Contrary to what I stated above, since I had 10 of these left, last night I figured, what the hell, let’s take one to dinner. Here is my note:
Tough wine to score. It’s twelve years past the vintage. At this point I would expect secondary characteristics to begin to show. Nice Kirsch flavor but also tastes a bit alcoholic even though the label states 14.5%. Very Good, but shouldn’t this be Excellent to Outstanding?
Not being a fan of enormous, overripe, black fruited, sickly sweet, acid-deficient, punishingly alcoholic monsters, I’ve generally not thought highly of 07 Chateauneufs since the beginning, and have wished I didn’t buy so many.
But in my experience the 07s have actually aged pretty well and I’ve liked them better of late. I recently tried a 2007 Pégaü. Certainly a sweeter, softer nose than the '95 and '01 that I tasted it alongside. And the striking palate sweetness is still there, but things have calmed down since youth (and Pégaü was never one of the egregious 2007s). Structurally the wine is sound, with just enough of a hint of acidity brightening what is fundamentally a soft, very ripe wine with a long, licorice finish. Alright actually.
pegau labeled at 13.5% lab tested at 15.4% - not sure labels are actually relevant to what’s in the bottle?
Which Pegau are you speaking of? This wide a variance is beyond the legal limit. Maybe you mean labelled as 14.5?
I opened an ‘07 St. Siffrein the night before last and I would say the character of the wine has definitely changed. Where earlier bottles that I’ve had were dominated by the fruit, this one was decidedly more savory. I was a little surprised that it had changed that much.
2003 vintage …
fascinating.
A very tasty wine! ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Sold off mine. 2010s are better for me. Still was listening to Parker at that time
Curious. My 2003s are marked 14%–well less than 15.4% but within the legal variance. I can’t see the date on that bottle. Are you sure it’s the 03? Perhaps Dan knows about label variance. I should say, by looking at my bottles from 00-07, that the alcohol markings seem to be by rote. Up to 03, they are all listed at 13.5% After 03, they are all listed at 14%. Maybe they changed over the listing in the middle of the 03 label run?
the brett levels were off the charts.
indeed some 2003s are labeled as 13.5% and some as 14%. i have no idea why. this is a handpicked selections bottle. to be clear, the 15.4% was the result of sending a bottle to be tested.
Thx for the note Dan! I’ve been trying some '07 CDPs here and there as I find stashes in the cellar. I still very much like many that I’ve tasted and will start to report back with some notes. A nice steak seems to go best 
! CHEERS
I’ve got a few queued up, I find this interesting.
Troll alert! The Parker-hating teetotalers (single digit alcohol: Good. Double digit alcohol: Bad.) probably won’t like any of the wines I’m tasting and posting on, but I find it an interesting a warming exercise during what now passes for a Maine winter:
2007 Moulin Tacussel Chateauneuf-du-Pape
On a roll with 2007 Chateauneufs, this is good but not a biggie.
Medium dark crimson color. The aromas are ripe, but not overripe, moderately intense with more red than black plummy fruit, a touch of garrigue and some earth. The palate is medium bodied, a long way from the intensity of fine Chateauneuf, but the wine is polite, pleasant and balanced. The tannins are resolved, there is reasonable acidity, no perceptible alcohol, the red plum fruit fades towards the end, but this is a pleasant, well-behaved glass as a subtle accompaniment to wild boar ragu. Really, closer in quality to a top Cotes du Rhone than a Chateauneuf (do I hear a bid for Vacqueyras?), but fine for a winter evening in New England. Rated 89.5, ready to drink but should hold a few years.
Dan Kravitz
They label what they choose to label. May not have anything to do with the alcohol measured. As I mentioned in the past, the 2007 P. Usseglio CdP Tradition came in at 15.8% according to a professional laboratory test (sent in Napa). I guess they are not too worried about the info being sent back to France…
I too was slow to trust my own palate. I finally dropped Parker after his 2007 Rhône coronation.
You are not alone!
In the mid noughties I was buying Southern Rhônes in loads. By this time I was no longer making decisions based on the opinions of wine professionals, but when Parker came out and called 2007 Chateauneuf “the best vintage for any wine region ever” or something to that effect, well of course I had to go deep. Upon release and through their first few years what I found was a bunch of enormous, overripe, black fruited, sickly sweet, acid-deficient, punishingly alcoholic monsters that I just hated. Well, that was the end of my already-frayed relationship with His Bobness. In the span of 5 years, he went in my eyes from guru to valued information source to contrarian indicator. The 2007 Wine Advocate Chateauneuf report was the killer. End rant.
I’ve only had VT and beaucastel from this vintage lately but they’ve both been good, imo. A bit of dried fruit on the palate but nothing offensive, to me at least.
I would put VT high on the list of Chateauneufs that never went over the top.
And to be fair, the wines have generally aged better than I thought they would, and I’ve liked them better of late. Had Pégau recently in a vertical with 1995 and 2001. The 07 certainly has a sweeter, softer nose than the older wines. The striking palate sweetness of the 07 vintage is still there, but things have calmed down since youth (and Pégaü was never one of the egregious 2007s). Structurally the wine is sound, with just enough of a hint of acidity brightening what is fundamentally a soft, very ripe wine with a long, licorice finish. Alright actually.
Yeah we poured 07 beaucastel at our wedding and it was great then as well as in the next couple times I’ve had it. Most recent was 2017 and it was nice, I’ll probably revisit this year.