jrufusj

Funny. My answers are the same as yours, except that for me: 2 = a 7 = b or maybe c Thanks for kicking off, Jim

Thanks for the compliments. Great point about western mentality. In Matt Kramer's book Making Sense of California Wine, there is a chapter (an essay really) called "The Machine in the Mind" or something like that. Anyone who is seriously interested in this topic should beg, borrow, or steal a copy to read that chapter. One caveat -- I haven't bought his new Cali book, so I don't know if the same material is there. I've only got the early '90s version. Take care, Jim

Just noticed docsconz's note. First of all...thanks for the props. What really caught my eye, though, was the Adria quote in his signature..."Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster." Combine that with the also very Adria-n idea that a sardine should taste like a sardine and a lobster like a lobster and my point has been made much more succinctly than I could ever make it! (In the alternate universe that Adria inhabits, the sardine may look like a lobster and be prepped like a carrot and have the texture of your aunt's denture cream, but it should stun you with its pure essence of sardine flavour!) Jim

I can't take credit for Screagle. To be honest, though, I also can't remember where I first read it. I think it's pretty common terminology among us East Coast wine snobs. Katie...absolutely agree with you that it's easier to grow in a nice warm, irrigated, deep loam, new world site than on a 60 degree Bernkastel slope. Actually, you said Wachau. I think you and I must have similar tastes. You've mentioned Austrian and Alsatian wines, two locations that might very well have made it onto my list of favorites in my first note, but got cut off because I had to stop somewhere. Thought it was interesting that a note criticizing a Shafer wine for excess alcohol (and maybe excess extraction/ripeness) just appeared. In my previous note I used Shafer as a counterpoint winery to Screagle and its lot. I've lived outside the US for five years and don't think I've had a Shafer wine newer than the early nineties. Have they changed that much? Despite a tad more oak than I might like, I thought the SLD and HS cabs from 15 or so years ago were great expressions of Stags Leap character. Matt Kramer describes SL character as "corseted voluptuosity". Have the corsets come off at Shafer? That would be a real shame! In '91, I believe it was, I took a business trip to San Francisco and visited John Walker. They helped me put together a mixed case to ship home. To the best of my recollection, the case included two bottles each of: Duckhorn Three Palms Merlot; Grgich Hills SB; Cain Five; Talbott Chardonnay; Peter Michael Mon Plaisir; and Hess Collection Cab (the estate one). This was a great time to go -- 86 and 87 vintages for the reds. It was this experience that really sent me over the edge from a casual wine drinker who paid attention to what he drank, but not much more than that, to an obsessed character. So I have early wine roots on the west coast. I'd be interested to hear people's answers to a few questions: 1. Which is more important to you in wine? (a) primary fruit (b) secondary elements 2. Which rules? (a) nose (b) palate 3. Choose one... (a) Burgundy (b) Bordeaux 4. My attitude to new oak is... (a) Can't get enough (b) I'm starting to get tired of it © A few people know how to use it right...but it should only appear in limited cases (d) Save the forests...boycott tree killing winemakers! (e) Why does it get so much attention? Some people use it, some people don't 5. Which is more critical to balance and development (and I know they're both important, but play along and choose one)? (a) Tannins (b) Acid 6. You can only have one of the following. You choose: (a) Geyserville (b) Lytton Springs 7. At what price point does a wine need to be able to age (improve with, not just hold) to earn your interest and dollar? (Please exclude wines like Condrieu, which obviously just don't fit the question.) (a) At any level (b) Over $20 © Over $40 (d) Over $60 or higher (e) Really don't care if it's nice and tasty now (f) Don't have proper storage and don't want wines that need age 8. Super Tuscans are: (a) Excellent...please send me some (b) Okay if they've got plenty of Sangiovese and don't taste like trees © An abomination (d) A good idea gotten carried away (e) No longer Super Tuscans but IGT's. So leave me alone...tradition is nonsense. Please hold off telling me that the answer you want to give is not listed. Neither are the perfect answers on most personality tests, but the questions are chosen because the choice you make out of the limited options still says a lot. If you don't like the questions, don't play. I think the answers will tell a lot about our palates. Thanks for bearing with me, Jim edited for an answer coding typo

