It was interesting to note that we – Christian, Remo, Victor and I – could only agree on the wine of the night (the Fonseca), but almost nothing else. For example, Christian declared the La Mondotte to be his favourite early on, and changed his mind only when the Port was served. Victor thought the Chapoutier too superficially (artificially?) perfect to be true, and questioned its stylistic „naturalness“. Remo was completely taken in by the Burgundies. In the end, Christian demanded we rank the wines (remember to never do this if you insist on your own contributions to turn out on top – you will risk being disappointed). My ranking was as follows:
1. Fonseca-Guimaraens 1976
2. Chapoutier Ermite 2001 & Rousseau Chambertin 2006 (shared second, or almost)
3. Lignier Clos de la Roche 1998
4. Vega Sicilia Unico 1996
5. La Mondotte 2001
(purely stylistic decision, wish I could say the Vega was indeed better – in hindsight, retasting the wines side by side for a couple of days, it really was not)
Would have loved to type these notes listening to, among other of course, Stokowski conducting Wagner’s “The Good Friday Spell“ & Act III Synthesis from Parsifal – the legendary Everest recording from 1959. Unfortunately, my copy of the CD appears to have vanished...
Hubert Lignier Clos de la Roche 1998
Contribution of mine. From a yield of 20 hl/ha. Full ruby-black with a ceding purple hue, lighter red at the rim (but I could not see any much of the “maturity of colour” Victor noticed). Meat in soy sauce, violet and daisy, more currant with a suggestion of cocoa powder than racy raspberry, nice satiny texture, and a marzipan and chestnut sweetness from both oak and grape. Faintest clove top note only for a CdlR. Not the purity and florality of the best vintages, nor the power. A bit earthy. Tiny bit lactic perhaps. Quite tannic, with a little grain, dryness and a minor bitter note even. Fairly long, and quite balanced and dense on the back end. Started out a bit closed (early days, after all), opened up reasonably but never fully so, then started closing down again towards the end of the evening. Turns out not to be too resistant to oxidation after 12 hours in the open bottle, albeit enough so for a 1998. Even if the touch of botrytis here seems to add to the impression of density and thickness, and does not per se make the wine seem unclean, I feel it ultimately takes away from its freshness, precision and purity. Even so, my gut instinct suggests this should be left alone in the cellar for a few more years. Must admit I had expected more, and indeed, while it showed best the following day, the Burgundy specialists in my family were not fully convinced either. Needless to mention perhaps, in hindsight I am happy about every bottle of Hubert Lignier still in my collection. Rating: 92+/93(+??)
Armand Rousseau Chambertin 2006
Thanks to Victor. Raspberry-purple hue to the medium red colour (this really started out shockingly pale, but deepened visibly with a little airing). Rather noble, spicier oak than the 1998 Lignier Clos de la Roche. Quite floral, clean and pure, aristocratic, elegant and quite harmonious for a 2006. Acidity is a bit over-brilliant, giving precision, focus and cut to the fruit and soft minerality, but reminiscent of some of the high-acid (with the acidity perhaps not thoroughly ripe) and not too dense 1996s at a similar stage in their development, the ones that in hindsight I sometimes think may never show better than they already did in their primary fruit phase (in contrast to the most concentrated and thoroughly ripe 1996s). Smoky (helped by the oak) undergrowth. Long and quite subtle. With airing drier marzipan sweetness from the oak, but also fatter and more glyceric, quite complex and finesseful, with a touch of sweet red licorice. Not the animal side of Chambertin. Prettily light on its feet. Mouth-cleansing and quite refreshing. As Victor noted, this started to show at least somewhat more power towards the end of the evening. Certainly much prefer this to Perrot-Minot’s Chambertin from the same vintage (not least of course from a stylistic point of view), this is really one of the best three 2006 red Burgundies I have tasted so far (in the league of Vogüé’s Bonnes Mares but from a to me inherently more attractive terroir, this is only topped by Vogüé’s Musigny in this vintage). Tempting to suggest it was infanticide to open this bottle, but: even if this has the structure to age, I am not convinced the acidity is not going to taste youthfully over-brilliant and thus stick out a bit until the end of days. As it is now, I simply loved the subtlety, precision and purity. Rating: 93+/94(+?)
