Craig's Wine Notes

I've had dinner a few times recently with a major Burgundy collector, who generously raided his own cellar to provide some great wines.

We started proceedings the first night modestly with Bernkasteler Doctor Spatlese Dr. Thanisch 2005. This was really nice, especially at the prevailing price, very traditional. I also had a small taste of Chateauneuf du Pape Chateau Beaucastel 1999, which was also pretty good, although I would have preferred it a little lighter.


The first Burgundy white was Chablis Montee de Tonnerre Raveneau 2004. Later in the evening, a bottle of Raveneau's Chapelot 2004 appeared to make up a mini-horizontal. I preferred the Montee de Tonnerre for its better minerality and focus; the Chapelot showed a lot more oak and side by side, it came across as a clumsier wine.


The first red was Chambertin Clos de Beze Prieure-Roch 2000, the first wine I'd ever had from this producer. It was lovely when it was first opened but within minutes started to lose its balance, with the oak and tannin completely taking over. The subsequent bottle of La Tache 1996 more than made up for it, showing a lot of earth and spice, red fruits, very rich and forward. A second (!) bottle of the same, brought as a backup and almost inevitably opened, was even better, very similar but with a little extra purity to the flavors and structure.


For comparison, we opened a fully mature, beautiful bottle of Clos de la Roche Domaine Dujac 1993. This is not in decline by any means, but with secondary flavors coming out and perfect balance, it's in a terrific spot right now. Totally classic expression of the terroir and a great wine caught at a great moment.


The evening wrapped up with a bottle of Quinta do Noval Nacional 1991. I'd had this port several times before, and it's always excellent (although it's never struck me as extraordinary). Figs, caramel, incredibly smooth; I'm sure it'll last and improve, but it's perfectly approachable, as it has been since the first time I had it about 5 years ago.


I wrapped up with something new to me, Grand Marnier 150. Not, as I'm told it's widely believed, a 150-year-old spirit, rather this is a blend of very old stocks the house has released. Quite orangey, but incredibly smooth. I'd never had Grand Marnier except in sauces, so I don't have a sense of the difference in quality between this and the regular bottling.


Meal #2 started with a single blind tasting. The wines, known to us in advance to be 3 Bonnes Mares from 1999 (Roumier, Baron de Charriere and Vincent Girardin) and Chambertin Clos de Beze Prieure-Roche 2002, were wrapped in foil and served in a flight of four.

The first wine had a nice smoky nose; on the palate there were some red fruits, decent complexity, but was a little tough; the tannins shortened the finish, but weren't drying. The second had darker fruit, purer flavors, medium body; it was very nice, although I didn't think it was outstanding. The third was just plain poor, with nothing but oak on either the nose or the palate. I had the sense that if I'd been asked to close my eyes and a glass of this were put in front of me, I'd have thought it white Burgundy; it had that sort of oak signature, rather than an impression of heavy oak tannins. The last in the group had a nose reminiscent of orange zest, with more of that on the palate, as well as a decent bit of tannin. It was OK, but not better.

I ranked wine #1 1st for current drinking, although thought the 2nd was probably superior overall, just unready. They were, in order:

1) Bonnes Mares Baron de Charriere 1999
2) Bonnes Mares Georges Roumier 1999
3) Bonnes Mares Vincent Girardin 1999
4) Chambertin-Clos de Beze Prieure-Roch 2002

The Roumier was better, especially for the long haul, but not enough to justify the price difference with the Charriere.

This evening continued with our only Bordeaux of the series, Rausan-Segla 1986 and Angelus 2000. I really liked the Rausan-Segla, as I have every time I've had it; it's intense, full of earth, black fruits, some smoke, a great structure to carry it, but not a sense of heaviness. A great wine. I can't say the same for the Angelus, and while it's unfair to pair a mature Bordeaux with such a young one, I thought it was overextracted and showed a very heavy-handed oak treatment. While we happily drained the Rausan-Segla, no one had more than a few sips of the Angelus, and no one went for a refill. Even over a period of hours, this did not show any elegance at all.

