Irish makes his half century..."The Lads" celebrate...

So a meeting of "The Lads" was called to celebrate Irish turning 50. The line up being Irish, Halifax, Ronaldinho, Woo, Monty (new name on account of hints dropped) and myself. We were sad to unavoidably lose the presence of Chewy but we drank to him and I am sure he'll be back with a bang next time. 

This group is a joy. A few of the previous outings can be seen below, were I more IT savvy then maybe there would be a section of this site dedicated to the group...the same could be said of the May trips group.

Boats, bottles, tides and pirates

Irish goes into his 50th year

Double birthday bonanza

Lunch at Ronaldinhos

The venue and co-ordination was chosen and orchestrated by Irish. Kitchen W8 is a great spot and one I have always enjoyed - if you've not been you must go. The brief was a simple one "bring a great bottle or two and NO meaningless volume". I tell you what, it worked as you'll see. But first the menu which was faultless - pics at bottom of this post.

Warm Baked Celeriac, Autumn Truffle,

Roast Chicken Skin and Hazelnuts

-

Risotto of Cepes with Aged Parmesan

-

Fillet of Turbot, Autumn Roots, Iberico Lardo,

Smoked Potato and Red Wine

-

Haunch of Venison, Bulgur Wheat, Swiss Chard,

Creamed Chanterelles, Liver and Onions
-

Cheese

So let's start at the beginning, Halifax (aka Nobby) is almost always in charge of the Champagne which is fine given he has good stocks and loves it BUT has the one downside of being served first, Nobby is almost always late! Only 15 minutes this time so having discussed the state of the world over a glass of water and got the first of Ron's dodgy jokes out the way we were on. 

North-South divide...

There was an element of "blindness" to almost all the wines. Louis Roederer 1988 from magnum was just splendid. We were on the money vintage wise having been in the 1988 to 1990 range but we were almost all leaning towards a Blanc de Blancs - Taittinger and Salon both being put forward. It was lemony with a little biscuitiness in the mix, no nuts, brioche and toast, great energy, delicious now, will age well but I can't imagine liking it more than right now! The magnum size had a positive effect without doubt. We were off and running in style

With one notable exception we went wine by wine rather than pairs which meant we could concentrate on getting things properly wrong. Meursault-Charmes 1er Cru 2002 from Lafon was up next and bang on the money. A little reduction, some petrol, good generosity, very good, focused but proper and perfect from now on, a taut density and easily of Grand Cru quality.

I decided to go early and get it wrong next, I said Grand Cru Chablis and from the mid-late 90s. I was, kind of, wrong for the right reasons but mainly because the wine was quite cool. It was a cracking bottle of Montrachet Grand Cru 2001 from Sauzet. Once up to temperature it was marmalade, tangerines, rich, with good minerality underneath and opulence (essential in Montrachet I'd say). Lanolin, iodine and full, those that kept a little in their glass just kept getting more and more...lovely.

What came next was the - ludicrously generous - focal point, even in this company. First we had Hermitage La Chapelle 1990 then Hermitage La Chapelle 1978, both these bottles and the next one having come from the estate in original individual wooden cases last year. The 1990 was stinkingly rich on the nose, full, I noted that you could smell the viscosity, whether that is possible or not, I know what I mean, rich bacon fat, so sweet big and bold but balanced and digestible, almost raisined, some soy and aniseed. A brute but a dam good one, mightily good. The 1978 was by contrast all together gentler with a more tender sweet maturity, leaves, forest floor, strawberry leaf and then tea and wood smoke, a delight. A really balanced wine, Burgundian if anything...so poised.

The Hermitage La Chapelle 1961 that followed managed to combine all the best bits of both these wines. It was perfect to have then in this order. Having a bottle of this in perfect shape is a dream come true. I was laughed down for suggesting that there was a time or mood when I would pick the 1978 over the 1961. I maintain there is, the 1961 has everything you could want. I just loved the tenderness of the 1978 as well. Looking back to the 1990 I see this as having the structure and DNA of the 1961 rather than the 1978, it has that incredibly rich sweetness. My note for the 1961 was easy to write; "Pine, resinous, oils, savage, a brut, wild, uber-concentrated degraded berry fruit, bovril and sweetness...super...wild, hickory smoke, grip...stunning...complete, Indian spices now, ferrous...magnificent!"

