Crossing the Rubicon with Mouton and Haut-Brion

[geo t.]

I took the opportunity to attend a trade event today presented by Niebaum - Coppola, through their regional distributor, Vintage Wine Company, of Roseville, Michigan. The tasting – luncheon, held at Mr. Paul’s Chop House in Roseville, was a novel way of promote the release of 2000 vintage of the Niebaum – Coppola flagship wine, Rubicon, by presenting it side – by – side with the 2000 Château Mouton Rothschild Pauillac and the 2000 Château Haut – Brion Pessac – Léognan, pretty heady company indeed. The intent was to show that Rubicon is a world class Cabernet Sauvignon that can hold its own with the best of Bordeaux for considerably fewer dollars. On hand to pass on information about the wines on hand was David Kouzmanoff, Niebaum – Coppola Central Regional Manager.

We got things started with a newly released white.

2003 Francis Coppola Napa Sauvignon Blanc Diamond Collection, 13.5% alc.: This saw no oak whatsoever, having been slowly cold fermented in stainless steel. Flavors and aromas show a noticeable dose of cat spray over gooseberry, grapefruit and lime, with good acidity and medium intensity. Good quality here, but I’d like it better for a few less dollars; it retails at about $14 in Michigan.

2002 Niebaum – Coppola Napa Blancaneaux Rutherford, 43% Marsanne, 30% Chardonnay, 16% Roussanne, 11% Viognier, 14.1% alc.: Blancaneaux means “white water” in French, and while Mr. Kouzmanoff and many of the attendees seemed to feel otherwise, I thought in could have been called Blancan – barrique, with all the oak that it showed (12 months in new French barrels). To be fair, it isn’t horribly over – oaked, but it certainly is made in a style that I don’t care for, with its fairly low acid, creamy vanilla, pear, maple syrup and crème brulee character. It’s described as “Conundrum – styled,” and while I might like this a little more than the Caymus white blend, that’s not saying a whole lot. Served with a green salad, I suppose it’s pleasant enough, if not my cup o’ tea…

The three reds presented in the main event were served blind, pre – poured before we were seated. We sniffed and sipped some while waiting for the main entrée to be served; I chose a medium rare filet mignon with a side of polenta. The food was excellent, and paired very nicely with all three wines.

Wine #1: This is one of those great “breakfast wines;” it’s all coffee and toast on the nose. Flavors echo, very dry and all silky smooth, and it gains some tobacco nuances as it opens. Initially, it seemed the most fruit forward of the three, but that changed as these all evolved in the glass over an hour or so. Still, it was my favorite of the presentation, luscious and opulent, and drinking amazingly well already.

Wine #2: The nose here is less ebullient than the first selection, featuring toasty oak, black fruit and just a hint of a coffee – like nuance. The flavors are more in the sweet black currant, cassis spectrum, and it also gains a little tobacco with air. It continues to sweeten as it opens, with a fairly long finish, and what I first noted as a judicious kiss of oak turning into a big wet smooch, not that that’s such a bad thing in this case.

Wine #3: This showed sweet oak, chocolate and cherry on the nose at first, making one wonder if perhaps it might not be from the Napa appellation, but very dry flavors (the driest of the three) of tobacco, black currant and cassis, argued against that, even as it opens more and more. While I wouldn’t call it austere, I would call it the most reserved wine here, with a lovely, if less outgoing personality than the others, and a silky smooth texture.

As I tasted through these again and again, it became increasingly obvious which was the Rubicon, and I was able to correctly name the order of these as presented. (I have to admit, my differentiation between the two 1st Growths was based on nothing more than a taste of the ’94 Mouton some years ago, which featured a similar “burnt toast and coffee” profile.)

