WTN: 4 vintages of white Beaucastel compared; basic and VV.

Château de Beaucastel – Châteauneuf du Pape blanc (“classic”) and Châteauneuf du Pape Vieilles Vignes blanc (“VV”)

The TGVins Club looked at several vintages of white Beaucastel last night, comparing the classic cuvée and the Vieilles Vignes. As usual Pierre Ghysens was our guide.

White Beaucastel, like a lot white CdP, is prone to go into a prolonged closed period after a delicious 12 months following bottling. Most of these, though not old vintages, should have re-opened. However another characteristic of Beaucastel blanc is to continue evolving in a saw-edge fashion with continuous ups and downs, which can make it an unreliable pick for a great occasion of the sort for which such a wine is designed.

These wine are dense, rich and alcoholic (>13.5%) with complex Mediterranean aromatics and flavours managing to combine darkly burnished notes with freshness and I noticed that without food, like powerful red wines, they tended to induce palate fatigue. They would be wonderful pairing for rich fish and white meat dishes, e.g. the poulet Vallée d’Auge, which I wrote about a few days ago with Vouvray. In most cases the classic cuvée was drinking more expressively right now but the VV mostly showed greater density, freshness, elegance and length, which led us to think that it had potential in reserve which would reverse the preferences in a few years time.

The prices for 2007 vintage are €59,50 for Classic and €96 for VV; one may ask whether VV's extra quality justifies this big difference.

According to Parker’s 1998 (French) edition on Rhône wines, Classic is made from 80% Roussanne, 15% Grenache and 5% others (Clairette, Bourboulenc, Picpoul, Picardan) and 80% is matured in stainless steel tanks and the rest in new and used barrels. VV is 100% Roussanne and is fermented and matured 50/50 in stainless steel tanks and in once used barrels.

1998
Classic showed an open and expressive nose and an ample, deep, rich and complex palate with tropical fruit, some nuts and good mouth-fill; 17/20+.
VV showed slightly lighter colour than Classic and was initially more closed but with swirl and airing fine floral aromas emerged and the palate was more focussed, mineral and linear than Classic with fine length; 17/20++ now; 18/20+ potential.

1999
Classic showed deeper amber than ’98 and a sweetly burnished nose with slight iodine and sherry hints; the palate with its richly burnished character gave the impression of less fullness and intensity than ’98 with a certain soft bitterness around the edges and dryness towards the finish; good drinking, though; 16/20.
VV was similar in colour and its aromas were somewhat less burnished and fresher with more marked iodine notes; the palate was also fresher and more ample than Classic’s though darker than ’98; good length; 16.5/20.
Most of the others preferred Classic.

2000
Classic was better than ’99 with fuller and more complex fruit, pineapple, orange and marmalade, greater freshness and generosity; 17/20+.
VV was broadly similar but more discreet aromatically and with less purity, malt hints and a bitter touch on the after-taste; 15.5/20; was this in a “down” phase or an under-performing bottle?

2001
Both seemed a lot more youthful.
Classic took time to open up and was aromatically simpler than the previous years; there was some fine deep substance seeming quite dark and burnished at first but freshening up; good balance and length; 16/20 now with ++++ potential.
VV was even more restrained aromatically with initially some woody and pasty hints but these dissipated and impressively round, rich matter and fine balance and length were revealed; 16/20 now with +++++ potential.
Pierre thinks that these are potentially the finest of the lot.

Sounds like fun although I guess you didn't have any of those rich fish and white meat dishes on hand for the tasting?

Thanks for the report, Tim; I think it's the first time I've seen notes on a group of these wines tasted together.

I've only had the 1996 and 2004 VV; the '96 was bought last year and might have been compromised by storage conditions -- it was fun to drink but those of us drinking it were pretty sure it was oxidized rather than simply going through an awkward stage.

The 2004 was pretty impressive in an oily Southern Rhône kind of way, and of course we drank it years away from any potential mature greatness, but I was really curious to try it at least once, and, at $113 wholesale, it might remain my only try.

As you note, it can be a bit of a crapshoot deciding when to open these wines, similar to N. Rhône whites. I recently tried Clos des Pape's 2006 white and it was sort of fun but mostly rather simple-minded; I'm saving another bottle to see what some cellaring will do for it.

Thanks for the notes; The Beaucastel Roussanne Vielles Vignes has frustrated me more than any other white wine. I have at times thought it so powerful that it could have easily been served with roast leg of lamb. Other times it was closed and unyielding. I would be unwilling to concede the elegance point but my first ever glass of the stuff, about ten years ago was gorgeous: refinement itself.

So I remain puzzled and wait with my remaining precious few bottles

Tim,

One of the vv from the 90's (would have to search my notes for the exact year) was one of the most memorable white wines I've ever had. The prices are crazy on these nowadays, but they are pretty limited and the vignes aren't getting any younger.

Thanks for the writeup; this sounds like a tasting I would have loved to have been at.

Coincidentally there are two TNs on EBob front page at the moment, both very enthusiastic. One for VV 97 and the other for VV 06. The former seems to have come out of its sulky phase, if it ever had one, and the latter has not yet gone into it.

I had a great bottle of VV 97 in October 2001 and here is my TN from then -

"- Châteauneuf du Pape (white) Vieilles Vignes 1997 from Château de Beaucastel

I find it hard to describe this in a way to do it justice. The nose was round complex and rich which tropical fruit flavours. Palate likewise with length and with hints of nuttiness and spice and managing to combine elegance with suavity. On Jean''s advice, we served this less chilled than is conventional for whites and it responded with a subtlety which excessive cold would have killed. An outstanding Southern white which fully overcomes the problem of heat which make most of them flabby; excellent+ by any standard. Not much potential for further ageing, I thought, but Jean reports that it held up well the next day."

It seems as if I was wrong about no potential for further ageing.

Coming here a tad late, very informative set of notes and thoughts. I do not have a history of tasting these white CdP, pity as many know I am a big fan of French whites from the south!

Yes, Bob, I think that you would love these wines when they are really singing. As you can see, these are not given away, but there are other producers in the South producing very nice white, not as rich as these, for between a tenth and a fifth of the price of VV; Gauby and Alquier spring to mind.

Have you tried the superb Château Simone made mainly from Clairette at Palette near Aix-en-Provence? Less fat and more mineral than Beaucastel but getting pricey; c.€32.

Have you tried the superb Château Simone made mainly from Clairette at Palette near Aix-en-Provence? Less fat and more mineral than Beaucastel but getting pricey; c.€32.

I returned `cos I am on a rousssanne kick right now! No have not been close to a Simone at all.
Trying to get a handle on the Money Spider from d`Arenberg. My second bottle from the `04 vintage is giving me just a certain amount of pleasure but too much RS.
Need to look at the whites on the CdP shelf downtown!

Has anyone had any recent experience with the -97 Beaucastel classic? Not the best year, but supposedly a good wine; I just picked up a couple of bottles relatively inexpensively ($50 US) and I have yet to open them.

Best,
Josh