is Henri Jayer, it's not a huge surprise that the wine is great. I would not be surprised at all to learn that there was some young vines Cros Parantoux or even Richebourg blended in. Alas, its companion, Nuits St Georges Henri Jayer 1993 was the only corked bottle of the day.
Sasha had supplied the next wine, which was smoky, red, and bacony; it took us a while to get to it, since our minds were still all on Burgundy, but it was a classic, outstanding bottle of Hermitage JL Chave 1991. It was served with a wine that showed some sour cherry, a touch of madeirization on the palate, and what Victor called "orange peel;" it was a nice bottle of Bosconia 1981, but outclassed by the Chave.
Alas, two of the remaining wines were flawed. The first was very volatile; the palate showed some vibrant fruit but was heavily marked by the VA. The second had a little tobacco on the nose, but a terrible VA problem both on the nose and palate. They were Magdelaine 1953 and Haut Brion 1953. Dammit!
We revived our palates with a high acid, tight but promising bottle of Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill 1990, and moved on to a wine that showed some coconut on the nose, but the palate was pure rot. Turned out to be a wine with a story. Around 15 years ago, the distributor sold off about 60 cases of Haut Brion Blanc 1984, of which this crowd snapped up a few cases at $10-13.50 a bottle. Apparently it was a great drinker back in the day, but it's well past its best. Next up a wine I pulled from the cellar, which was lovely and transparent, with really nice strawberry fruit although a touch of rusticity. John called it "unclean," but I really liked it. It was Monthelie Cote de Beaune Coche-Dury 1993. Finally, a disjointed, poor, not madeirized but unpalatable bottle of Corton-Charlemagne Louis Latour 1990. Not sure what was up with this as I've had very good experiences with Latour's Corton-Charlemagne in the past, although I don't think I'd ever had the 1990 before.
Whew! A long day, but a great one. Thanks to everyone at lunch for bringing such great wine, and special thanks to our host in the evening for having us, cleaning up after us and pulling great wine after great wine from his cellar!
That's been on my calendar for months; then, about 2 weeks ago, a friend invited me up for a blind tasting the same evening. Last year was insanely fun, with bottle after great bottle coming up from his cellar (we ended up having nearly 3 per person!), so I was not about to miss this one. I figured I could just spit a decent amount of the Gramercy wines and I'd have at least 3 or 4 hours between events to rehydrate and recover.
We were greeted with pours of Krug 1988 from magnum, which was unsurprisingly showing extremely young. Nice toasty nose, lot of citrus and acidity on the palate; a great wine but not close to maturity in this format.
The first few wines were sampled while we milled around and chatted, before the lunch service started. I tasted them a bit out of order, as the two whites from this group were both Zind-Humbrecht and I thought that there was a good chance they'd be so rich and thick that the reds would suffer if tasted after them. Unfortunately, no one else had that idea, so after one red I went to the whites so that I could participate in the conversation.
I started with the Gemello "Reminscence" Zinfandel, a blend of the 1972 and 1975, bottled in 1976. This was nice, soft red fruits and typical old zinfandel earthiness, with great but not overbearing acidity. 13.8% alcohol, which was typical of the era, and it carried it very well. This opened up some and improved over a couple of hours.
At that point, I went for the whites after all. Both were very typically thick-textured Zind-Humbrechts. I liked the Riesling Clos St Urbain 1989 more than the Pinot Gris Clos Jebsal VT 1990, although the latter, after a couple of hours, saw the sweetness integrate nicely. At the start, while the flavors were really good, the sweetness was too overt to really make me like this. The riesling had really nice flavors and was merely off-dry, not sweet, which I found much more to my taste.
The next red was Montrose 1966, a wine I've had a couple of times before. This was weaker than those bottles; it had a little tobacco on the nose, but also some green astringency; there was a real harshness that most of the tasters understandbly found to be a fatal flaw. Next up were two Rhones that I really enjoyed. The first was Chateauneuf du Pape Beaucastel 1990, which seemed quite young but also classic, with a typical Beaucastel gaminess, nice fruit, good structure; it was a little rough around the edges but excellent. The other, Cornas VV Noel Verset 1990, was also rustic, but had the flavor profile of a classic Hermitage. I thought it was outstanding, but agreed with Mark that it lacked the precision of a great Hermitage.
The final pre-lunch red was Henschke Hill of Grace 1991, which was a huge, purple, palate staining Australian fruit bomb. For that genre, it was well made, with nice fruit, but I thought it was terribly clumsy and boring next to the two Rhone wines. Finally, I tried the Gravner Ribolla Gialla 2001, which was really nice; moderate weight, not a lot that reminded me of
an actual fruit but really tasty and fairly complex.
We sat down and began with three whites. Laville Haut Brion 1994 was really good; well structured, lots of sauvignon blanc flavors, and a hint of what I called lanolin and someone else described as candle wax, suggesting that it's entering its plateau of maturity. Egon Muller Scharzhofberger Auslese 1991 was fresh, just starting to develop some of the petrol that comes as rieslings age. I thought it was too overtly sweet, but otherwise excellent. Finally, a controversial bottle of Montrachet Marquis de Laguiche 1985. I think of Laguiche as the lightest bodied of the major Montrachets, and this certainly had that characteristic; I thought it was a bit simple, showing the "movie popcorn" I usually find in Laguiche as it gets older, but several people who were familiar with the wine thought it was a poor, possibly oxidized example.
The first red flight was three Burgundies. Grands Echezeaux DRC 1972 had a nice, secondary, foresty-cherry nose; on the palate, it didn't quite follow through (I think the high acidity muted the fruit on the palate), and showed signs of possible chaptalization. Two vintages of Clos de la Roche VV Ponsot were served alongside. The 1988 looked like a rose, but had dense structure, with a lot of tannin and acidity, not unexpected in this super-structured vintage; the fruit was nice, but currently partially hidden below the structure. The 1990 was much better than my previous encounter with the wine two months before. It was extracted, and not as good as it was 5 or 6 years ago, but quite rich and long; the flaws were too little acidity, and it just wasn't that complex.
A blind flight of four followed, the point being to see if the room could spot the one that didn't fit in with the other three. (Anyone who really cares can email me for the background story.) The first wine, La Mission Haut Brion 1975, was completely madeirized. Terribly disappointing as I have had two other bottles from the same source that were incredible. I quite liked the next wine, La Tour Haut Brion 1975, which was a little rustic, but very rich, fruity, turning secondary but still with a lot of tannin coming out on the end. The third wine in the flight was correctly identified by nearly everyone as the outlier. It too had nice structure, but less fruit and body, and pretty obvious Rutherford-type flavors. This one turned out to be Gemello Cabernet Sauvignon 1968. Finally, the last wine in the group, La Tour Haut Brion 1982 was a little less intense than the first, but really beautifully balanced.
This took us into a flight of 1982s. L'Evangile was great, earthy, minerally, explosive but not overextracted. The Margaux prompted Mark at his first sniff to say that it reminded him of an "Indian spice shop," with "cumin and coriander." The fruit was a little hidden on the palate, but still present, and the finish was quite long and very pure. The Ausone was a favorite of the group, but while I liked it, I wasn't as high on it as the group was. I've heard that Ausone often resembles black tea, which this certainly did; I thought it was a little harsh on the palate.
The last Bordeaux was La Fleur-Petrus 1947 (Belgian bottled), which was very fresh and rich, good flavors but all secondary at this point, vibrant from the acidity. Despite the reputation of the vintage I did not find this superextracted or "port-like" at all. Delicious.
I thought the Barolo Falletto Riserva Giacosa 1989 was a bit madeirized, though OK on the palate; it did improve a bit with air. Its companion, Barolo Cannubi Boschis Sandrone 1989 was a wine I described as "soulless." It was obviously nebbiolo but boring, a little oaky, really just generic.
The final dry red was a spectacular bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape Chateau Rayas 1978, a legendary wine. My previous encounter with this, from the same case, was a terribly corked bottle, so I was incredibly excited to have another go at it. It did not disappoint; it was a little gamy, very complex, perfectly structured and balanced; a great wine captured at a perfect moment in its life, and my top wine of the day.
Three dessert wines followed. The Erbaluce Stravecchio Enrico Serafino 1939 resembed a great Vin Santo, or a tawny port with more acidity. It was sweet but not cloying, with toffeeish flavors and long caramel finish. Finally, a very good bottle of TBA Riesling, Rauenthaler Baiken Schloss Eltz 1976. Also sweet but with its great acidity keeping it from being cloying, it was dark amber (typical for TBA) but not showing madeirization. Its only defect was that it lacked the complexity and intensity of a truly great TBA.
