Notes and comments

[Florida Jim]

2000 Huet, Vouvray Sec Clos du Bourg (375):

Somewhat closed on both the nose and palate but opened more than I would have expected over the course of lunch; mineral driven, complex and bone dry but with both viscosity and depth, this is a wine that will only get better with time – and that is saying something because it is arresting now.

Enjoyed with slices of rosemary-olive bread, EVOO, aged rosemary-coated pecorino and paper thin slices of cappa cola. Very, very good with the food.

NV Marques de Monistrol, Cava Brut Reserva Selection Especial:

Accompanying macerated nectarines with prosciutto, EVOO and fresh mint, the absolute best. Wonderful clean and earthy aromatics; an exuberant bead with bright flavors, and a clean, crisp finish; stellar wine with or without this dish and better still, $6.50 full retail. The ultimate no-brainer.

2003 Colonnara, Verdicchio dei Castelli di Jesi Classico Lyricus:

That’s a lot of words to say delicious; citrus, clover, dried vanilla bean and untoasted nuts on the nose with similar flavors, fabulous cut, a somewhat bitter note, good balance, and, a long finish that seems to reprise the herbal tones. More complexity than one has a right to expect from a $6 wine (on sale) and really excellent accompaniment to a lunch salad with olive-rosemary bread bruschetta. 12.5% alcohol and not the slightest hint that the vintage might be hot or atypical. I have no idea what this could develop into with time in the cellar and, unfortunately, I won’t be finding out; ‘darn good now.

The following wines were opened for all to pour as they pleased during dinner, which consisted of Caesar salad, duck leg and thigh confit, fingerling potatoes, and haricot verts:

1998 Beaucastel, CdP:

Quite sweet (fruit, not sugar) on both the nose and palate with limited complexity, no funk, bright fruit and good balance. (No sign of brett.) On the way up.

1999 Giacosa, Barbaresco D.O.C.:

Yummy and really elegant; balanced and classic Barbaresco and the tannic bite at the end is only noticeable after the bottle was open an hour or so. Perfect with the duck.

1997 Argiano, Brunello di Montalcino:

Magnificent; deep, complex, wonderfully integrated, satin texture and great length. It’s been a very long time since I had a Brunello that showed this well and that I could immediately identify as such. Superb.

Another time, a blind tasting of pinot noirs chosen at random and brought by the tasters:

2003 Wallace Brook (OR): Tart but a certain softness to the fruit, crisp finish.

2002 Benton Lane (OR): Good cut, slightly oxidized and fairly elegant (maybe a touch of brett).

2002 Westry (OR): Raspberry, slightly oaky, young and crisp.

1998 Hamacher (OR): Earthy, mineral tones, obviously older than the first three, a bit brittle but still has some length.

2001 Fiddlehead Cellars, Lollapalooza (CA): Oaky, dark, very tannic and young – not my style.

2004 Castle Rock Res. (CA): Watermelon, strawberry Sweet-tart smell and flavors, thin (and this despite 14.5% alcohol).

1992 Ponsot, Clos de la Roche VV (FR): Possibly damaged along the way but still carrying some feral/earthy aromatics, good weight and texture and fair length.

Each of these, save for the Ponsot, smelled and tasted so similar when first opened, I thought someone was trying to fool us by pouring the same wine. However, over the course of about two hours, each revealed its own differences. None of these were head and shoulders better and only the Fiddlehead was, after a time, beyond my enjoyment.

I dislike blind tastings, and this one emphasized the point. Their value diminishes as I become more confident that I will judge a wine by what’s in the glass and not what’s on the label.

For me, the most important thing about any wine (after it being sound) is that it has an “address.” And I much prefer to taste with an understanding of where it came from and if it comes close to reflecting that place. (I do not fancy myself the super-human identification talents of James Bond – “ah, the Bollinger 59; I prefer the ’61.”)

This works for me because I am not attempting to judge which is “better” – as I say, after the fact that it is sound, I don’t care much about that. Rather, I want to know if the wine is representative of its place and, sometimes, its maker. There are exceptions; some wines are so wonderful one doesn’t care, but I have found very few of those and I seem to be finding fewer and fewer the longer I enjoy this hobby.

‘Lots of good arguments for blind tastings; I have heard most. I am not persuaded.

Of course, that fact won’t stop me from attending such tastings; where they are pouring wine, I am home.

Best, Jim

[jrufusj]

Jim:

Thanks for the notes.

Huët is one of my very favorite producers anywhere. Glad to hear this one is coming along well. I've never come across any of the Huët secs in 375. What a perfectly sized dollop that would be!

Thanks especially for the note on the Argiano. As I mentioned recently, I have just found myself the owner of a number of 97 Brunelli without really intending to. From early tastings, I concluded that it really wasn't my type of vintage; thus, I didn't buy. However, every vintage has good wines that work to enhance one occasion or another. While these are riper and fatter than I might like, they are not entirely analogous to the 03 Beaujolais.

A 97 Lisini tasted the other night provided nice early-drinking pleasure -- a soft and approachable array of the main elements of the Brunello palate, enjoyable much sooner than normal. Lacked a little focus, nerve, and structure, but enjoyable for what it was.

I have a half of a case of the Argiano and hope that it shows even nearly as well for me as it did for you.

I share your feeling that a discernable address is most important to pleasure and interest. I also share your lack of enthusiasm for blind tastings. However, I have just discovered two virtues of blind tastings:

(1) They trick one into giving Ponsot another shot. Actually, I find Ponsot as frustrating as you do. He's like the little girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead. If he would simply settle into a consistently good or bad vein, he would make life much easier. (I must admit that when I first read your note, I misread "feral" as "fecal". Now that would be an extreme case of barnyard!)

(2) They lead to more Florida Jim tasting notes to read.

Thanks,

Jim

[Florida Jim]

They trick one into giving Ponsot another shot.  Actually, I find Ponsot as frustrating as you do.  He's like the little girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead.  If he would simply settle into a consistently good or bad vein, he would make life much easier. 

Jim,

My only real beef with Ponsot are their marketing practices.

I have come to expect that, on any given day with any given bottle, variation is the norm. Fortunately, there's guys like Claude, et al, who get to taste them all and can pick-out the ones that have promise. I can't afford the entrance fee.

That said, some of the finest bottles of pinot I have ever tasted have come from this house; I still remember the widely panned 1995 Griottes and the widely hyped 1999 Clos de la Roche - both outstanding wines.

Just as the 1996 Chambertin was garbage.

The vaguaries of Burgundy; why, oh why, did I ever let them set the hook!

Best, Jim

[jrufusj]

You let them set the hook because often the downs are as enlightening and interesting (though not as delicious) as the ups? Because the search and the trial are part of the fun? Because when it hits on all cylinders, there is nothing more beautiful, more detailed, more transparent, or more transporting than burgundy? Because it is people like Ponsot who, just often enough, deliver all of that in spades?

Sorry, I'm projecting.

Jim