Boston Wine Festival

[cabrales]

A magazine ad for the 2003 Boston Wine Festival includes the following events:

-- Opus One, February 26, 2003 (Wed): Winemaker Patrick Leon "takes you through a tasting of several vintages of Opus One paired with the innovative cuisine of Chef Bruce". Dinner 7 pm, The Atlantic Room, $145.

-- Chateau de Beaucastel/Tablas Creek, February 27: "Winemaker Pierre Perrin will join us for a seminar comparing the Beaucastel Appellations -- Chateauneuf du Pape, Gigondas, and Vacqueyras -- followed by a dinner including Red and White Rhone Blends from both Chateau de Beaucastel and Tablas Creek." Seminar, 6:30 pm, The Atlantic Room; Dinner 7, at same venue. Seminar and Dinner $175. Dinner Only $125.

Depending on what cuisine is offered, those prices don't look too bad for members resident in Boston. Note I have limited knowledge of wine. Perhaps other members could comment.

More info at 888-660-WINE.

[Charles Smith]

I won't comment on the Opus tasting as I am not a fan of those wines, but the Beaucastel event could be worth attending, depending on the vintages poured and the ratio of wines from the chateau vs. wines from Tablas Creek.

1998-2000 are all excellent southern Rhone (all of Beaucastel's holdings are in the south) vintages with unique characteristics- a comparison of the wines across these vintages would be a lot of fun-

older vintages of Beaucastel can be thrilling wines- I've yet to drink a vintage (going back to '64) that was truly over the hill.

Tablas Creek, despite it's ownership, doesn't thrill me yet- the vines aren't old enough to produce wines of great depth, and whether or not that terroir is best served by those varietals is an open question.

could be a lot of fun though-

Cheers,

Charles

[Beachfan]

I won't comment on the Opus tasting as I am not a fan of those wines,  but the Beaucastel event could be worth attending, depending on the vintages poured and the ratio of wines from the chateau vs. wines from Tablas Creek. 

1998-2000 are all excellent southern Rhone (all of Beaucastel's holdings are in the south) vintages with unique characteristics-  a comparison of the wines across these vintages would be a lot of fun- 

older vintages of Beaucastel can be thrilling wines-  I've yet to drink a vintage (going back to '64) that was truly over the hill. 

Tablas Creek, despite it's ownership, doesn't thrill me yet-  the vines aren't old enough to produce wines of great depth,  and whether or not that terroir is best served by those varietals is an open question. 

could be a lot of fun though-

Cheers,

Charles

The Opus Vintages to care about are 94 and 96. 97 was very disappointing, a surprise for the vintage.

I echo Charles comments on the Beaucastel.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Cabby - If this is the same as the Boston Wine Expo, I attended last year and was very disappointed with which wineries attended. A few interesting wines but all in all not a very discriminating bunch. As for the tastings, forget it. The only Beaucastel worth drinking are the 1981, 1989, 1995 and 1998-2000. Plus the Hommage Jacque Perrin is good in every vintage they make it in. Save your money on the tasting and buy yourself a bottle of 1981 and a bottle of 1998 for the combined cost of probably $150.

Edited December 11, 2002 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[marcus]

Steve -- The 1981 Beaucastel has unfortunately been discovered and has been selling recently at auction for at least $110. The brilliantly opulent 1989 costs about the same. I haven't tried the 1998, but wouldn't think that it is at all ready. The Hommages Jacques Perrin was made I believe for the first time in 1989. These are $200+ bottles and my understanding is that they are very backward. I've haven't yet had the opportunity to try any.

[Beachfan]

I had the 89 and 90 this weekend, I would certainly say the 1990 is worth drinking. Not the same class, but very nice.

I also like the 1994 and am glad no one else does. I picked up several 375mls and they are drinking very well now.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Marcus - How many cases would you like between $75-$90? (edited in later)

Actually I just checked and the best price I can get these days is $105. But I know where a case is. I guess they raised the price a little and the exchange rate got worse (it's in the U.K.) Speaking of the U.K., I have been told that many of the '81's that are in this country are cooked because they were shipped in the days before people used reefers. The '81's I've been buying in the U.K. have all been perfect except for one case that I thought was a tiny bit off.

Beachfan - I find the 1990 too bretty for my taste. Same with the 1985 and 1988. People like the 1997 very much but I don't see it. Haven't had the '94 though.

Edited December 11, 2002 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Beachfan]

Does brett vary between case lots? The 1990 I had was very smooth, almost elegant (if a Beaucastel could ever be that).

[MartyL]

The only Beaucastel worth drinking are the 1981, 1989, 1995 and 1998-2000

Sorry Steve, although we are completely on the same page when it comes to 93 Burgundies , I disagree with you on the Beaus.

I hear the 78 is a pretty nice tipple if you can find a good bottle. I also like the 83, 85 and 90 a lot. In fact, I strongly prefer the 90 to the 89, which I find to be too hot and over-fruited. The 2000 tastes like an Aussie grenache to me at this point---a total waste to drink now, but will most likely be delicious with time. I wonder what the 98 will be like with age. I have some concern that it will be more like the 89 than the 90, but I'm still glad to have some put away.

People who don't like barnyardy or bretty aromatics in their wines would do well to stick to the vintages Steve lists and avoid the ones I mention above.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Feh.

[marcus]

MartyL -- I agree that the 83 is also very good, although a half step down from some of the best. I find your comparison of the 89 and 90s unusual perhaps strange, you must have ascetic inclinations. Clearly the market is valuing the 89 as worth about 70% more than the 90 which doesn't grab me at all.

Steve P -- I think that we are basically agreeing on price for the 81. I have imported small amounts, 2 cases, of wine from the UK and when you add in customs brokers on both sides, packing and shipping, you are adding about $150+ dollars a case. In Parker's last book on Rhone wines, he felt that the 81 was at the end of its plateau of maturity, last tasted 12/96 with a recommendation to drink within the next 5-7 years. I have had it several times in the last few years and found it generally fine, don't believe that it was cooked. I actually bought a mixed case of Beaucastel at Christies last year which included 78s and 81s and others, the first three bottles were completely spoiled so I returned it. However, I don't think that the problem was shipping, but long term storage.

In general, I've observed that Parker's intense liking for, and overrating of, Rhone wines has created a market pricing difference between the US and Europe. I've observed that you can often find a single vineyard Guigal Cote Rotie from a top year in restaurants in France for $200-300 which is below NY auction price and I saw the 78 La Chapelle on the menu at ADPA the last time I ate their, about 18 months ago, for under $300. This wine sell here at auction for at least $500. For whatever reason, Champagne is also significantly less expensive in France. On the other hand, Bordeaux are more expensive in France than the US, but somewhat less expensive in the UK when purchased in bond. When you add in their exorbitant VAT the prices equal out.

Edited December 12, 2002 by marcus (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Marcus - No, I can get you a case of '81 Beaucastel from the U.K. delivered to your door for $105 a bottle which includes $84 a case in shipping costs and excise tax. And don't listen to Parker. The wine is drinking fabulously. A couple of years ago I thought it was near it's end but it has sprung to life again.

Do you listen to Parker? I used to but I don't listen to him very much anymore. I don't buy Bordeaux, I already have my favorite producers in Chateauneuf, Cote Rotie and Barolo, and he isn't much help in Burgundy. Occassionaly he discovers a new winemaker who is going to be important. But aside from that, Mm need for the publication is waning.

[mikec]

I would echo Charles' comments. It's worth springing for the Beaucastel tasting depending on what they are pouring.

I attended a Beaucastel vertical three weeks ago (with the personable MartyL). We had 17 vintages of the Beaucastel Rouge CdP. Tasted in vintage order were the following:

72, 78, 79, 81, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94(magnum), 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00.

The best wine for current drinking: 81 followed closely by the 85.

The best wine for future drinking: 90 and 98.

Wines that were interesting from an intellectual standpoint, but didn't really do it for me in this lineup:

72, 79, 86, 88, 94, 96

Worst wine of the evening by a mile: 97

A few comments:

Clearly there was a change in winemaking styles or a clean up of the cellars, or something beginning with the 94 vintage. The barnyardy characteristics that have made Beaucastel distinct for years were gone. However they are replaced with a different yet equally beautiful profile.

I've had the opportunity to try the 89 and 90 side by side a number of times and each time the 90 has outperformed the 89. While the 89 is an outstanding wine, IMHO the 90 is a step up.

The 83 is a very nice wine, but a step down from the 81 and 85 and I suspect it is coming to the end of it's optimimal drinking life.

I had a 66 Beaucastel about 1.5 years ago now. It was an absolutely beautiful wine. Like drinking a grand cru burgundy. Powerful, yet elegant.

[Steve Plotnicki]

MikeC and MartyL - Did you find that the older Beaucastels have lost their typicity? This is something I have found to be the case in most Rhone wines that last for more then 20 years. At my friend Dwight's Guigal La Landonne tasting (which I unfortunately missed,) where they tasted the wine going back to the 60's I believe, they concluded that after about 20 years they lose the character of Cote Rotie. And indeed this has been my experience with 1976 and 1978 Landonnes that I poured from my own cellar. I've also had this experience with Chave where I once bought a case of 1978 in absolutely mint condition and the wines were either past it or lost the aspect that made them uniquely Chave. La Chapelle is the only Rhone wine where this doesn't happen on a consistant basis. And wines from 1972, (if you can find a perfectly stored case) 1978 and 1979 drink perfectly and taste of La Chapelle.

[marcus]

Mikec -- I guess there's alot of personal preference here. You don't mention your opinion of the 89 at all. I like the 79 quite a bit and consider the 83 to be significantly better than the 85, which I found to be an underperforming year for Beaucastel.

[mikec]

Marcus,

As many have said, there is no good wine, just good bottles. I suspect a wine like Beaucastel with all its eccentricity (brett, bad corks (89), etc.) would be particularly susceptible to this line of thinking. Plus, as you've said, personal preference plays a part.

The 89 preformed very well at this tasting. Consensus was that it would improve for several more years in the bottle. The 90 was just outstanding though. There have been times where I felt the gap was much smaller. However on this evening I thought the 90 was a real step up from the 89.

The 79 had a nose that I found hard to get past (even though I can tolerate a good deal of brett). I think that colored my view of this wine. In the flight where the 72, 78, and 79 were poured, I think the group chose the 78, but not by much. So there were plenty of people who enjoyed the 79.

The flight that held the 81, 83, and 85 was my flight of the night. The 83 performed very well. However, on this night it was slightly behind the other two wines and my impression was that it won't last as long as the other two. I've had the 83 twice in the past few months and found it to be a wonderful bottle. Unfortunately I only have one more left. The 85 seemed to be drinking particularly well this night. I was surprised at its power.

In the flight of the 86 and 88, most people liked the 86. I found it to be off putting on the nose and prefered the 88 which although it seemed like a relatively simple Beaucastel, should continue to develop some more complexity (I hope).

While I listed a bunch of wines that didn't do it for me that night, I found them all to be very interesting. I think I would have rather had 10-12 vintages instead of 17 plus 2 starter whites (I left before the 2 dessert wines). Even though I did a good deal of spitting my palate was still very tired by the last two flights 94-97 and 98-00.

On the erobertparker.com board, Brad Kane posted detailed notes on the tasting. You might be interested in taking a look at his notes. While I may have disagreed with some of his opinions, it is still very informative.

Steve,

You have much more experience with older wines that I do, but in my very limited sampling, I have found that the 78 VT I had courtesy of you to have more elegance than I expected and the 66 Beaucastel that I mentioned to be very burgundian. I have also found the same to be true of a wonderful bottle of 70 Beaucastel as well. While these wines seemed to lose their power, they have more than made up for it in their grace. I'm not sure that I would call it losing it's typicity though.

The three Beaucastels we had this night from the 70's were not the best wines on the table. Probably sliding over the hill or victims of slightly less than perfect storage at some point in their lives. However, they showed a remarkable consistency of Beaucastel's character. The marked change was noticed in the more recent vintages starting with the 94. They seemed cleaner than the older bottles.

FWIW, with a 10 month old at home, I haven't had a chance to get to many offlines, but the ones that I have managed to attend have been exceptional lately.

91 vs 99 Jamet, Jasmin, Ogier, and Gallet

17 vintage Beaucastel vertical

95 CdP Horizontal

Plus a great dinner at Fairway.

Hope to see you soon.

Mike

Edited December 12, 2002 by mikec (log)

[MartyL]

MikeC and MartyL - Did you find that the older Beaucastels have lost their typicity? This is something I have found to be the case in most Rhone wines that last for more then 20 years. At my friend Dwight's Guigal La Landonne tasting (which I unfortunately missed,) where they tasted the wine going back to the 60's I believe, they concluded that after about 20 years they lose the character of Cote Rotie. And indeed this has been my experience with 1976 and 1978 Landonnes that I poured from my own cellar. I've also had this experience with Chave where I once bought a case of 1978 in absolutely mint condition and the wines were either past it or lost the aspect that made them uniquely Chave. La Chapelle is the only Rhone wine where this doesn't happen on a consistant basis.

I agree with Mike about the 3 wines from the 70s at the Beaucastel vertical. They didn't show that great, but it is hard to say whether they were good bottles. I personally found that the wines from the eighties (and the 1990) were the ones that were most "typical" of Beaucastel. All of those wines had that strong Mourvedre funk that I find so appealing and unique about this producer. In contrast, as Mike says above, all of the post-94 wines were made in a different style. They weren't bad at all (save for the awful 97), but they did seem a bit sanitized and plain-Jane-ish to my taste after drinking all of the older ones.

As for older Rhones, I don't have nearly as much experience with them as I'd like, and virtually none with wines that are older than 20 years old. Still, in my limited experience, in a good vintage, the wines are so attactive and perfectly mature (and typical too) in their teens that it is hard to see a reason to cellar them much longer. In the last year I've had a couple of stunning 85 Cornas's and a few experiences with Chave from 83 and 85 that bear this point out.