Alas, our other red this night, Richebourg Meo-Camuzet 1993, also showed the same injudicious use of oak, a real disappointment considering the wine's reputation. While it did have some nice elements, the wood just completely took over on the palate. This was redeemed by our closeout bottle, the legendary Quinta do Noval Nacional 1963. I ranked this the second greatest port I've ever had (after Taylor 1948, which I loved for its incredible elegance and the almost unbelievable floral flavors which compliment the classic Taylor spice). The Nacional was perfectly structured, incredibly long, and similar in flavor to the 1991; the only thing keeping me from scoring it a perfect port, as one taster did, is that I thought it could stand a bit more complexity. Still, it was incredibly pure and elegant, with absolutely seamless balance.

Our next meal was a little more organized in advance. We started with a comparison of 2005 whites: Puligny-Montrachet AC and Puligny-Montrachet Clavoillon Domaine Leflaive, and Corton-Charlemagne Bonneau du Martray. I preferred the Puligny AC to the Clavoillon for its better acidity and minerality; I thought the Clavoillon was a little flabby and lacked precision. The Corton-Charlemagne was the standout of the flight, though; I loved it. Intense flavors, great structure, surprisingly approachable but surely will improve for decades.


The first flight of reds was a horizontal of 1999s from Domaine Armand Rousseau: Gevrey Chambertin Clos St Jacques, Chambertin-Clos de Beze and Chambertin. All were excellent. I gave the bronze medal to the Clos St Jacques; while very good, it lacked the depth and some of the complexity of the two grands crus. The Clos de Beze was really nice too, much more complex, lots of earth and black fruits, moderate weight, but good intensity. The real star was the Chambertin, rich, more complex, with an explosive nose and great, great length. One of the real highlights of the series of tastings.


For comparison, we opened up a magnum of Chambertin-Clos de Beze Armand Rousseau 1996. Surprisingly, given the format, this was nearly ready to go. Like the 1999, it was midweight, and lacked the amazing intensity of the Chambertin 1999, but it was still an outstanding bottle of wine.


Our most recent night ended the series spectacularly, beginning with what for this night was a modest start, a single-blind comparison of Clos de la Roche 2002s by Dujac and Rousseau. We had a pretty good idea of which was which, both from the styles and from being able to see the darker glass on the Dujac. The Rousseau is not though of as one of the stars of their lineup, and while this was a lightweight, the wine was complex and showed its terroir transparently. If I owned it, I'd be drinking it within 5 years or so. The Dujac was much denser, similar flavors (perhaps a bit darker); the main difference was in the stuffing and weight. While ultimately this is a superior wine, even for drinking today, I'd be putting this aside for a while.


We then enjoyed a terrific bottle of Chablis Clos Raveneau 1996, a real rarity. Rich, minerally, some citrus, and just a touch of wood combined into a great expression of Chablis. Even the non-hardcore wine geeks in the group could tell this was something special.


For reds, we had the opportunity to compare Romanee St Vivant DRC 1996 and 1999. The 1996 was explosive when it was opened, with spice the main flavor but also some red and black fruits and an underlying structure that gave it length and richness, but not harshness. The 1999 was similar, and when both were poured I preferred the 1996, but with half an hour or so of air the 1999s purity and elegance came through. I'd still prefer the 1996 for drinking today, as it's in such a great, rich spot, but the 1999 is probably going to come out ahead in the long run.


At this point, our host had a surprise for us: another comparison of DRC 1996s and 1999s, but this flight was La Tache! I'd never had La Tache 1996 before and here was my third bottle of it in a fairly short period. Again, the 1996 was more open and expressive now; I thought it was about in between the quality of the two bottles from the first dinner. The 1999 was remarkable, similar but incredibly pure, absolutely justifying its reputation. Both of these strongly resembled the flavors of the RSVs (not surprising, considering the proximity) but both took complexity and, especially, elegance to a new level, and in comparison the RSVs seemed a little coarse.


A couple of asides on the wines: yes, we drank them young, and no doubt many of these would have developed and improved substantially with age, but none of them were shut down and all but a couple (I'm looking at you, Angelus and Prieure-Roch!) were absolutely delicious.