London and Oxford
29.4. at Terroirs
The Chateau de la Mercrediere Muscadet de Sevre et Maine 1999 was a lovely drop. I didn't find it very typical of Muscadet, but maybe that is because I have little experience with them when they get more than a few years' age. It was still mineral and had lovely acidity, but I thought it had a slight funkiness to it, so I was guessing a Jura Chardonnay from some producer that doesn't make a full-on oxidised style.
Louis Jadot Moulin-à-Vent Ch. des Jacques Clos de la Roche 2000 was a lovely wine but more Burgundian and marked by oak than what I perhaps expect from Bojo. But the oak had integrated well and it was a huge pleasure to drink.
Judging by the evaporation rate, however, I think it was the Foillard Morgon Cote du Py 2007 that I most fell in love with. It was everything that is good about natural wines: lively, pure and dangerously drinkable.
The Cos Pithos 2007 had much the same attributes as the Foillard except it has more sun and all that is associated with more sun. But since it retained the extraordinary liveliness, I didn't mind the sweetness and bigness at all.
Chateau Bernadotte, Haut Medoc 1996 was unspoofulated, classic Claret. And that is always lovely. I thought it was drinking beautifully now. Drink and hold.
I loved the food at Terroirs, and the wine list had only one or two wines that I wouldn't care to drink! Many, if not most, wines at Terroirs are from Les Caves de Pyrene - a truly wonderful company that imports almost solely endlessly fascinating wines. So I was very happy that Richard Shama at this off-line managed to get me a ticket to CdP's trade tasting the next day!
30.4. "Les Caves de Pyrene Presents Real Wine 2009"
Domaine de Montrieux, Coteaux du Vendomois had a wonderful red, sparkling Gamay, Boisson Rouge 2008 - slightly sweet, light, vivacious, reminded me a bit of Brun's FRV100 except drier. Their Coteaux du Vendomois Rouge (Pineau d'Aunis) 2005 was really great, too, not as peppery as I expected from the grape, but with lovely, ripe aromas, very lively, as was Domaine Le Briseaux's "Les Longues Vignes" 2005. I liked Briseaux's whites, too, the Jasnieres Kharakter 2006 (dry) and Clos des Longues Vignes 2005 (sweet) but didn't find them as interesting as the Pineau d'Aunis: they were correct and I would imagine very drinkable, too, but just lacking slightly in a personal touch. Of course, one must understand that this was a big, hurried tasting, so I might very well find them much more rewarding if I had more than a minute with them.
I was happy to get my first taste of Pierre Breton - oddly, it has never been available in Finland (that must be a huge surprise to everyone). The Vouvray 2008 was very primary, but awesomely pure. The reds were lovely and full of that tobacco-like perfume I so like in Francs. The Trinch! 2008 was nice, but not as enjoyable as the others: a bit appley/oxidative (maybe been open a bit too long at this tasting?), but with bright fruit and refreshing structure. Very drinkable and very enjoyable even with the slight oxidative aspect. The Bourgueil Dilettante 2008 was a very classic example of Franc with its delightfully savoury yet refreshingly herbaceous scent. Pure. The Chinon Beaumont 2007 was fun also, with savoury fruit and refreshing despite some richness.
I was also very happy to try the Puzelat line-up. The Pinot Noir NV (but 2006) smelled gorgeously of pure Pinosity, but wasn't quite as lively as I hoped: it seemed to be a bit top-heavy on the sweet end of the spectrum. The "In Cot We Trust" 2007 was lovely, bright and lively, but with a touch of that meatiness one expects from the grape. A very refreshing drop.
These Loires were all light, pure and easy to drink. I think it was the chap from Montrieux (or maybe it was Puzelat?) who told me that he wants to make his red like a white wine: not heavy or tannic, but very easily drinkable. I think all these Loires succeeded in that.
I loved the Foillard Morgon Cote du Py 2007 at our off-line so much that I had to retry it again! Once again, I thought it absolutely marvelous. The Morgon "Classique" 2007 was also lovely and very similar to the CdP except everything was -10%.
I hadn't ever tried Lapalu's wines. The Beaujolais-Village 2008 and Brouilly VV 2008 were both lovely, exactly what I hope to see in Bojos: crunchy, bright fruit, of course the Cru more serious and structured. Sadly I though the Brouilly Croix des Rameaux 2007 had more oak than necessary.
The four from Overnoy-Houillon were just lovely. The Arbois-Pupillin Savagnin Blanc Ouille 2000 was tight, appley and full of energy; the 1999 was softer but still enormously pleasurable. I did prefer the almost tannic structure of the '00, however. The Pupillin Rouge 2004 and 2006 were just enchanting Poulsards. Very light, almost rose in colour, but with fascinating aromatics. They aren't hugely structured wines, but still lovely and lively.
I tried a couple Italian producers as well that I have read about but have never seen in these cold, Siberian shores. Borgogno had a mostly attractive set of wines on show. The Freisa d'Asti 2007 was much fun: bright and focussed, pure, palate-cleansing and moreish. What more can one ask of a wine? The Barolo Classico 2001 surprisingly smelled as if it had a bit of new oak - I thought this was a traditional producer who wouldn't do that? Oh well, the Barolo Storico Liste 2001 was very nice and a more classic profile with bright red fruit, and some enchanting tomato/rust aromas. Lovely, strong tannins. I feel a bit ashamed to admit it, but I love unspoofulated Nebbiolo young, also! The Barolo Classico 1999 was showing much sweet fruit (in as much as Barolo can have sweet fruit, of course), softer and more plump than the 2001s and also nice. The Barolo Classico Riserva 1990 wasn't as raisiny as some 1990s are and I very much enjoyed it even though my Platonic ideal of Barolo would have brighter and redder fruit. A nice line-up for sure, especially getting to taste one matureish vintage. I guess I must have been hallucinating with the oak in the 2001 Classico?