Where on earth do you go from that? Well one thing is for sure, you get the hell out of the Rhone...Burgundy it was and more specifically Clos Saint-Denis Grand Cru 2000, Dujac from magnum. I really enjoyed this and was pleased it was a magnum as it just begged to be drunk. Degraded sweet and feminine. Waxy with palma violets, and some tangerines rind. We were pretty rubbish trying to get this blind as we were in the 1980s mainly, it had an open knit maturity, attractively so.

Another Burgundy mag next, any Rousseau wine is a treat and in magnum even more so -  Gevrey-Chambertin 1er Cru Clos St Jacques 1988 was everything you would want and expect. So good in fact that it blew a fuse in the restaurant. This was tightly coiled with red fruit power, poised and persistent and with stunning depth. None of the tougher, acidic nature you can get with 1988. Just a super super wine - a treat. A little bit more about Clos Saint.Jacques. 

As cheese was ordered we went back to white and a crackingly interesting pair of whites. Firstly, Chevalier-Montrachet Grand Cru 1991 from Neillon, then the very same wine from the following year - Chevalier-Montrachet Grand Cru 1992, Neillon. The 1991 has absolutely no right to be this good, none at all. Oyster-shell and a tinge of green serious focus, spicy with a little nuttiness, some stemginger and a little lanolin, the definition of an over-performer. The 1992 was altogether richer and more decadent, a little reduced, unctuous and superb, spot on with the cheese, toffee apples and hedonistic maturity.

Just the perfect time now for a sugar lift. So where better than Yquem and the 1953 specifically. I've had very few 1953s but those I have had have usually been in verticals courtesy of Jordi. This had an expressive and fully mature nose, creme brulee with a slightly burnt topping. There is a rancio sweetness to this, lifted like PX sherry but then with a drier more intense middle, slightly burning caramel.

The next wine - Mehringer Blattenberg 1989er Trockenbeerenauslese from the wonderfully named Friedrich-Wilhelm-Gynasium - was an amazingly good contrast. So incredibly zippy and energetic, intense yet light as a feather, an amazing liquid. Lemon and even line freshness...superb. 

Then the final bottle, fittingly a birth year wine for Irish - Taylor 1966 - which had been double decanted that morning. Marzipan and full raisined sweetness but a nice medium weight, it just got better and better with air...we had the predictable "why don't we drink more Port" conversation. With that and the sound of a hoover doing its business we managed to depart before anyone arrived for diner!

Another splendid few hours spent with great bottles and great people...long may it continue! It is exactly what wine shouldbe about. Here's to the next 50 Irish!

A wave to Chewy and Newcastle!!

Food pics as promised!

Warm Baked Celeriac, Autumn Truffle, 

Roast Chicken Skin and Hazelnuts

Risotto of Cepes with Aged Parmesan

Fillet of Turbot, Autumn Roots, Iberico Lardo, 

Smoked Potato and Red Wine

Haunch of Venison, Bulgur Wheat, Swiss Chard,

Creamed Chanterelles, Liver and Onions

Newcastle with "Newcastle" & "Halifax"

If you look back through this blog there are many people I have been very privileged to drink a lot of great wine with…right up there (easily in "Europe" and probably fighting for the title are two gentlemen who go by the monikers on here of "Newcastle" and "Halifax". Last week I made the remarkably easy - this could become a dangerous habit - trip to Newcastle for a cracking dinner. Both gents were joined by their splendid other halves and much fun was had, as much with the wine as the chat - rugby, racing, golf etc...

We were very well looked after by the team at 21 Newcastle with a lovely menu of; Lobster, Turbot, Beef and Cheeses. The scene need some setting so a few G&T's were used to hydrate before we made our way to the table.

Salon 1988 was a lovely starting place, fully mature now (like some of us) with a orange-rind and yeasty richness, interestingly this got fresher in glass with a bit of air. Salon is always a very vinous Champagne and so it was here, this reminded me a little of a recent bottle of 1983 mentioned at the end of this post. The slightly oxidative and powder elements gave way to freshness. Its an interesting Salon as it is the only one where malolactic fermentation started what makes it more widely interesting is that it never completed.

