Ringing in the New Year in DC

Thursday night with a number of local winos (plus Panos K - local to everywhere and nowhere) for an annual “dig deep” dinner. I was only jotting notes and there was a lot to remember, but here are a few impressions:

Bouchard Roses de Jeanne Rose de Saignee NV: I think something was wrong here. More petillant than champagne, and it seemed older than it was (or at least made in an oxidative style). The guy who brought it said that it wasn’t more than a few years old, and both the retailer and storage were proper. That said, the raw material was clearly very good, and the palate was wonderfully vinous with a raspberries and cream quality. This makes me want to find more and try it again. Grade: Inc.

97 Chave Hermitage Blanc: Ok. I officially don’t get Rhone white. I’ve tried. Nuts, wax, and white fruit on the nose, interesting lanolin/glycerin texture. But I just don’t like it. B- for me; your mileage may vary.

94 Domaine de Chevalier: Oxidized; straight to the dump bucket. Good thing matters improved when we got to the reds.

96 Chezeaux Griottes (person who brought it said “it’s the Ponsot”; not sure how one would know in this period): Beautiful cherry and forest floor nose (maybe it’s the power of suggestion, but I don’t think so). Medium weight and long on the palate; echos the nose but not quite up to it. Still very good. A-/A

96 Monprivato: reticent nose; may have been served a little too cool. Grippy, long, and savory - there’s a lot of well-made wine here - but more closed than I expected. Wrong time to pull the cork? A-

88 Bruno Clair Clos de Beze: Good, not special. Surprisingly primary (or is that just simple?) given its age - it’s solid pinot, no doubt, but there’s no magic here (and blind I might not have guessed Burgundy). B+

71 F Gros Richebourg: An OMFG wine (and it wasn’t expectations; my expectation was DOA). Sauvage/animal on the nose, leading to a funky, fruity, sexy palate. Amazingly fresh for its age. The guy who brought it paid a hundred bucks on Wine Commune; it’s enough to make a gambling man out of me. A+

82 Pichon Lalande: Classic leafy/cedary Bordeaux nose; still lively, dark-fruited, and long on the palate. Copybook claret, but I’ve had bottles that went to 11. This one didn’t quite. A

87 Phelps Eisele: Didn’t know what to expect of this one, and it reminded me of an old Heitz Martha’s Vineyard in its minty palate. Mature, earthy nose; still fruit-driven but vibrant and complex on the palate. Not out of place in very distinguished company and a good argument for ageworthy Napa (at least as it was made then). A-

86 Unico: Sadly, slightly corked - musty and metallic notes on the nose were a giveaway. It wasn’t undrinkable, and it was clear that there were robust raw materials underneath; the length, firm but smooth structure, and earthy/gamy notes still came through. Inc.

97 Huet Clos de Bourg Premier Trie: Nut n Honey Cheerios nose (actually, less artificial than that, but you get the idea). Still young and appley on the palate; time in hand here. A child among men in the dessert wines. B+/A-

89 Donnhoff Oberhauser Brucke BA: I’m not the best sweet Riesling critic (as opposed to my godlike status elsewhere?), and my notes are getting even sketchier and harder to read, but this was very good. Dessert Rieslings are sometimes too sugary (not sweet, but sugary) for me, but this had wonderful botrytis complexity wrapped around white fruits, energized by the current of acidity you’d expect. I could see an argument that this was a lesser wine than the next, but I liked it more. A

90 Selbach-Oster Zeltinger Schlossberg Eiswein: Also very good, and very intense. This was all about sweetness versus acidity, like a super-intense glass of pink grapefruit. More impressive and less interesting than the last to my taste, but both excellent wines. A-/A

1986 Climens: The heavens provided me with the tarte tatin that needed to be here for this wine. Deep tropical fruits on the nose, with hints of nuts and vanilla; more of the same on the palate, shading a bit more toward white fruit. Very balanced; this isn’t carried by its acids like some, but I quite liked it. A