Paolo Bea was the other Italian I tried. We started with an absolutely charming Rosso de Veo 2002 a VdT which was bright and sweet, showing no signs of the weaker vintage. It was a big wine, and I was afraid that the "better" wine would be too much for me. Well, it wasn't. The Sagrantino Montefalco 2004 was a big, friendly wine with some lovely, sunny aromatics and a vibrant and tannic, palate-cleansing taste. Nice wine. I understand the prices tend to be on the high side, but I did enjoy these two!
2.5. Tallis Scholars M&Ms
Dorchester-upon-Thames Abbey, near Oxford, had the Tallis Scholars singing a set of Misereres and Magnificats. I could not miss a concert like this even though getting back to Oxford was a bit of a problem and the bust time-tables were misleading at best. Renaissance Choral Polyphony is the music that I am most into at the moment, and the Tallis Scholars (alongside the Huelgas Ensemble) is its pre-eminent exponent. It was a wide-ranging concert with well known pieces like Allegri's Miserere and some Tallis, Palestrina and Bill Tweet interspersed with the lesser known (Sir Humphrey?) Appleby and Praetorius. A gorgeous performance of gorgeous music in a gorgeous setting with very good acoustics only marred by a bronchial audience. Despite the incessant coughing, it was wonderful to hear a live performance of a choir that I have enjoyed for many years from recordings.
3.5. Oxford, at Mark Temple's
Oxford is a horrible town. It is full of fugly architecture like this and unseemly quads like this. So gladly, a long time internet friend, Mark, arranged an evening of fun wines and good food and company.
Chateau des Jacques Moulin-à-Vent Clos de Rochegres 2002 was an intriguing wine. Mark served it blind and I guessed a Nebbiolo because of its tarry aromas and strong tannins. It had some oak to shed, too, but still was perfectly drinkable and even enjoyable. Certainly not typical Beaujolais, but an enjoyable wine nonetheless.
Arbois Chardonnay Les Bruyères 2005, Tissots-of-all-sorts was a wine I brought to the dinner. It was lovely. It managed to mix a wonderful purity of Chardonnay with an almost flor-like aroma. It was like honey but bone-dry - absolutely no sweetness. I drink this whenever I can: it might just be the best Chardonnay I have so far come across! (That isn't many, I'll admit...)
Tempier Bandol Rosé 2005 was another fun wine. It was strongly mineral, meaty and bright - exactly what I hoped. Quite full bodied - within limits I like, but I did enjoy the tauter 2004 more. Lovely rosé, anyway.
Ch. Musar Blanc 2001 was my first taste of this most recent vintage. It is its usual self: apricot, mineral, oxidative style; good tannins (perhaps a bit surprising in a white), full body but lightish alcohol (12% abv IIRC) for a wine that is so heavy. Very nice!
Huet Le Mont Demi-Sec 2002 was a bit shy on the nose, but was classic Vouvray with its quince and green apple scents. Laser-sharp precision, slight sweetness, but so acidic and delineated that I imagine it is very versatile on the table. Even though I thought it was a bit closed, it was enchanting.
Bert Simon Serriger Würzberg Auslese 1990 was awesome! I hadn't tried any from Simon before, so I had no idea what to expect. It was steely, mineral, pure Riesling-fruit - exactly what I hope for in the Saar. Sweet but so steely and acidic that it isn't sweet - paradoxes in wine are in my experience often what makes for the best experiences.
Samos Anthemis Muscat 2002 was our last sticky. Wonderfully floral, refreshing scent; but the palate is huge, massively sweet, and great fun in small doses.
4.5. Musar at Canteen Spitalfields, London
Finally, on my last day in England, a small group met in the Spitalfields Canteen for some Musar. The 1998 White was as wonderful as it has always been: tannic, quite tight, but apricotty and earthy and wonderfully moreish. The 1999 White was more fleshy and round but it also opened up to a very enjoyable wine. I did prefer the tautness of the '98 over the richness of the '99, but I would love to own both.
The reds were a lovely bunch as always. Sadly the 1977 was slightly corked - as has been all but one bottle I have had. The 1991 was its usual, awesome self. Rich fruit, but bright and lively, some VA but nothing that would bother me. Instead I find it is very complex, food friendly (the Lamb was really nice that evening) and moreish. Dangerously moreish, in fact. The 1993 doesn't seem to be much appreciated, but I have always enjoyed it tremendously. It is a bit softer than the 1991 and doesn't provide such a wild ride - but oddly, therefore, isn't as successful with classical European dishes, but rather it works well with spicier, Mediterranean fare.
One vintage that I have usually disliked is the 1996 yet a few years seems to have done wonders with it - just as it did with another year that I thought initially was rubbish, the 1990. This certainly was a lighter Musar without the interminable aftertaste the good ones tend to have, yet it had all the classic aromas I expect when I see the letters "Musar" on the label. So it was a bit short and light, but it was still great fun to drink!
The 1999 once again seemed to be a wine that will eventually be on the level of the 1991. Yes, it is very young. Yes, it is in-your-face just now. Yes, it is sweet. Yes, it is big. But No, I cannot rationalize why I like the wine when it is so different from the norm of what I enjoy. Lovely wine but needs age.
. This is where you should have gone 