Vega Sicilia Ribera del Duero Unico Reserva 1996
Lote-062 Thanks to Christian. Telling coffee touch to the deep ruby-black colour, almost but not quite opaque at the center. Angular and disjointed at first, seemingly in an awkward phase (three other bottles were just the same, Christian reports – who was reluctant to bring this at all, convinced it could not stand up to the competition, which is also why he showed up with the 2001 La Mondotte in addition, even though we had agreed on one bottle per person). At least partly superripe material here no doubt. Touch of Malaga to the slightly roasted fruit and coffee chocolate. Toasty oak, too? Soon sweeter, thicker and rounder, perhaps richer, Port-like if increasingly more harmonious. Good acids, although not particularly flavourful tannin. Fair amount of tannin, though. Medium-plus body, weightier with airing. Faint soapy leather note. Lacks elegance and finesse for Vega Sicilia Unico, even taking youth into account (this is much more evolved than the 1994, after all). When I served this to my parents the next day, my mom said the exact same words I had exclaimed when this was first poured: this is the most Rioja-like Unico I have ever tasted (that is not to say I think it is as high in Tempranillo content as e.g. the 1968 – it is the overall character that made me say that) – Victor got it exactly right adding “most Artadi-like, you mean”. Lots of mocha and nougat from the beginning, as well as with airing, a top note that merely changed slightly in character. After 12 hours quite big and dense, with more cedar, heavy dried and preserved fruit to the coffee chocolate, after 24 hours more raisins and prune, with oakier tannin, after 36 hours rather oxidized in comparison to the 2001 La Mondotte. Now, this may sound counter-intuitive after all of the above, but my gut instinct suggests this should be cellared for a number of years. Rating: 91+/92(+?)
Château La Mondotte St. Emilion 2001
Thanks to Christian. Glossy purple-black, opaque at the center, ruby-red at the rim. Pretty enough if overwhelming oak. Rich and fat, milk chocolaty fruit dusted with coffee powder, approachable as virtually all 2001 Bordeaux I have tasted (Ausone being the only exception). Medium-plus length at first only. There appeared to be a herbaceous touch here that Victor and I thought troublesome, but that I could not make out anymore the next two days. A superficial style no doubt, tempting to say I could not care less, as it is a modern-styled, faceless, internationalized (indeed: can anyone, the team of Neipperg and Derenoncourt included, tell where on this planet – or for that matter, any planet – this comes from?), but it is the one that kept improving with airing – not during the first few hours (when it really did not seem to go anywhere), but after a day or two. More oak, but also more precision, cut and “freshness” after 12 and 24 hours. Soft Cabernet Franc leafiness. Whereas the 1996 Unico only got murkier and more oxidized, the 2001 Mondotte kept its glossy colour, and revealed rather more terroir (!) expression and (well, not really) depth, if not liveliness after 36 hours. It remains a mystery to me why this wine has to cost so much more than a Clos de l’Oratoire or Canon-La Gaffelière, but for those who need to know, the 2001 seems clearly preferable to the 1997 and 1999, but is not on the level of the 1998 and 2000. Rating: 91+/92(+??)
Chapoutier Ermitage L'Ermite 2001
Thanks to Remo. Perhaps the dry red of the night (at least I am fairly sure that it would be twenty years hence). Deep purple-ruby colour, opaque at the center. Lighter than e.g. the 1996 but less oaky, more stylish and polished (Victor thought this too perfectly “constructed”). Noble mineral dust and floral essence with a tiny yoghurt note, very closed at first, but captivating all the same. Very natural-tasting, clean and pure, with the most impeccable oak integration. Not the mid-palate impact nor the power of the greatest vintages, concentrated no doubt, but less intense. Beautiful tannin, so finely grained and subtly flavourful. Fairly long on the finish, but again, not the persistence and grip of a top vintage. More aristocratic (single-vineyard) terroir expression, absolutely zero rusticity (e.g. to the tannin), but overall not “better” than the Chave in this vintage. Or is it? Went well with my (simmered) salmon, too, when I had the last glass 24 hours after the cork had been pulled. By then a noble lamb roast top note, pretty Four Seasons (black, white, green and pink) pepper mix and Provençal herbs, longer on the finish perhaps, too. Chapoutier’s highly sophisticated sélection parcellaire reds are starting to grow on me, especially as they seem to have gotten rid of their only flaws of earlier vintages: the crudely superimposed new oak and comparatively rustic (oak-induced?) tannin appear to be a matter of the past. Rating: 93+/94(+?)
Fonseca Guimaraens Vintage Port 1976
My other contribution. The unanimous wine of the night. Deep plummy ruby-black colour, virtually opaque at the center, ruby-red at the rim, looks ridiculously young. The severe drought year still makes its mark in this wine immediately after the cork is pulled, making it smell almost like roasted coffee for a little while, as well as slightly hot. Thick, super-concentrated and Recioto-like after a few hours. Mulberry, date, fig, plum. Not nearly as finesseless as some people claim, just youthful, hugely sweet, and probably just as tannic (the liqueur-like fruit covers up most of it). Well-balanced and powerful. Very long on the finish. Not the raciest, freshest and fruitiest bottle of all time (those integrate the minor alcoholic heat with ease), but not one of the volatile ones either, this one was simply delicious! After 24 and 36 hours lightly spicy, faintly cedary, but so sweet, rich, glyceric-thick and fruity, backed by nicely warming alcohol. Given ample time in the decanter, this actually tastes more like Port than Recioto. Rating: 97(+?)
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________
„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti