WTN: Two Cote-Rotie '98..(short/boring)

Inspired by EricTexier's observation that I might be confusing C-R terroir for new/toasted oak; I cracked last night:
1. MichelOgier Cote-Rotie (12%) 1998: Med.color w/ slight bricking; beautiful classic C-R roasted/smokey/pungent/coffee/bacon fat/grilled meat slight floral/lilacs slight aged quite perfumey nose; tart bit lean/austere light floral/lilacs some roasted/pungent/smokey/bacon fat somewhat lean/tannic flavor; tart/lean/austere/tannic slight roasted/pungent/smokey/coffee/bacon fat bit tired/aged finish; a beautiful/classic C-R smokey nose but drying out & a bit tired on the palate. $32.00
_____________________
2. ReneRostaing Cote-Rotie (13%) 1998: Very dark color w/ slight bricking; beautiful roasted/pungent/smokey/coffee/meaty/bacon fat complex very light floral slight earthy nose; tart/elegant/lean slight floral bit tannic/hard/astringent classic roasted/coffee/smokey/espresso bit dried out complex flavor; very long rather tannic/dried-out/tart/lean/austere roasted/pungent/smokey/coffee complex finish; classic roasted C-R nose but bit dried out/austere/tannic on the palate. $37
________________________________________________
A wee BloodyPulpit:
1. Both of these wines had, to me, that classic C-R/roasted/smokey character that first drew me to C-R back in the '70's. To me, it's expressive of the C-R terroir and an expression of Syrah I seldom find in other region's Syrahs. I have no idea what the oak treatment on these two wines were but it's a character that I don't identify as oak in any other wines...it's just the classic C-R roasted character. Both of these wines were great C-R in the nose, but a bit dried-out/tired on the palate.
Tom

thanks for notes. I'm a little surpised at the driedout/tired comments based on some '98 C-Rs I've had recently (Jamet as well as some more modern ones), but haven't tried either of those.

Hey Tom,
How disappointing that the 98s were tired. I have had some truly love Cote-Rotie from the vintage, though none for the past six months or so.
Cote-Rotie conistantly produces some of my favourite wines.

Ruth

1. MichelOgier Cote-Rotie (12%) 1998:
2. ReneRostaing Cote-Rotie (13%) 1998:

Tom, what do the "12%" and "13%" mean?

-Paul W.

1. MichelOgier Cote-Rotie (12%) 1998:
2. ReneRostaing Cote-Rotie (13%) 1998:

Tom, what do the "12%" and "13%" mean?

-Paul W.

Alcohol percentage?

1. MichelOgier Cote-Rotie (12%) 1998:
2. ReneRostaing Cote-Rotie (13%) 1998:

Tom, what do the "12%" and "13%" mean?

-Paul W.

Alcohol percentage?

Yup..alcohol level. These are imports, so take 'em w/ a grain of salt.
Tom

Yup..alcohol level. These are imports, so take 'em w/ a grain of salt.
Tom

What does "import" have to do with it? Do you believe Ridge??

Seriously, don't you legally get plus or minus 1.5%?

Tom T.

What does "import" have to do with it? Do you believe Ridge??
Seriously, don't you legally get plus or minus 1.5%?
Tom T.

"Import" has a lot to do with it. The Europeans don't require an alcohol level on the label, I think. And they're much
more lax in their labeling requirements is my impression. Oftentimes, the alc is merely stated on the importer's
label as 11%-14%, which meets the US legal requirement of +- 1.5%. But when a C-R says 12% on the label,
it may be within the +- 1.5%, but I don't think it's more accurate than that. And there were a fair amount of '03 CdP
that stated 14% on the label and were well north of 15%.
When Ridge states 14.7% on the label, I think that's pretty accurate, much more accurate than the legal +-1.5%.
When Qupe Syrah states 14.5% on the label, I don't believe that, though it probably is withing the +-1.5%.
If you'll notice, Bob's Syrahs have all stated 14.5%. It's pretty unlikely that all 8 of his SingleVnyd Syrahs were harvested
at the right time to give 14.5%. The reason is: if Bob uses the same label as last year, he doesn't have to get label
reapproval from the Feds. Ridge changes their label every yr, and must get reapproval. So I suspect the Ridge 14.7% is a pretty
accurate number.
The alc levels is something the Feds check rarely if at all to see if the actual wine is within specs.
So, if you checked the labeled alc level with the wine's actual alc level, my assertion is there will be a lot more deviation for imported wines rather than Calif wines. That is, the bell curve for Calif wines is (much) narrower than imports. That's just my hunch, anyway.
Tom

I opened a 98 Gerin Les Grandes Places last year that was great, so there must be many out there that aren't tired... BTW, love the BloodyPulpits.

I have no idea what the oak treatment on these two wines were but it's a character that I don't identify as oak in any other wines...it's just the classic C-R roasted character. Both of these wines were great C-R in the nose, but a bit dried-out/tired on the palate.

The wines René Rostaing produced in the early '90s were quite marred (to my taste) by new oak, but reports I've read of more vintages from him sound like he's toned it down a lot. Where '98 might stand in that trajectory, I dunno. Ditto with Ogier: Ogier Père was a staunch traditionalist, but Stéphane the son has a much more a modernist bent to his winemaking. I know that Stéphane too has toned down the oaking in recent years, but where '98 stands in that progression I can't say. I'll check what the redoubtable JLL has to say on the subject tonight when I get home. The fact that you found both wines a bit tired and dried out in a very good year in the N Rhone I find indicative of ill treatment, either in the cellar or in the chain of transport. Again, I'll check to see what JLL has to say on the subject.

Mark Lipton

98 Ogier tastes more like a Michel than a Stephane wine to me, and the label would indicate same.

98 Ogier tastes more like a Michel than a Stephane wine to me, and the label would indicate same.

According to JLL, Stéphane took the reins in '98, so the elevage at least was partly under his supervision. He also says, though, that the '98 is pretty classic and expects it to be good well into the next decade; he expresses similar thoughts about the Rostaing. It still sounds like you got some bum bottles, Tom.

Mark Lipton

As with such things, I would imagine there is no real hard dividing line of when Stephane "took over" from Michel, just like I believe there will be no real hard dividing line about when Stephane went from modernist to neo-traditionalist. I tend to go more on what I've tasted than what I read, so I would say that the 1999 was more modern than traditional in oak treatment, and I found the 1998 to be more traditional than modern.

So who really made the bulk of the decisions on the 1998 or the 1999? I think there are only two people who know for sure, and having spent some time with them - I do not believe they are keeping score.