Next up with the lovely Lobster dish and then a cracking bit of turbot was, that rarest of beasts, a "double monty" with Ramonet and DRC on display. Montrachet 2002 from Ramonet is one of those wines you know you will not get to drink more than once unless your very lucky. I have a little experience of the wines from Ramonet now and love the style. I like to think it is a touch individual, stem ginger seeming to be a bit of a signature. This was a big wine, though I don't know for sure, but I would say both this and the 1986 that followed had a good bit of that Montrachet botrytis richness. We choose, wisely I think, to have this 2002 decanted. It has a slight toffee aroma to start, this coming from the richness and the oak but with only a tiny bit of air the ginger started to come out as did layer upon layer of rich fruit. Absolutely cracking and greater and greater with air, some wine. From there we were onto Montrachet 1986 from DRC. I am lucky to try Montrachet from DRC on release each year and through others generosity to have had it a few times with some age but I have never had the 1986 or even a vintage within 4 or 5 years of that. It was instantly a good bottle. We decided there was no need to decant this. The full textural richness was perfect again the totally mature, decadent fruit, really lovely balanced, a wine you couldn't help but wallow in really. We tried to keen a little bit of each going for a while to try alongside the reds. They were both more just great wines rather than great white wines if that makes any sense.


Time for red now as a vast amount of beef appeared. Soldera 2008 kicked us off, I am biased but this is one hell of an estate. Visits to Soldera are always magical, controversial, inspiring and never dull. I find the wine so easy to enjoy but at the same time as wonderfully complex, as much as the man who makes it. Like so many of the great mono-varietal red wines (Burgundy and Barolo spring to mind but others too) it strikes me as such an error to not enjoy these wines young as well as with age. There is always a note of wet meat (just think of how great raw cool beef smells) as well as a floral red fruit edge before a darker core. Yum!

The next red was Volnay Santenots du Milieu 1993 from Lafon, a great wine to get to try but (and sorry there is a "but") it was just a little overshadowed in this league. Now, I can hear a few readers here saying "it's not a wine Will sells" and they are correct, but I like to think bias and all, I say what I think. This was a good medium weight wine with good balance, well made, nice nose, the "but" and it was the same when I did a tasting - Burgundy pairs 2009 and 2010 - with trade mates a while back is all round whether it is Volnay. I think Lafon makes seriously great whites in many different years and with a great richness. The estate doesn't seem to make great reds, good yes, but true to the Volnay elegance? This is nothing new, D'Angerville and Lafarge are producers I love and they make great Volnay but never hit the heights with the whites they make, nice though they often are. Anne-Claude Leflaive gave up making red…it is just not an easy thing - to do both. Comments welcome on my thoughts here…I can't make red of white so I am a fine one to talk!

So to the last red - Latour 1964 - now this is Pauillac and so mighty fine. Rich but not remotely heavy, blacker fruit but with iron and power, absolutely perfect now. May be tasting a little younger than 52 years but so graceful, so Latour. The only vintage, as we discussed, that you might have confused it with is Latour's very good 1970. It was everything to should have been and frankly so was the whole evening, lots of wine, great chat, a chance to catch up and to laugh.

No evening would ever be complete with a few Negronis would it…chaps, and ladies, I thank you…until next time!

Burgundy Pairs - 2009 and 2010...Coche, Rousseau, Clos de tart...that sort of thing...

2009 & 2010 Burgundy Pairs – Zucca 29/10/15
I'm not quite sure how I missed this blog but I've only just realised that I didn't actually get my notes written up. This is a tasting that I will want to look back at so I think "better late that never" justifies this very tardy posting. Mr East was the kind organiser, for which many thanks, the dinner was a trade affair with one notable exception who arguably drinks better than the rest of the trade put together. The brief was simple; bring two bottles of the same wine, one from 2009 and one from 2010.

For a better write up (with the wines fresh in his mind) have a look at the post by my friend Joss on his blog. The location was Zucca and for me it followed a rather liquid lunch, also a Zucca (I did get back to my desk in between), so my notes are not quite as "robust" as they might be. Plenty has been written about the growing seasons and the perceived styles of wines from 2009 and 2010 so it was interesting to get to taste things side by side.

We started with a Gosset Celebris 2002 from magnum. I have always liked Gosset as a house finding the style to be a good middle ground between the finesse and focus of the Blanc de Blancs houses and the more generous, biscuity style of the Pinot noir orientated producers. This though is 2002 and in magnum, it has a long way to go, briney and almost Chablis like this is moreish and all the better for it. Even in bottle it'll repay another 3-5 years.