1990 d’Yquem: I forgot to take notes at this point, but I remember the wine. To use the proper technical term, ginormous. If you like pina coladas and taking walks in the rain (of honey and caramel), this is your wine. At the same time, it was balanced and somehow graceful - imagine a defensive lineman leaping up to make an unexpected interception - as well as intense and long. It was so impressive that it’s hard to say whether it was beautiful, but far be it from me to criticize a wine that could kick my ass. A+

Paul, thanks for writing up this excellent account of our recent Lavandou OL. Despite an opening array of duds, the wines on balance were wonderful, the most glorious one being Ken Brown’s '71 Richebourg–a fresh and dazzling exemplar of pure fruit and mineral tastes. I brought the '96 Mascarello Monprivato–the nose was exquisite and assertive when I double-decanted it, so I guess I did leave it in the refrigerator too long that afternoon. My bad. Notwithstanding the muted nose, I was very pleased with how the wine tasted–very pure fruit expression with a lovely understructure of herbal and mineral notes. The other wine I brought was the extremely disappointing C. Bouchard Rose de Saignee. As Paul noted, the wine tasted alright, if rather tired, but had lost most of its effervescence. The bottle was the last of four that I bought around 2005–the others had been lovely. I really have nothing more to add to Paul’s account other than to add my enthusiastic agreement to his assessment of the '86 Climens and the '90 Yquem, both of which were gorgeous.

It was a great time. I very much enjoyed seeing everyone. Thanks Paul for writing notes.

I liked the Rose de Saignee more than most. I came a few minutes late and maybe it opened up by the time I had it and everyone else had move on. Still, not as good as others of these I have had. I agree with Paul on the other two whites.

I thought the reds and the sweet wines were pretty awesome on the whole.

As to the first flight, I liked the Mascarello Monprivato - apparently more than Paul and Randy. The Griottes was really interesting. I thought that the Griottes and Phelps Eisele were the most terroir specific wines we had. The Griottes was all cherry. You could smell the cherries a mile away. I also like the cleanness and precision of 1996 Burgundies, as I have said many times. The vintage is a German wine lover’s Burgundy vintage.

The flight of the Richebourg and the Clos de Beze was clearly the flight of the night at least as far as the reds went. I agree with Paul regarding the Richebourg, but disagree with him on the Clos de Beze. While not quite as good as the Richebourg, I really liked the Clos de Beze. It was clearly my second favorite red of the evening.

I was disappointed in the Pichon Lalande. This is a wine with a big reputation and having had a bunch of great 1982 Bordeaux last week was looking forward to something special. The wine had good richness, but on the whole seemed simple. I don’t know if the wine is just too young, did not show well after the wonderful Burgundies in the previous flight or what, but count me as underwhelmed.

Paul really nailed the Eisele. It had a really minty nose and seemed like a Martha’s Vineyard. Very nice wine.

As to the sweet wines, well, this may be the best single collection of sweet wines I have ever had at one time. All five wines were spectacular. And, each of them were distinctive from one another - the Huet tasted like mature chenin, the Donnhoff had a richness to it and an almost nuttiness like an older BA, the Selbach was as clean and precise as an eiswein should be, the Climens showed excellent structure and a certain lightness to go with richness somehow that was quite appealing and the d’Yquem was rich and powerful. Each was what it should be, each was great and the flight was quite special. I was in awe.

Thanks, Howard. To be clear, I love Monprivato, and I was trying to indicate my guess that it was the showing and not the wine. It may well have been a different story even just with more time in the glass (one of the hazards of this kind of event). The Clos de Beze we do disagree on - it wss certainly good, but I didn’t think it was at the top of this heap.

Having not had the Monprivato before, I cannot say that this one was better or worse than others, but I can say that I liked the wine. As to the Clos de Beze, I do think it took a little while to open up, but for me it kept getting better and better. I will be interested in what others have to say.