It would be interesting to test your theory on the 78 Chave, but the low-end of Acker's estimated selling price for a bottle is $350.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I hate bretty wines. Blech. I had a 1990 Beau at Jacque Chibois a few years ago and I could hardly drink it. I think the '89 is far too young and in time it will be a better wine then the '90. But again it is atypical Beau. Nothing like the '98 which I think is monumental.

Meanwhile, isn't that thread with Rovani unbelieveable? A famous Burgundy importer who I had never met before emailed me blind and said that they think they are in love with me.

[MartyL]

I had a 1990 Beau at Jacque Chibois a few years ago and I could hardly drink it. I think the '89 is far too young and in time it will be a better wine then the '90. But again it is atypical Beau. Nothing like the '98 which I think is monumental.

I just found the alcohol in both the 89 and the 98 to be too much in this last tasting. They just seemed hot and overly fruity. The 90 is indeed a funky wine, but I find it deliciously so. I had it once last year with a very gamey lamb dish and it was a perfect match.

Meanwhile, isn't that thread with Rovani unbelieveable? A famous Burgundy importer who I had never met before emailed me blind and said that they think they are in love with me.

Is that so? I didn't know Weygandt batted from that side of the plate.

Anyway, it is unbelievable, but what do you expect the guy to do---admit that his tastes are completely out of synch with the Burg-drinking world and that Burg-drinkers don't take him seriously? It doesn't help when he's got troops full of followers who have no idea what the discussion is about but are ready to chime in any time with a personal attack against anyone who disagrees with him.

Did you see the last CA issue of the Wine Advocate? Scan the pages and you'll see how many times a phrase like "DRC-like aromatics" or "dead-ringer for an Echezeaux" comes up when talking about Pinots from producers like Martinelli and Peter Michael. And this is in a lousy vintage!

Seems clear to me anyway that the publication must have a pretty peculiar idea of what Echezeaux should taste like if they can print comments like that.

I considered posting that point over there on eRP but I have no desire to mix it up with people and get involved in hostile exchanges there, especially about a point so obvious that it really needs no repeating.

[Steve Plotnicki]

First of all you're a chicken. Secondly, I expect him to have the same humility that Allen Meadows has. He brought this on himself with that ridiculous and arrogant rant of his. When everyone started piling on, he should have figured out a graceful way to exit the thread. But he stuck it out and got clobbered and now he looks even worse.

[marcus]

I find Rovani to be excellent, even the best, for white burgundies. I would be interested as to whether this is a common view, or whether I am off base.

[Charles Smith]

Marcus-

If you've successfully calibrated your palate vs. his, then he's the perfect critic for you.

Cheers,

Charles

[mikec]

Marcus,

Most of my experience comes with Rhone wines. But I agree with what Charles has said. If you have calibrated your palate to Rovani that is a good thing. Personally I have found Allen Meadows (burghound.com) tastes more in tune with my own.

Mike

[bushey]

Jumping in here with an observation and a couple of questions:

Observation: Cabby, if you're still following this thread, the Wine Expo is a totally different beast from the festival you describe. Boston Wine Expo

Question #1: Since participants on this thread collectively have more information on Beaucastel than I could ever hope to have, how long should I hold onto my '98s before drinking? (I only have 2 bottles)

Question #2: Steve P., do you think they'd still love you even if they weren't blind?

[mikec]

Anyway, it is unbelievable, but what do you expect the guy to do---admit that his tastes are completely out of synch with the Burg-drinking world and that Burg-drinkers don't take him seriously?  It doesn't help when he's got troops full of followers who have no idea what the discussion is about but are ready to chime in any time with a personal attack against anyone who disagrees with him.

Marty & Steve,

The entire thread was very interesting until certain people got involved with the intent of telling people how to have the discussion or the limits as to what they can say.

I always wonder if Parker and Rovani discuss particular individuals from the wine boards while sharing a bottle of wine and some dim sum.

While I love Burgundy, I don't get to drink too much of it and thus have little to add to the thread. A number of wine lovers whose palates I respect (both of yours included) have told me they find the WA deficient when it comes to Burgundy but I don't have the reference points to form my own opionion. But I will agree with Marty on this point. Rovani really can't afford to change. The consistency of his palate and his job security depend on it.

I can see Steve's point very easily though. Let's assume that PAR will always hate the 93 vintage. Instead of rating it a 68, why not rate it an 83. People who shop by the scores alone will still stay away from a vintage rated 83. Thus the WA remains a consumer advocate and they avoid the melee that a rating of 68 is sure to cause.

Edited December 12, 2002 by mikec (log)