We were then into the meat and drink of the evening, whites then reds. First wine was:

Meursault Poruzots 1er Cru, Maison Deux Montille - the 2009 I noted this as generous, slightly degraded with a lush open texture, enjoyable if not massively complex. The 2010 was, as you might expect, steelier, more saline, minerality to the fore. Good texture. "Tonight" I might drink the 2009 half the time but I'd want to own the 2010.

A rare combination.

Meursault Genevrieres 1er Cru from Boisson-Vadot - was up next. I am lucky enough to be getting more and more exposure to the wines from this producer, almost always in company with many of the friends at this table which tells it's own tale. The reputation is of being an aspiring "School of Coche" style. The 2009 is a wine with nuttiness, a waxy generous texture whilst being big and pretty bold. It is also kept in a framework that makes it complete enough. The 2010 was pretty spot on it has to be said, driven but not so tight as to miss the point of being Meursault...really enjoyable, a quality wine. It was definitely a harder wine to write a note on which I often take as a positive.

Meursault Genevrieres 1er Cru, Coche-Dury - To follow Boisson-Vadot with the very "same" wines from Coche is quite a treat. There was a contrast though which was thought provoking and pattern-breaking. The 2009 in this pairing was better than the 2010. Now there was some questionning of the quality of the 2010 bottle but on the grounds that it was not corked and not oxized I feel that (for now, though god only knows if/when I'll ever have it again) I shouldn't just say "not valid". The 2009 was great, open but with good focus, reduced and with that lovely (if you like it as I do) whiff of gunpowder and struck match. There is a school of thought that with Coche being an early picker he over performs the perception of vintages that are often described as "warm" or even "hot". He certainly seems to have nailed 2005, not that this is news to anyone. The 2010 was too limey, too steely, then a little dry and ultimately had a slight dry toffee note...I just concluded "odd, odd, odd". So rather than worry about the 2010 I think it is worth noting the 2009 is exceptional and that to dismiss 2009 as a possibly sub par white wine vintage vintage is dangerous, generalisations alwasy are, especially in Burgundy.

That concluded the whites, there were a few pairs I had been tempted to take and will continue to look at whites from 2009 and 2010. My thoughts on 2009 and 2010 whites from this and other tastings are that the styles of the wines made in these years are more different than the pure quality assessment. In 10 years time would a tasting see 2010 hailed as better? Yes I think so BUT 2010 will always come with more expectation and sadly, human nature to blame here, more disappointments. For the next 2-5 years I would just serve 2009 whites cooler and undecanted, whereas 2010's I would decant and let breathe. If you don't put too much though into it there is a lot of fun to be had with 2009.

Start of the reds

The reds:

Volnay Champans 1er Cru, Lafon - I do not have that much experience with Lafon, an iconic producer, and was enthused to taste. I think I came out of this pair with more questions than answers. The main problems is that I love the Pinot-ness of Volnay. I would argue that actually if you look for the essence of Pinot then Volnay is the place to go, not to say it is my favourite village in Burgundy for reds but it one that far too many people overlook (to digress a little it is like people buying Barolo and ignoring Barbaresco). The 2009 was a wine I would never has called as Pinot let alone Burgundy. Minty, rich, savoury, with high acidity, this was more Brunello-like than anything. I would love to try this as an older wine. I have a feeling, more a gut feel, that it may get to "mature" status quickly but then actually mellow nicely. The 2010 had the same weight but more focus, still a shade crude for me and certainly a wine with a frame that would suit Gevrey rather than Volnay.

Volnay Champans 1er Cru from d’Angerville - Bias aside this is more the Volnay I know. The 2009 smacked of a wine made to be deliberately toned down. You might expect the warmer 2009 vintage to produce a bigger wine but with this as a pair the 2010 had the slightly darker fruit and the 2009 was redder, glossier, may be more feminine. The 2010 is, for me, comfortably the greater wine here. Refined and long with lovely focus and minerality, this is persistent and impresive.

Pommard Clos des Epeneaux 1er Cru by Comte Armand - This 2009 played well to the vintage character, it was opulent and slightly "slutty", a little glossy with oak showing but not too much. The 2010 was more saturated with fruit, moreish and mouthwatering, worthy of good ageing. Whilst I haven't written masses here I was very impressed with this pair.