The Mascarello was extremely nice, I thought, Howard–I’ve only got one left, and wish I had more. Fortunately, I do have a supply of the '04s. I agree about the quality of the Eisele–thanks for bringing that. I’ve had only limited experience with well-aged California cabernet, and it was great to have a chance to sample one.

This is a superb lineup. Well done gentleman. When I grow up, I want to be like you guys

You really wouldn’t. To be like most of this group, you would first have to go to law school.

Cool - I’m on the right track!

Another wonderful tasting experience before I head back to France on 20 January. It was too bad that some of the other participants could not come because of winter colds and work conflicts, but that meant more wine for the rest of us . I have to agree with Howard on the Clos de Beze which I found to be the second best red of the evening. The Barolo was incredibly delicious too. With the exception of the slight TCA in the Vega Sicilia which I did not catch at first, all the reds were superior wines. And, as Paul said, for some reason, the Comtesse did not quite go to 11 - gotta love the Spinal Tap reference. I think there were some order issues, for example the Bordeaux and the Joseph Phelps being served after the Burgs. And the comparison of the Climens with the Yquem was tough on the otherwise excellent Climens.

Bottom line for me was that this tasting dinner (1) reinforced the notion that Pinot Noir from Burgundy can age very well, thank you very much, (2) underscored the importance of freshness in wines as a factor not just for longevity but also for taste and (3) drove the point home that I am lucky indeed to come back home to Washington D.C. and share such great gustatory experiences with serious and passionate wine lovers.

Here my full notes with photos:
http://www.connectionstowine.com/wine-dinners/freshness-defined/

Panos, did you ever think you would go to a wine dinner where your least favorite noncorked red was an 82 Pichon Lalande? We are living large.

Interesting note, we opened the '06 for New Year’s. The look on my wife’s face when she did not hear a “pop” as I opened the bottle was priceless! It was if she did not know what to do next - something had just happened but not sure what.

Our bottle was flat. The cork was a tad bit soft but there were no real signs of leaking. The wine was clearly 100% pinot and despite a tiny touch of brett it seemed very interesting. I too would like to try another bottle.

Thanks for the excellent write-up, Paul. Like Howard, I thought the 88 Beze was better than you suggest but suffered by comparison to the Richebourg. On the other hand, I felt both the Griotte and the Monprivato were enhanced by being served together. The two shared the '96 signature acid spine, which was thus minimized by the two being served together, while the distinctive sappiness of the Griotte and meatiness of hte Monprivato were enhanced by the comparison. They also benefitted by not following the Richebourg. To me, that was the wine of the night, at least among the dry wines.

One minor correction: I did not suggest the wine was Ponsot. I don’t know whether it was Ponsot or Leclerc. It had a flat punt, which I have read suggests Leclerc, but I have no direct knowledge either way.

Excellent points about the two 1996s. Chris, you should have mentioned these at dinner to the guy sitting next to you.

Never in my wildest dreams, Howard.

That’s the kind of dinner I like, well done guys!
Reminds me a dinner with 10 wines a few years back where our least favourite wine (red and white included) was a pristine bottle of '82 Lafite…

So, Michael, how do we get you and Valerie to visit us in DC?

Must do! Let’s plan on a visit this year at some point.
Also forgot to praise Paul for his pithy notes - thanks Paul for starting this thread!

Howard, I’m easy to convince! … The question really is how to convince Valerie… The only labels she knows (though with no knowledge about the “prestige” behind them) are Jamet, Selosse and DRC. Yes, she’s tough…

my guess is you don’t get her here discussing wines. There are a lot of neat things to do around DC. A lot of US history is here, whether staying around the area and going to the Smithsonian museums and Mount Vernon or going a couple of hours away and seeing Williamsberg. There also is a lot of shopping, even for things other than wine. What does Valerie like to do?