Wow! There’s a lot of meat here. I like to think about terroir in two different ways. First, I like to ask “Does the terrior come through in the wine?” Second, I would ask “Do I like what the terroir has to say?” To me, these are two entirely different questions. Another set of questions, which are influenced by terroir, winemaking, and vintage conditions – but not direct expressions of any one alone – is “Do I like the wine? Is it balanced? Does it match well with the kind of food I eat? Does it match well with the way I drink wine? Does it keep me interested over the course of a glass? A bottle? An evening? A case? Will this wine develop and show me even more? Is it complete? Is it complex?” If I am writing tasting notes for a general audience, I will typically focus on this last set of questions. For a wine to be a “good” wine that will call me back for repeated buying and drinking, it needs to get “yes” answers to most of those questions. Looking at a sip – or glass or bottle – of wine as a discrete event in its own right, this is the way I evaluate a wine. However, what keeps me fascinated and gives me thrills are the first two questions. Feeling the gout de terroir come through in a wine, Carolyn’s “dirt sensation” on her tongue, is the ultimate thrill to me. I will seek out and buy wines from producers that let that savour of site come through. I will seek out and buy wines from regions or sites where the terroir can speak forcefully and in a voice that is thrilling to hear. Katie makes a great point about different regions having different climates that affect the wine, above and beyond any influence that soil or vigneron may provide. However – and maybe I’m just playing semantics here – that is part of terroir for me. I see three predominate factors that sculpt the wine – terroir, vintage, and grower/winemaker. Terroir (to me at least) is a combination of soil, climate, exposure, drainage, etc. Vintage is weather (a short term phenomenon, as opposed to climate, which is more persistent) – sunlight, rain, heat, cool, wind as experienced through one growing season. Grower/winemaker is the series of choices (including whether to intervene at all) related to: irrigation, vine spacing, pruning, training, green harvest, fertilizing, hang time, natural concentration techniques, artificial concentration/extraction techniques, protection/oxidation, cold stabilization, centrifuging, skin contact, maceration, crushing, destemming, pressing, fermentation medium, yeast selection, fermentation temperature, batonnage, remouage, racking, fining, filtering, malo, aging medium, aging time, and a thousand similar choices I haven’t mentioned. So, when I say I prefer wines where the terroir shines through, that presumes several things. First, it assumes a grape variety grown in a site that provides something distinctive to start with. I would suggest that Central Valley columbard does not. I would suggest that Howell Mountain cab generally does. Second, it assumes that vinegrowing and winemaking techniques don’t get in the way of that distinctiveness coming through. When I say I want to determine whether the terroir says something I like, that gets to Katie’s point. If the weather for a given site is such that a grape will be green until it hits 30 brix, I’m probably not going to like what comes from that site. I do believe – with Katie – that the most stunning expressions of flavor often come from grapes grown at the edge of their cultivable range. That stress may come from cold, from near barren soil, from 60 degree hillsides that can barely hold soil, or from water stress that makes roots reach deep. In the new world, much early viticulture (and we are still in early days) has been in areas that provide no stress. Additionally, even if a grower is in the “right place”, the grower may be cultivating the wrong variety. Going even further, the grower/winemaker may not yet have found the vineyard and winery techniques that bring the most out of the fruit (and, of course, the site). Finally, I do believe that a large number of new world winegrowers/makers are still in a laboratory phase (as they should be, if my points immediately above are correct). In that laboratory phase, they may not only be missing the best techniques, but they may be actively getting the way of the expression of terroir. A perfect example of that was the big, oaky, buttery chardonnay wave, which went above and beyond the effect of the climate. I would argue that Screagle and similar extremely ripe and extracted cabs do the same. One just has to taste a Clos du Val or Shafer or Dunn offering as a counterpoint to see what I mean (whether you actually agree or not). Again, what saddens and frustrates me most is when extreme techniques and varietal attachments are taken from the new world to the classic old world regions where terroir, variety, and technique are well established and have proven occasionally magical through time. (Just so I don’t seem entirely closed minded, I think California and Australia have offered fantastic lessons and gifts to wines from emerging lesser regions of France and Italy and Spain and many other places. If the wine wasn’t great to begin with there, it is sheer bloody mindedness to be protective or nostalgic about the “old way”.) There is no one right winegrowing/making style worldwide or even for one vineyard or region. Jacque Seysses at Dujac uses a lot of new oak and has a distinctive signature, but the terroir seems to shine through. Dominique Laurent uses a lot of new oak and I believe it obscures the terroir. D’Angerville uses less oak (or at least seems to) and the terroir just screams through. DRC picks extremely ripe, but I’ve never heard anyone argue that the terroir of their wines was obscured. Grivot (at various times in his wandering style) has picked extremely ripe and used unusual maceration and I believe it has obscured terroir. (Beware here as Grivot has been through an Accad period, a vin de garde period, and a new period of greater balance – one hopes.) De Montille picks much less ripe and makes wines that are painfully difficult when young, but are startlingly detailed, beautifully etched expressions of site when mature. On the west coast, similar examples are easy to find. Shafer uses more oak than I might prefer, but their wines are beautiful expressions of place. Silver Oak completely obscures any savor of site with oak. Amador zins are picked extremely ripe, but they are pure expressions of place. Some of the cult, hang-time wines destroy their expression with extreme ripeness and excess extraction. So, as I said in my prior note, I might prefer “classic” old world styles, sites, techniques, weather…but I would rather drink a Shafer cab or an Amador zin than a Laurent or Accad-period Grivot burg. Sorry for being longwinded, Jim PS – Mary and Carolyn, please don’t worry. I wasn’t offended and didn’t think anyone was piling on. I’m just keenly aware of the level of noise and vitriol these discussions create on other boards, so I wanted to try to be sensitive. edited for clarity

Gotta go! Even with my poor Japanese, I know it is in Shibuya, but what is 幡ヶ谷? Thanks, Jim