Ruchottes-Chambertin Grand Cru, Rousseau - We had a few issues in voting on the next two pairs - a good "1st world problem". I was slightly out on my own in preferring the 2009, slightly as a means of being contrary but I think I just preferred it. The 2009 so enjoyable to drink right now, ripe but correctly so, a lovely salinity to this and just a delicious meld of red and black fruit. The 2010 had an element of star anise and some spice, this was a shade darker of fruit. A stunning pair and one that proves that quality producers do their stuff every year.

Gevrey-Chambertin Clos St Jacques 1er Cru by Fourrier - I'd love to try more Fourrier. The 2009 was a little like Burgundy on steroids which I think is how a few people perceive the vintage and if there is balance this is not an issue. There is density to this and a certain boldness too. The 2010 is lovely real Grand Cru stuff, the structure of dark fruit with the freshness of red fruit...pretty smart!

Clos de Tart Grand Cru - This wasn't long after Clos de Tart day that I wrote up. I agree with Joss' comments that these might have shown better earlier in the flights. The development over the course of Sylvain Pitiot's time at Clos de Tart has been towards purity and elegance over power. This bottle of 2009 I didn't think was showing quite as well as some but was still decent. The 2010 I think is a very very fine bottle with freshness and more red ruit than you might expect as well a little spice. A wine I really look forward to following over the next few decades.

My conclusions on the reds are not that different from the whites. Burgundy as ever is all about the producer and their interpretation of the vintage. If you bought 2009's and 2010's from producers you like, you did the right thing.

I haven't mentioned the food, this was Zucca, so it was good. The chat was, as ever, as much fun as you make it. These dinners always act to remind me, in case I forget, what a fun trade it is that we all work in...well done all...there was chat of a 2009/2010 Bordeaux follow up...

White, red and orange - Giulia comes to Zucca...

Giulia Negri was in town for a few days, a young producer in Barolo who I think has a bright future. She has featured in these two blogs already. One of her great passions outside of the wines of Piedmont is, unsurprisingly, Burgundy. She spends a good amount of time there so I thought what better than to introduce her wines to Sam Harris at Zucca and also have lunch there with four customer friend's - Irish Pete, Andrew, Colin and Winerackd. The drill was simple bring a bottle - Burgundy if you like.

A lovely line-up

We started with the ever poised Delamotte 2002 - showing good focus, a little richness but overall balance, lovely now but no rush…

We had two whites to follow or rather a white and an orange. Meursault 1er Cru Goutte D'Or 2004 from Lafon was the white, this got better and better and fresher and fresher in the glass, initial opening suggested it might be a tad weary but actually 20 minutes or so later it was just rich but still fresh, nice! The orange was Winerackd's bottle - Contra Soarda's 121 BC Vespaiolo 2012 a Veneto Bianco IGT. Now this is more a wine of skin contact that a "natural wine" (not a debate I am getting drawm into). I really liked it - the nose was very reminiscent, as Giulia particularly highlighted, of tomatoes, like cool passata. The plate had more fruit, a little apricot even and it was moreish, I would definitely have it again!

Then it was time for the "main action" - Giulia's wines. We had the 2013 Barbera d'Alba which is such a supple and fresh red, lovely such fruit but with real lift and edge. The Barolo Tartufaia 2009 was next, a blend of fruit from 70% Brunate and 30% Serradenari (where Guilai is based and the highest vineyard in the whole Barolo region). This wine gets better and better with air there is real depth and, I think it is fair to say everyone was impressed. With a good, serious, 2010 to come followed by a beautifully poised 2011 things look good.

So what were to be the final reds? Well a rather lovely pair. Volnay 1er Cru Fremiets 1996 from d'Angerville and Chambolle-Musigny 1er Les Cras 1993 from Ghislaine Barthod. The Fremiets had a taut and quite serious nose of cheesecloth and reserved fruit but opened up more and more, it never quite shed it's 1996 straightjacket but was absolutely lovely, savoury but delicately sweet. The Barthod which had come direct from the estate about 2 month earlier was spotless, everything you want from Chamboll really, succulence but also elegance with lovely supple, velvet fruit, it'll keep and it will develop but was just lovely now. As a duo they functioned well just as the whole lunch did…as, almost, always you get good people round a table and bring and bottle and much fun is had! Onwards...