I then had headed uptown to meet my ride for the next event. Fortunately I was only wedged into the back seat of a Mini for an hour and 45 minutes. We opened with a non-blind magnum of Henriot Brut 1990, which was nice, with dense flavors but moderate weight, some toasty oak showing but overall an impression of balance. The rest were all served blind. The first white had a couple of people thinking white Graves; I wasn't convinced, and on our host's recommendation put it aside for a while while we sampled a couple of reds. On returning to it, I thought Alsace, which turned out to be right; I quite liked it, although a couple of people who'd had it before thought it was a slightly off bottle. It had a smoky, tropical nose, good fruit, a lot of weight on the palate, a little saltiness; it became more and more tropical with time in the glass. Turned out to be Clos Ste Hune 1976. The first red was a little green, but with nice cherry flavors; the group correctly identified it as left bank Bordeaux. Turned out to be a really nice bottle ot Beychevelle 1990. The next was almost exotic, but also a touch green; lots of tannins (I thought possibly from stems). I found graphite; Victor described it as "leathery." This was Calon Segur 1982, showing much younger than my previous tasting of it.
The next was also good and also showed graphite; it was a little smoky too, and while it was a little harsh and acidic, it was a perfectly respectable bottle of claret. Sasha, I think, knowing Dan's cellar, correctly guessed Lafon Rochet 1970.
I loved the next wine, which was exotic, explosive, well structured, and full of fruit without being overextracted or one-dimensional. Turned out to be Latour 1986. We followed that up with a slightly nutty white, which had some buttered popcorn and a lot of oak on the nose, but without it being oppressive; clearly it was a very well made wine. Victor identified it as Meursault, but even knowing what the cellar looks like, it took us a while to realize the producer was Coche-Dury. This was Meursault Casse Tete 1985, from a lieu a dit (literally, a "named place," used for a bottling of a single vineyard that is not classified as premier cru or grand cru).
I made a reasonable guess on the next wine, which was amber in color and showed great zippy acidity and good fruit to balance the sweetness. I thought maybe a Foreau 1990; it was actually Clos du Bourg "Biodynamique" Huet 1989.
We then switched back to reds, with a wine that everyone immediately identified as Burgundy. I thought it could be Gevrey, or maybe something like a Corton from Meo (because of the strong oak signature and earthiness). It had nice cherry flavors and a good earthiness, but was also a little vegetal, and scarred by the resinous oak. It was revealed as Vosne-Romanee Genevrieres Leroy 1990. The next wine was very pale, with a slight hint of varnish on the nose, nice flavors but also a little green. We were asked by our host if we thought premier cru or grand cru once we identified it as a Vosne; we all thought premier cru at best, but it turned out to be La Romanee 1990. Ah well, it wasn't exactly a secret that this wasn't a great period for Bouchard.
The next wine was terrific. Very classy, a little sappy, red fruity, some earthiness, and just absolutely first-rate. It may have been a village wine, but when the village is Vosne-Romanee, the vintage is 1993, and the winemaker is Henri Jayer, it's not a huge surprise that the wine is great. I would not be surprised at all to learn that there was some young vines Cros Parantoux or even Richebourg blended in. Alas, its companion, Nuits St Georges Henri Jayer 1993 was the only corked bottle of the day.
Sasha had supplied the next wine, which was smoky, red, and bacony; it took us a while to get to it, since our minds were still all on Burgundy, but it was a classic, outstanding bottle of Hermitage JL Chave 1991. It was served with a wine that showed some sour cherry, a touch of madeirization on the palate, and what Victor called "orange peel;" it was a nice bottle of Bosconia 1981, but outclassed by the Chave.
Alas, two of the remaining wines were flawed. The first was very volatile; the palate showed some vibrant fruit but was heavily marked by the VA. The second had a little tobacco on the nose, but a terrible VA problem both on the nose and palate. They were Magdelaine 1953 and Haut Brion 1953. Dammit!
We revived our palates with a high acid, tight but promising bottle of Pol Roger Sir Winston Churchill 1990, and moved on to a wine that showed some coconut on the nose, but the palate was pure rot. Turned out to be a wine with a story. Around 15 years ago, the distributor sold off about 60 cases of Haut Brion Blanc 1984, of which this crowd snapped up a few cases at $10-13.50 a bottle. Apparently it was a great drinker back in the day, but it's well past its best. Next up a wine I pulled from the cellar, which was lovely and transparent, with really nice strawberry fruit although a touch of rusticity. John called it "unclean," but I really liked it. It was Monthelie Cote de Beaune Coche-Dury 1993. Finally, a disjointed, poor, not madeirized but unpalatable bottle of Corton-Charlemagne Louis Latour 1990. Not sure what was up with this as I've had very good experiences with Latour's Corton-Charlemagne in the past, although I don't think I'd ever had the 1990 before.
Whew! A long day, but a great one. Thanks to everyone at lunch for bringing such great wine, and special thanks to our host in the evening for having us, cleaning up after us and pulling great wine after great wine from his cellar!