Sorry to trot out a well worn word that often generates more heat that light, but first and foremost, I prefer wines that express their terroir. Before anyone loads that up with more meaning than I intend, let me caveat that it does not necessarily mean there is something wrong with higher alcohol, new oak, or higher extraction (within reason, that is). The classic old world regions have had time to learn, through great trial and error, what grapes grow best on which sites, which ripeness levels best express that site, and what minimal level of winemaking intervention allows that expression to shine through. In the Duoro, that may mean fortification or extended wood aging. In the Veneto, it may mean recioto treatment. In Sauternes or the Mosel, it may mean concentration through botrytis. In Savennieres, it may mean simple fermentation in old wood without temperature control, with malo impeded by cold winters and a dose of sulphur at bottling time. In California and Australia, we're still in the extremely early days of figuring out what grows best, where, and how it is best handled. Clearly, Stags Leap and Howell Mountain have a vocation for cab. The Green Valley can yield stunning sparklers. Amador offers a style of zin that is unique and as authentic as anything produced in any classic old world region. Australia and California (and other young regions) are in a fantastic phase of discovery and experimentation. They are veritable laboratories for wine making and vineyard management. More power to them. What troubles me, though, is when the results of that experimentation start to encroach into areas that have already found their heavenly matches and can deliver them with occasional crystal clarity. And that encroachment can be an overripe Rutherford cab that hangs until it hits 30 Brix or it can be a Gevrey that gets whole cluster cold maceration. I enjoy drinking the New World experiments, but largely for their experimental value. For my day-in day-out drinking, I guess I would have what others have called an East Coast palate. My favorite wines are Burgundy (red and white), Barolo and Barbaresco, Loire chenin blanc, MSR riesling, champagne. I enjoy one thing or another from just about everywhere else, but those areas represent the bulk of what I buy and drink. However, I would much rather drink a big Amador zin than a Laurent Burgundy and would prefer a whopping, spicy petit sirah over a Clerico Barolo. Maybe the best test of where my palate falls is to look at what my favorite California wines have been over the years. Perhaps the one wine that most pushed me over the edge into this fantastic, expensive obsession was the '87 Cain Five. I love ABC Chardonnays. My favorite Zins over the years have come from Dry Creek (though I admit to loving much of what Ridge does). I used to drink a lot of Sonoma Cutrer wines when I lived in the US. Williams Selyem and Calera were my favorite new world pinots. Like ABC and Calera, plenty of Chalone wines were terrible, but when they hit, man did they hit dead on! I certainly don't want or expect new world pinot to taste like it came from the Cote d'Or, but I guess I do have a certain preference for subtlety over strong flavors. Similarly, even if my wallet doesn't always like it, I like the individuality and vintage variation of Burgundy and the risk that comes with it. I'll easily tolerate a little volatile acidity before I'll accept excessive alcohol or over extraction or extreme ripeness levels. And, despite my jibe on the Sideways thread...I don't equate a west coast palate with a stimulant cream for a certain part of the female anatomy! Hope this generates more light than heat, Jim

← West Coast palate?? Jim

N.V. Moutard Champagne Brut Grand Cuvee - France, Champagne (12/31/2004) This was the house pour at an event I attended for New Years Eve. Clean, but fairly unexpressive nose, with bits of spritzy apple and maybe a little hint of nut. Hard to get anything more. Mousse seemed a little large in mouth, with wine's whole impact lacking cut. Flavors on palate were simple apple. If I hadn't seen the label, I might have guessed an Andersen or Green Valley sparkler, but one without the generosity of Roederer Estate or the cut of Iron Horse. Fine for toasting, but not a buy. I was disappointed, because I've been wanting to try the cuvee Arbane from Moutard. This wine, however, makes me think I should be looking somewhere else to satisfy my curiosity. Jim

2002 Hugel Gentil - France, Alsace (1/3/2005) With a casual dinner of slightly spicy tacos, with family that are occasional, non-serious wine drinkers. I am predisposed to likethis, as it is one of my house quaffers and good QPR. This is the first bottle out of the latest case I've bought, so it gets a note. Soft, light yellow/green, but bright and clear. Floral and grapey nose, clearly showing gewurz and muscat. There is a slightly metallic/mineral edge to the nose that may be riesling (or may be my imagination). Otherwise, simple but nicely persistent nose. Good streak of acidity on palate amidst simple peach and apricot fruit. Not exactly taut and not complicated, but a good foil to a simple spicy meal. 1990 Villa de Vetrice Chianti Rufina Riserva - Italy, Tuscany, Chianti, Chianti Rufina (1/3/2005) Slight orange tint joining the red, but not looking fully mature. Still bright. Good mature nose of earth, leather, cherry fruit, a little herb. First impression on palate is a nice dose of Rufina acidity. Would be bothersome in some wines, but that's what we're looking for from this one. Acid comes into balance with a little chocolate, more cherry, some tart plum. Tannins are lurking in the background, but the acid is doing the bulk of the structure job. I don't see much more development in this one, but it should hold fine for a good while if stored well. I'm in no hurry, but will enjoy drinking this over the next few years with simple grilled meat and substantial, but acidic, pasta dishes. Jim

1998 Tapiz Malbec Mariposa - Argentina, Mendoza (1/2/2005) Still deepish purple and solid to rim. Looks like very young wine. At first, nose is completely dominated by American oak...vanilla, vanilla, vanilla. This doesn't change for half an hour. At that point, a little tobacco and pepper start to come out, along with the fruit. The fruit is sweet plummy fruit, but a little hot smelling, more like slivovitz than fresh plum. On the palate, the wine is full from front to back, with good structure...ripe tannins and a nice little kick of acid and a little alcohol sweetness...and a pleasant depth of fruit. It's a shame that one has to concentrate so hard to taste through the thick layer of oak that has not even begun to integrate. Tannins are fully ripe, but otherwise this one seems really young. If the wood ever integrates...and one can get to the nice blueberry, prune, and cherry fruit without too much effort...this could be pretty good. Absent the overbearing oak, I might have been able to imagine this was from Cahors. Jim