Wine #1: 2000 Château Mouton Rothschild Pauillac

Wine #2: 2000 Niebaum – Coppola Rubicon

Wine #3: 2000 Château Haut – Brion Pessac – Léognan

So, did the Rubicon stand up to the big dogs from Bordeaux? I would say that it did, for the most part, although it was increasingly obvious as to which of the three it was. Consisting of 93% Cabernet Sauvignon, 3% Petite Verdot, 2% Merlot and 2% Cabernet Franc, and weighing in at 14.4% alcohol, it saw 28 months in 93% new French oak, but seems to have the fruit to soak it up quite well, all the more impressive considering the vintage. I’ve seen it priced at $120 at one local retailer hereabouts, so it doesn’t come cheap, and the dollar differential may not mean much to someone who prefers great Bordeaux, come hell or high water. But if you like the big California cabs, this is certainly a very good one, IMNSHO.

I’d sure like to get my tricksy handses on a few more of those Moutons though…

Reporting from Day-twah,

geo t.

[Andre]

Hi Geo and welcome,

Mondavi went out of their way to compare their wines to top French claret in public tastings already 10 years ago. Rubicon are massive wines and may be comparable to Bordeaux 1st growth when young [ and relatively undrinkable] but ten years from now they will have to stand the real test - when the wines have matured, then it will be time to seperate the men and the boys.

[Brad Ballinger]

Geo,

Good to see you here, friend.

Brad

[geo t.]

Hi Geo and welcome,

Mondavi went out of their way to compare their wines to top French claret in public tastings already 10 years ago. Rubicon are massive wines and may be comparable to Bordeaux 1st growth when young [ and relatively undrinkable] but ten years from now they will have to stand the real test - when the wines have matured, then it will be time to seperate the men and the boys.

Thanks Andre.

I mostly agree with you, but just so we're "on the same page," you may want to read my notes again. The Mouton was "luscious and opulent, and drinking amazingly well already." It was also my favorite wine of the three based on how they were drinking yesterday afternoon, not ten years down the road.

Both it and the Haut-Brion were anything but "relatively undrinkable." If the intent was to "stack the deck" in favor of the Rubicon, it didn't work, at least not for me and those sitting around me.

Cheers,

geo

[geo t.]

Geo,

Good to see you here, friend.

Brad

Thanks Brad, glad I heard about this forum.

Cheers,

geo

[docsconz]

Geo, Welcome to eGullet. Nice report! One of the reasons the 2000 Bordeaux vinyage may be so popular with the press is that it is so forward - more Napa than Bordeaux. Thoughts?

[geo t.]

Geo, Welcome to eGullet. Nice report! One of the reasons the 2000 Bordeaux vinyage may be so popular with the press is that it is so forward - more Napa than Bordeaux. Thoughts?

Thanks, docsconz.

More Napa than Bordeaux? I dunno. Forward, yes, from the bunch that I've tasted since they've been released. Give 'em plenty of air, and the vast majority drink quite nicely. But none have been close to the Mouton in sheer yummability. Of course, I haven't tasted the other 3 first growths, so my blinders may be showing. I was darned happy to get a taste of these two beauties.

Cheers,

geo

[Craig Camp]

It is interesting that Napa still has its inferiority complex with Bordeaux after all these decades. I remember when William Hill (remember when that was a serious winery?) did the same thing in the early 80's. I think Napa established itself as a premier cabernet producer a long time ago.

The William Hill defeated the Bordeaux Premier Grand Cru Classe hands down when the ballots where tallied after the tasting. This was no surprise as the California wine clearly was more forward and drinkable than the firm Bordeaux wines. While young Bordeaux is much more forward these days than it was 20 years ago the wines of Napa are still normally more advanced than their Bordeaux cousins at the same age. It would be interesting to re-stage the tasting 10 and 20 years from now.

Still the Rubicon looks like a bargain compared to the prices on the 2000 Mouton and Haut Brion.

Welcome to eGullet geo t. and thanks for the interesting post.

[Andre]

Both it and the Haut-Brion were anything but "relatively undrinkable."

I believe we are on the same page and I am glad you enjoy the many facets of poetry.

IMO that the ability of great wines to appeal to the senses requires a necessary time for their development. Pictures that might appeal to the imagination might give way to better expressed movies that are composed of many thrilling pictures when fully developed.

The NC people wre bringing this example of famous expensive wines and comparing them to the Rubicon claiming to have simillar abilities.

That is going to be a neat trick.

I undersatand and appriciate your choice.

Thanks for sharing