Not easy to find restaurants in this country that support BYO, so Remo took Christian, Chansie (Remo’s girlfriend) and me out to “our” Thai restaurant tonight. Does Bordeaux go well with Asian food? The short answer may be, as long as one does not order anything very hot/spicy and/or sour/acidic. I personally believe Asian food goes best with either white or red wine that is oak-free – that is, in the latter case, traditional Châteauneuf-du-Pape and Piedmontese Nebbiolo. I have rarely experienced successful combinations with red Burgundy (that’s a bit like traditional Piedmontese Nebbiolo) also.
I simply love 2000 Bordeaux at the top level, by the way. Why? Mainly because of the tannin quality. 2000 is reported (or so I have been told at several Châteaux) to be on average one of the (measurably) highest in tannin along with vintages such as 1928 (no disagreement), 1945 (no disagreement), 1961 (no disagreement), 1975 (and/or a ripeness and balance problem?), 1986 (no disagreement), and 2005 (is that true?!). I do not much care about quantity alone, however. Ironically, I never read about or hear anyone mention the quality (to me flavourfulness, or in a young wine, potential complexity and finesse) of tannin. It’s really like black tea (perhaps any tannic beverage?) – the quantity isn’t what makes it taste good or bad. The best 2000s, to me, have the most fascinating tannin in a long, long time. One wants to chew and suck on them. It is one of those vintages where, more so than others, I notice how some self-proclaimed wine lovers swallow sips so quickly I can’t help wondering if they aren’t missing the best part... In short, it’s the kind of Bordeaux vintage that makes me hope I’ll still be around when the best wines reach maturity.
Vieux Château Certan Pomerol 2000
Thanks to Remo. A blend of 70% Merlot, 20% Cabernet Franc and 10% Cabernet Sauvignon. This wine’s identity was easy to guess, a more typical VCC than the unusual 1998 thanks to the inclusion of Cabernet Franc, possibly more ageworthy – but I am not sure I do not like the plushy 1998 even better. Opaque garnet-ruby-black, slight to medium watery rim. Nice oak, cedary black tea, Cabernet Franc leafiness, dark forest berries and some Merlot plum with a blackcurrant top note, minerals and green tobacco leaf, vine smoke. Firm if still youthfully tight fruit. Fairly full body. Great tannin quality. Quite long on the finish. Resistant to oxidation with airing, well-balanced and stable. Christian found this “too perfect” (the same phrase Patrick used to describe the 1998) – must admit I find this perplexing, as I cannot say this smells or tastes artificial (let alone more modern and polished than a wide range of wines both Christian and Patrick like as well or better, on the contrary). Rating: 93+/94
Château Pavie Macquin St. Emilion 2000
Thanks to Remo. More open than a bottle in January 2008, which is why Remo liked this one better (I am secretly hoping this was a stray bottle, even if 1998 was, and probably will remain, the last vintage of Pavie Macquin I laid out money for myself). Deep plummy ruby-black, opaque at the center, ruby-red at the rim. Perplexing chewing gum like cherry and plum juice sweetness that made me quip this may be from anywhere between St. Emilion and Australia (and sure enough, I was unable to pin down the Château). Riper fruit and tannin than the other two 2000s, on the verge of tasting (rather than smelling) lightly exotic – what makes the 2000 tannin so fascinating in most of the top wines is barely noticeable here. Pavie Macquin is never easy to judge in its youth, but I seem to prefer the more powerful and opulent 1998 (the vintage fits the exotic, almost Rhône-like house style perfectly – like it or not, certain wines are meant to fling themselves at you). I would be curious to taste the 2005 here – I have pretty much liked all vintages since Stéphane Derenoncourt’s “inauguration” 1993 (due to the terroir rather than his winemaking, however, which I appear to be having a real struggle with regardless of the Château – e.g. Stephan von Neipperg’s whole portfolio – he’s consulting/making wine for), but have started to be worried by the gradual change in style a few years ago (beginning with the 1999, of which I have not yet had a bottle I even liked at all...). Rating: 91(+/-?)
Château Clos St. Martin St. Emilion 2000
Thanks to Remo. I used to wonder if this is a bit too oaky for its own good, but am now convinced it will ultimately surpass the 1998 (and that is saying something). Opaque purple-ruby-black, tiny watery pink at the rim. Most closed of the three 2000s tonight, but the most complex and deep on both the nose and palate – amazingly the oak now already seems very well-integrated. Blackberry with a touch of blackcurrant jam (or liqueur), hinting at potential sweetness. Finesse notes of partly green, partly fermented tobacco, a suggestion of cured beef. The strong minerality seemed to fall smack in-between Ausone, Montrose and Palmer – no wonder I am so impressed with this virtually unknown (at least back then), reportedly tiny Château (the wine is so good, in fact, I was unable to guess its identity, and yet, it is just as it should be). Serious, racy and deep tannin – the most tannic, but also the most full-bodied, concentrated and balanced of the three, as well as the longest, most subtle and finesseful on the finish. The only wine that started closing down on us with airing. I am aware what this sounds like, but this reminded me (again) of the 2001 Ausone (except, of course, for the unique tannin quality). Rating: 94+?
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