Apologies for the slightly stale note from a wine at Thanksgiving dinner with the cousins in Tokyo. I'm going through a project (connected to a New Year's Resolution) to transcribe tasting notes stored on various scraps of paper or in my head and get them loaded into Cellar Tracker. You guys are the victims. 1974 Castello Montegrosso Barbaresco Riserva - Italy, Piedmont, Langhe, Barbaresco Brick orange, but fairly solid at the rim...nose began with straight tea...prompted instinctive fear of dead wine with residual tannin...two swirls and a good sniff started to show a little sweet fruit, a little earth...a small sip showed mostly sweetness on the palate...further swirls, sniffs, and simple time brought out tar, a surprisingly vibrant floral component, and a bit of deep cherry fruit...palate maintained typical old-wine sweetness...recurring nose over two hours was increasingly tar and flower oriented. In great shape and was a great accompaniment to 18 mo Comte, 24 mo Gouda, and 36 mo Parm after Thanksgiving dinner. Take care, Jim

At a gathering at my house of my wife and kids, with my parents (visiting from the US), my cousin's family who also live here in Tokyo, and his parents and sister (also visiting from the US). 1989 Philipponnat Champagne Grand Blanc - France, Champagne, Mereuil Sur Ay, Champagne As an aperitif, with asian-seasoned avacado mash in endive leaves and ikura on toasts as finger food. Deep golden color. Slight mousse suggesting a champagne with more age. Initial impression created by visual of mousse was carried through on nose and palate. Maderized mature champagne aromas and flavors that would have led me to think this was significantly older if tasted blind. Nose showed little to no fruit. Had a honeyed character, slight yeastiness, but a more primary yeastiness than a bread yeastiness. Palate was more interesting, but suffered from a lack of acid. Fruit was primarily quince and fig, with subtle bits of apple and lime. Enjoyable and, above all, interesting, but not very exciting or lively. Quality of storage not in question. And I do generally like mature champagnes. 2002 Huët Vouvray Sec Le Mont - France, Loire Valley, Touraine, Vouvray With a soup of pureed Japanese winter squash (kabocha) and pureed assorted Japanese mushrooms, moistened enough to allow the pureeing with a roasted onion stock. Enriched with a little cream and a little walnut oil smuggled in from France as a Christmas gift by a friend. Finished with crisp fried onion and garlic crumbs. More like a veg puree than a soup. Very, very light straw yellow..crystal clear. Expressive nose of tart apple, stone fruits, mineral, and nutmeg. Great acidity on palate. I wanted to give this one time to develop, but it was hard to stay away from...one of those wines that makes you want to drink it right up. Called to mind Hugh Johnson's quote on claret -- "goes down like water". Light body and mouthfeel containing explosion of tart fruit, pebbly stones, honey without sweetness. Elegant like liquid velvet. Can you tell I like it? 1989 Domaine Rabasse-Charavin Côtes du Rhône Cuvee Syrah - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Côtes du Rhône From magnum. With simple roast duck (cassis mustard and honey glaze), parsley crusted lamb rack, and various typical Christmas sides. Mature (though not heavily faded) lighter red color. Not tending to orange, but all of the ink is definitely gone. Nose with the slightest bit of dust and leather and stable, but still clean. A little allspice and just a hint of pepper, but mostly subdued raspberry and dark cherry fruit. Other than fruit opening up a tad, very little evolution over the course of an hour. Palate shows barely noticeable fully resolved tannins, raspberry fruit, and just enough acid to hold it all together. A pleasure to drink with the duck and lamb. a good demonstration of the aging potential of a simpler wine with good balanced structure to start. 2001 Mas de Boislauzon Côtes du Rhône Villages - France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Côtes du Rhône Villages Follow on bottle with the duck and lamb. Young, deep dark red. Rich nose of sweet berry fruit, spice, anise, and herb. Round and smooth with mild tannins, little to no noticeable acid, and strong deep raspberry fruit with a light pepper spice and a tad of chocolate. Pleasantly full body and good finish in which the fruit lingers. One of the better CdR I've had recently. Makes me glad I bought a case for current drinking, though I wouldn't wait on this one. 1988 Andre Beaufort Champagne Rose Grand Cru Doux - France, Champagne, Ambonnay, Champagne Degorge -- May 2004 With a charlotte russe. Light, clear strawberry color with lively mousse. Strawberry color notes carried through to strawberry fruit on the nose, accompanied by candied citrus and marinated cherry, with just a touch of cinnamon and even a little floral hint. Rich sweet mouthfeel that stood up well to charlotte russe. Surprisingly good acid balanced the sweetness. This wine just screams strawberries and sweet cream from front to back of mouth, though a little lemony touch keeps the finish from cloying. Generally not my style of wine, though it is the best match for the charlotte I've ever had. 1989 Huët Vouvray Moelleux 1ère Trie Le Haut Lieu - France, Loire Valley, Touraine, Vouvray With an array of cheeses. Deep yellow-gold, crystal clear, solid to rim. Except for depth of gold, could have been a baby. Nose showed immediate honey richness, peach and apple fruit, ground stone. Developed apple pie type spice and fleeting citrus notes as it sat, as well as a yeasty sweet cheese character similar to brie baked in pastry. Mouthfeel that would have suggested TBA sweetness, but less sweet than that and balanced by an acidity that kept it as fresh as bubbling streamwater. Complete from front to back of palate, with still primary fruit and flavor like waxy honeycomb. Long, long finish with that pleasurable slight stinging in the back of the nose that comes from good lavendar honey. Great bottle of wine! Jim

At a casual Boxing Day gathering of mostly non-wine geek types. Among the array of ordinary Chilean merlot and Aussie shiraz, two interesting wines were opened. 1997 Château Léoville Barton - France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Julien Undecanted/unaerated. Still a fairly deep reddish color, solid throughout. Nose of a little sweet oak, some cassis and a little herb. With time (a little) slight notes of plum and dried leaf. Didn't get a lot of time, but don't expect much was developing. Palate was surprisingly sweet, but not large or round. Tannins noticeable but not intrusive, acid very slight. Finish okay, but light overall. Not quite watery...but definitely a little dilute. Perfectly enjoyable for current casual drinking and okay for the vintage, but nothing to get excited about. 1998 Domaine Jacques-Frederic Mugnier Musigny - France, Burgundy, Côte de Nuits, Chambolle-Musigny Opened spur-of-the-moment by a friend. Well cellared, but served without benefit of any aeration. Color from the side is deep, rich burgundy. Against light from below, showing a little lighter at the edges and brightish red toward the center. Upon opening, simple nose of a wee bit of barnyard, dark cherry fruit, a little sweetness, some earth. With time in glass (it got a little over an hour total), nose expanded to include floral elements, more earth, a little cool mineral. Initial impression on the palate of underlying tannin, front of mouth fruit. Mid-palate was more wood than usual from Mugnier and a little devoid of fruit, but back of palate and finish were pure exploding Musigny. Again, with time in glass the mid-palate filled out a little. As a drink for today, was perfectly enjoyable, but didn't offer up what producer and the vineyard can. But the way the nose opened and the finish exploded...this one's got a lot more to offer when given its due time. Really enjoyed it, but glad it wasn't mine opened at this age. Jim

Had dinner at a great French restaurant in Tokyo last week. Restaurant Le Bourguignon serves good food, slightly Japan-influenced by way of local ingredients, but always well balanced, well executed, and true to a French ethos. The wine list is a great source of values (at least in a Tokyo context). 2002 J.M. Boillot Rully La Pucelle 1er Cru - France, Burgundy, Côte Chalonnaise, Rully With two courses: Carrot mousse with uni and beef consomme gelee Pan fried terrine of unagi and foie gras Bright gold with perhaps the tiniest hint of green, crystal clear. Nose of very light bit of oak, piercing apple fruit, developing into bit of fig and mineral. Palate of well-cut acidity, surprisingly round richness that continued onto finish. This developed in the glass and persisted on the finish well beyond what its appellation would suggest. Definitely a buy for drinking at home over the next few years if I see it on a shelf here in Tokyo. 1986 Albert Morot Beaune Teurons 1er Cru - France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Beaune With two courses: Pan-seared medai with matsutake sauce Breast of duck with slow cooked root vegetables Faded to light cherry color. Color was indicative of the fruit that remained on nose and palate -- all cherry. What fruit was there was good and even a little sweet with maturity, but was light for the remaining structure. First blush of nose and palate suggested sweet tea. I'm having a hard time figuring out what I thought. Surprising level of mature sweetness for the vintage, but somehow it still didn't keep up with the acidity and residual tannin. Definitely better on the nose than palate. With time in glass developed a good aray of secondary aromas...winter leaves, a little tar, some warm spice. Perfectly enjoyable -- rather drink this than most new world pinot -- but not a good match. Structure outweighed fruit for the fish and clashed a little. Matched better with duck, but was a little dwarfed. 1976 Moulin Touchais Coteaux du Layon - France, Loire Valley, Anjou, Coteaux du Layon With a variety of cheeses. Deep, deep honeyed gold in glass, with a richness and viscosity you could just see as you moved the glass -- really appetizing appearance. Nose of orange peel, freshly crushed peaches, wild honey, and chestnut puree. Developed stony, mineral elements as it opened up. Good balance of crisp appley acid with honeyed sweetness let the nectarine and pomelo fruit come through. As it moved back in the mouth, creaminess took over, but without losing crispness. Finish was a bit shorter than I would have hoped, but this was still a fun wine to drink and a great value. Jim

If you want to spend the money, anything under $100 US is a good price on 96 DP. I've only had the wine once...and it has years to go before it's really ready...but it's also a pleasure to drink now. If you've got good storage and a little patience, I would definitely bite. However, if you don't have both storage and patience, I'm not sure drinking it young will give you the experience you are paying for. Then again, some people don't like mature Champagne. In any case -- a good price. Jim

Continuing the recent topic drift toward Italy... It is not really a low cost alternative, but I love Bruno Giacosa's Brut Extra. Here is a recent note on the 2000. The wine had a really tightly wound core of acidity, like a spring waiting to explode, surrounded by slight yeast/toast, apple and apricot fruit, and a surprisingly big (but pleasing) mouthfeel. I really enjoyed the two bottles I bought and drank. I will also be buying more to lay down. I can't wait to see how this wine develops over 10 years or so. The core of springlike acidity promises a great life. I'll be interested also to see how the yeast/toast comes out. The low level of yeast/toast was the biggest difference I noticed versus a BdN Champagne, though it normally takes some time for that to come out in more age-worthy champers as well. The wine is a Blanc de Noirs made, I believe, entirely from Pinot Niero. The grapes are grown in Oltrepo Pavese in Lombardy, near the Franciacorte DOC area. Then again, you should discount this note by the fact that I love everything Giacosa does. He is one of my favorite growers/producers from any region, period.

Andre: Thanks for your compliments and good wishes. For whatever it's worth, the wine showed much better at dinner than it did when first opened. I had a bit of a dilemma in that I needed to transport mature wine (that had thrown some sediment) to the restaurant. Transporting in bottle before decanting wasn't feasible for two reasons. First, I was concerned about clouding the wine on the way to the restaurant. Second, this was a small restaurant that isn't set up for proper wine service with mature wines that require decanting off sediment. Additionally, I wanted to make sure all of the bottles were good before I headed to the restaurant, as I didn't want to lug around unnecessary backup bottles. As I said, the double decanting actually helped the wine show a lot better. Had the wine come out on the edge of cracking up, I would have pulled a different wine to serve with dinner. My taste for mature wines may be a little different from others, but I've found that even mature burgs can stand up to (and benefit from) a little more air than one might expect. Also, by double decanting, I just mean decanting then pouring back into original (cleaned and dried) bottle, then sealing up. By the way, I looked at your profile and loved your statement under "Interests: Wines expressing their soil". That's the reason I love old school burg, old school B&B, single vineyard alsace, Loire CB's, MSR/Rhiengaus. Suspect we have similar taste...even if we differ on decanting old burgs. Take care, Jim

Thanks for the thoughts on the Rousseaus. I took a pass -- partly based on price and partly based on a need to plan my buying a little more methodically. Here in Tokyo, I've only got about 12 cases of active storage. I've got near unlimited -- and pretty good but not perfect -- passive storage. I can only be fully confident storing a certain quantity of wines that will need a long time or that are already in the mature window. After almost five years in Bangkok and Seoul, I'm back in a decent (though expensive) wine market and need to be careful about going overboard. So...buying strategy first! Au Petit Paris doesn't have two floors. The small restaurant is on the street level and there is nothing above. Would recommend it for a casual French dinner or for an arranged event like I did. Jim

I wrote: Needed to come back and correct misinformation I passed on. I had heard that Etienne (?) de Montille was making wine at Ch de PM, but was wrong. He is actually making wine at Dom. de PM. Sorry if my misinformation has led anyone to spend money on something they wouldn't have bought otherwise. In any case, I'm glad I was mistaken. Believing famille de Montille were involved led me to try a wine to which I would otherwise have given a pass. I had tried it at the source in 1994 and not been thrilled. Tried it again for the first time in this restaurant, believing it was de Montille influenced. Should have known it wasn't, as it was made in a realtively forward style, without the acidity and screaming need for age typical of de Montille's red offerings. This was a reasonably priced wine for young drinking. On those terms, I would drink it again. Jim

Saturday night my wife and I gave a dinner for my 40th birthday. We had the dinner at the restaurant Au Petit Paris in Shirokane in Tokyo. The restaurant did a great job coordinating with us to put together a menu that would work with the wines I wanted to bring. It is a small place (seats maybe 20 at absolute max) and they closed to focus on our 12-person party. They let me bring in wines (for corkage of about $17.50 per) and, not having a regular cheese service, they also let me bring in cheese. These guys have a short, but fairly priced and well chosen wine list of nice producers from off vintages, so I bought the champagne and one of the whites from them. (I always think it is more reasonable to ask to be allowed to bring in a large batch of wines if you are also buying something off the list.) Wines and menu were as follows: Taittinger Brut Reserve NV – This one we bought off the restaurant's list. Served this as people were arriving, mingling, etc. Does the job fine, but nothing special. I always find the mousse to be a little heavy on this wine, especially compared to the nose, which is a little lighter than many. Some toast, a little apple/grapefruit, very slight honey or similar sweetness on nose. Plain, crisp, direct attack in the mouth. What can I say? Refreshing, fun, everybody likes bubbles to start the night. It does the job. Chateau de Puligny Montrachet, Chassagne Montrachet 2000 – Also off the restaurant's list and served with two courses: Amuse – Miniature croissant flavored with anchovy puree Assiette de campagne – A small piece of lightly smoked duck, a sublime uni and egg scramble served in the egg shell, and a piece of smoked shellfish I like this wine. It gets a little oak, but not more than the wine can stand up to, even in this vintage. The little bit of smokiness goes very well with the duck. This wine is by no means to be confused with a top premier cru, but it managed to provide enough interest to drink through two short courses and bridged the various elements well. Stood up to the anchovies and smoke, but didn't overpower the delicate uni dish. Nose is what I call broad...not really nuanced, but a good solid attack of white fruit and light toast. Cycles among apple, light citrus, pear, maybe an occasional bit of sweeter fruit. Palate is solid throughout…no weakness here. A hint of acidity, a bit of creaminess, fruit is more underneath than on top of this, but not out of balance. Again, this wine is not going to live forever or be confused with a Ruchottes or Morgeot, but it is good solid drinking and a fair choice when ordering off the list. I think things have gotten significantly better here since Hubert de Montille's son began making the wine and the improvement showed well here. Zind Humbrecht, Tokay Pinot Gris Clos Jebsal 1997 – This one was mine and was served with a choice of two dishes: Sautéed foie gras with a sautéed apple and sherry vinegar sauce or Gratin of langoustine tails with spinach The sherry vinegar sauce was only very lightly acidic and did not threaten the wine. The langoustine dish was in a very rich Americaine-type sauce. This was not a VT, but the basic Jebsal. I've got four more of these and I'm really glad. As rich and unctuous as you hope for from the grape and the domaine, with the freshness and zing to make it all work. I really admire ZH for their single vineyard zeal and think they are astounding with late harvest wines. I'm not always comfortable that the smaller wines will be in balance but this one sure was. I'm becoming convinced that their style really does well with Pinot Gris of any size. I opened and poured a tiny bit of this wine from each bottle about two hours before it was served just to make sure I was taking clean wine. (Didn't really want to chill backup bottles unless there was a problem.) Man, as soon as the cork came out, the perfume just leapt out. I was actually a little worried it might be bordering too much on VT style for the food. However, despite the sweet orange and cinnamon honey nose, the wine was zippy on the palate. I'd love to know how much RS it actually had. It was so unctuous and viscous, there must have been some, but against the foie you couldn't tell. Others report it did equally well against the langoustine. Awesome now with a long life ahead of it. Pierre Bouree Fils, Charmes Chambertin 1988 – This one was also mine. Served with amadai (a kind of snapper) in an umami-rich preparation (mushrooms, a little kelp stock, etc.). Okay, this was the major moment of the night for me. I hadn't tasted this wine in a long time and was nervous about it. There were so many things I wanted to show/go right here – underrated vintage that I really like – red burgundy/umami thing – old school producer/negociant. (This is one of Bouree's negociant wines, but they also have holdings in Charmes Chambertin and I am told that a significant amount of their fruit goes into this wine. Also understand that they take a major hand in the winemaking from the moment of picking.) On the other hand, there was a lot of risk – some 88s are still tough and tight – Bouree wines get little or no destemming and a fairly warm maceration and fermentation – even though Charmes is a little lighter, the whole Gevrey area can come around slowly. And all this was matched against a white fish! This pairing was either going to be brilliant or a disaster. I double decanted the wine at about 6:00 pm. A strong whiff Burgundy funk when the corks came out. (That's a good thing, by the way.) Rather closed and tight on the nose when tasting the dregs...a little dust, a little funk (not quite crottin, but definitely in the stable), some very tight sour cherry fruit. Tannins there but much more subtle on the palate than I had feared. Reasonably stingy with the fruit in the mouth, but a surprising sweetness on the finish. I headed to the restaurant pretty excited about what might happen. Several hours later, when poured at the table, much more open! Still some funky element, but with much more open cherry and plum fruit and some general spice and floral notes popping up every now and then. Nice and clear, drifting toward lighter color at the edges, but not looking very aged, particularly since wines of this style tend to start life a little lighter. On the palate, the sweetness had moved into the mouth, along with a bit of brambly fruit. Good long finish. This puppy absolutely sang with the amadai, as well. I love experiments that go well. This wine is far from coming apart, but with ‘88s it probably makes sense to drink them as soon as the tannins are resolved, which is now. Unlike many of the ‘83s and some of the ‘88s, the fruit on this '88 has outdistanced the tannin and I can't wait to find an occasion to hit the other four bottles I've got left. Chateau Pontet Canet 1985 – This one was also mine and was served with a choice of two dishes: Roasted quail stuffed with rice and garnished with foie gras or Entrecote with sauce Bordelaise I really enjoyed this vintage in the early and mid-90s but, strangely enough, have had fewer examples recently. The wines drank well when they were relatively young, but seemed to have enough stuff to hang on for a while as well. This vintage also seemed to be priced pretty well, as it got lost a bit in the run of the ‘80s. Though they are at different ends of the spectrum, I've probably drunk and enjoyed more ‘85s and ‘88s than anything else from that decade. I certainly think those two have presented the best QPR over time. I recently drank an '89 Pontet Canet that stunned me and had seen some older good notes on the '85 (though the reviews on the '85 PC have not been universally good). I double decanted these at the same time as the Bouree bottles. While these didn't have the exploding funk of the burg, they were – all in all – showing more fruit and gave me more confidence they would work at dinner. More evolution in color, but still solid and reasonably deep. No longer opaque, but not something I could hold up to a soft light to figure out how much sediment I was dealing with before opening. Nose was restrained but classic Pauillac. Cedary, tiny bit of vanilla, clean sharp dark berry. Palate was very slightly chewy with tannin, but tannin was more underneath the same fruit that showed on the nose. At that point, little complexity, but enough structure and fruit to make me comfortable. When served with the quail, it underwhelmed me. I wasn't sure whether it had closed up or fallen apart. In retrospect, I think two things happened. First, the fat in the foie garnish may have been a bit much. Second, I do think it went dumb for a while. It was the same wine, same Pauillac aromas, but basically little to no fruit on the nose or palate. Perfectly pleasant drinking (and more pleasing to those who had the entrecote), but a bit of a disappointment. (Next morning, a quick sip from an unfinished bottle had opened up nicely and had fruit once again. Next evening, the last bit with a piece of well-aged Comte was really enjoyable, but fading again. I've got three more of these and would love thoughts from anyone with recent experience. My best guess is that I'll pop one soon with a little plain roast chicken, see how it does over six to eight hours and make a decision on the other two then. I don't have the feeling there's any evolution left, but I'm baffled as to why these went dumb for hours.) Chateau Rieussec 1990 – This one was also mine. We popped these to have available with cheese and with dessert. At the same time, there was also Pinot Gris, burg, and claret left on the table, so it was "grab what you like" time with the cheese. Cheese – Pouligny St. Pierre, Epoisses de Bourgogne, Comte, Camembert de Normandie, Fourme d'Ambert. All were AOC and all except the Fourme d'Ambert were lait cru. It may have been as well, but I couldn't find anything on any sign at the cheese counter to indicate. (I brought the cheeses myself and was really happy with the selection I had at the market. Tokyo may be expensive, but it presents a wealth of choice compared to Bangkok and Seoul, my two prior residences.) Each of the cheeses was in good shape and at a reasonable state of aging. I like them all, but I had forgotten how good the Pouligny is at about middle age – not yet goaty-funky, but already taking on a little color and strength. Dessert – Pastry filled with roasted whole chestnut and a bit of marzipan Okay, this was one wine I had no doubts about. As long as they weren't cork-skunked, I knew these would work. I've had the dessert before and knew it was a great match. I don't drink a lot of Sauternes, but enjoy it in the right circumstances. The few 1990 Sauternes I've had have been spot on and so was this. Rieussec made a great wine that year, significantly darker (in color and flavor profile) than their typical Fargues wine. This was big-time botrytis – honey and that piercing smell that lets you know there's plenty of zing under the layers of sweet. This just went on and on and on – honey, lemon, butterscotch, candied citrus, middle eastern flower water, caramel, swirling and switching and mixing. Amazing with the Fourme d'Ambert and similarly in synch with the dessert. Unfortunately, I don't have any of this left. There was a little bit in the bottle stuck in my fridge when we came home from the restaurant. I'll picked up a little veined cheese on the way home from work Monday night and finished it off. What a shame I don't have any more; this wine has at least several decades left. (But it's also amazing now!) Bas Armagnac, Chateau de Lacaze 1981 – This was just with coffee and petits fours. Also something I brought. It's a fine standby, typical of the appelation. Definitely a little closed and alcohol heavy when poured. With a little warming and swirling come bits of sweet fig fruit, warm caramel, coffee tones. Smooth with very little bite. Not very expensive, not very complicated, but at that point of the night my palate was pretty much burned out. Final comment/question: I recently had the chance to pick up some Rousseau ‘88s of known good provenance. Exact wines were Charmes, Mazis, Gevrey Cazetiers. I initially passed due to price and uncertainty about muscley Gevrey wines from '88, but am now intrigued after how well the Bouree Charmes Chambertin showed. Anyone have any recent experience? There are also a few Rousseau ‘83s and ‘85s available to me if anyone has strong comments on those (though I am very skeptical of the ‘83s). Sorry for the long ramble, Jim

I could be wrong (happens all too often), but I am pretty sure this is not the second wine of de Pez. (1) The second wine movement (with some of the notable exceptions to which you refer above) is really a phenomenon of the Peynaud focus on yields, selection, and concentration. Hard to imagine a cru bourgeois superieur like de Pez bottling a second wine in 1962. (Even though de Pez really is of classed growth quality.) (2) As a matter of fact, at least during the late '80s/early '90s, de Pez had no second wine. I can't imagine that they used to have a second, but loosened their selection or began selling off the fruit to the cooperative or negociants. (3) The link MsMelkor found and pointed to indicates only 3% CF in the blend for La Croix de Pez. Ch. de Pez has traditionally used a much higher percentage. It is possible that de Pez sold less select fruit to the Marquis de St. Estephe cooperative and that was bottled under the La Croix de Pez name. In any case, whatever the source of the fruit, I think all can agree that this -- (a) cooperative bottled or (b) second wine of a cru bourgeois -- has next to zero chance of being alive today, particularly after being imprisoned in a closet for over 30 years. Jim

None of the maps of St. Estephe that I have show La Croix de Pez, so I can't speak to its specific situation within the commune. As of the late '80s, the wine was being bottled by a cooperative. The main cooperative label was Marquis de St. Estephe. La Croix de Pez was one of the properties that was vinified, bottled, and labeled separately from the general cooperative crush. Don't know if that was the case in 1962, but I would find it surprising if they were estate bottling in '62 and later went to the cooperative. I don't know how much you know about wine in general (or care to know for your research), but if you would like background on where St. Estephe is or what that would mean to the wine, I'm sure there are hundreds on here who would love to enlighten you, so just ask. As Jackal10 noted, '62 was somewhat overshadowed by '61, but was a strong vintage (and had the largest production of the '50s and '60s). The wines were more classically structured and smaller than the wines of '61, but have aged gracefully when well made and well kept. Good acids have greatly contributed to this longevity. The question may be moot, however. You note that the bottle was stored in a closet. Nothing survives 33 years in a closet very well -- and particularly not a minor wine, no matter how well made. Hope this helps and sorry for the pessimism. Jim

Unfortunately, I'll be celebrating with a 9:00 PM conference call! I did, however, bring back moon cakes from my trip to Beijing last week. One batch was filled with chestnut paste adn one with bean paste. I've got a person from HK and a person from Beijing working with us in Tokyo, so the mooncakes will be the closest taste they'll get of the traditional Chinese moon festival. Jim

I've never been there. My old office was in Akasaka and I used to go to another place in the neighborhood that was good value. However, this one looks like a good deal too, provided the food is good. There's a link on the page to a Japanese menu (actually requires two clicks to get there) and the prices seem remarkably good for a non-kaiten place. I'll have to try it next time I'm in the neighborhood. Thanks, Jim