Magnificent luncheon at Medlar

So the Friday after the spectacular Rousseau at Riverside there was another wine feast planned. This time at the Medlar Restaurant in the King's Road. The group of five included two chaps - Betrand, the chief organiser, and Jordi - who have great cellars and love opening older bottles - both being expert in this area. The menu had been specifically put together and is below:

Crab Raviolo with samphire, brown shrimps, fondue of leeks and bisque sauce

Cornish Turbot with Truffle Veloute, Pak Choi, Enoki, and Potato Galette 

Salad of Confit Quail legs, Iberico Ham, Sairass Ricotta, Baby Green Peaches and Pea Flowers

  

Anjou Pigeon with Mint and Coriander Pesto, King Oyster Mushroom, Chargrilled Broccoli and Endive

Rare Grilled Ox Heart with Veal Sweetbread, White Asparagus, Pomme Anna and Confit Onions

48 month Gouda and 36 month Comte 

English Strawberries with Prosecco Jelly, Mint and Lime Granita, Strawberry Sorbet and Meringues

So to the wines, which were splendidly served at good temperatures by the Sommelier Clement. We started with:

Dom Perignon Oentheque 1996, having had the "normal" 1996 Dom Perignon the week before this was interesting. I tend to prefer the normal bottling but this Oenetheque is good, more richness but not in a clumsy way, good toast, a lovely start.

The two whites we started with were any thing but aperitifs being terrific to follow through the next hour or so - Meursault Perrieres 2004, Coche Dury and Meursault Narvaux 2004, D'Auvenay. The D'Auvenay had one of the most expressively explosive noses I can remember. A whiff of bold reduction then a little toffee, then a very marked and persistent note of popcorn, both popped and unpopped. That sounds like a silly note but it is so precisely what the aroma was. A bold and masculine white. The Coche was wonderfully subtle, young, more taut than the D'Auvenay (almost impossible not to be) it developed really well. It was an unfair fight when they were opened, the D'Auvenay taking control, but an hour on it was almost the reverse - a terrific pair.

Next we were having wines from possibly the other two big names in Cote d'Or whites. They were Chevalier Montrachet 1996 from Leflaive and Meursault Perrieres 1989 from Lafon. Sadly, as happens, they didn't live unto their predecessors. The Lafon was corked, it seemed fully mature but wasn't mildly corked so we moved on immediately. The Chevalier, which I have had a couple of times before, is a good wine. This bottle was a decent one if unexciting. It has a saline and salty almonds aroma, there was fruit but slightly bruised. Good length but just slightly missing a bit of "zip".   

The next flight was a splendid trio:

Echezeaux 2007, DRC

Lovely elegant colour, some orange rind, spices, a dash of graphite, with time it actually got more dense. I love the purity of the gently made 2007's. Very pinot.

Bonnes Mares 1976, Clair Dau

I had not heard of Clair Dau before but I was quickly told it is what is now Bruno Clair. This was mature. Animal, good, a little soy, some green but good green. Balanced and complete, possibly missing the excitement of sweetness. There is that mature mushroom water aroma, good and interesting.

Chambertin Clos de Beze 1971, Clair Dau

This was initially served blind, it was a really exciting bottle, dwarfing the previous wine exactly because it did have the sweetness that older wines need to counter balance the complexity of age. Brown sweetness, leather and undergrowth - absolutely stunning.  

From Burgundy we were off to Bordeaux:
La Tour du Pin Figeac 1961 had an orangey hint, mulled, bruised fruit, a little milky in texture, some tin. It was a little "murky" and impure, not bad for it but not perfect.
Cheval Blanc 1952 This was served blind and had come from parcel that also included 1948 which I have had before. Black fruit and saline, great intensity, there was a spice dimension as well, extremely good wine!
So with so many of the great names of wine already having appeared we still had a few to come. 

Petrus 1966 and La Mission Haut-Brion 1966 were next on the "agenda". I had not had either before. The Bordeaux 1966's that I've had have been pretty special though. The Petrus was superb, so Petrus-like in character, extrovert and high-toned, succulent. There is something unique about Petrus, especially about it's texture and showiness. The La Mission was initially a little dusty and a shade metallic by comparison, but it got better, sweater and cleaner over time, there was a little smokiness.

Two last bottles awaited us and both the enjoyment I got from them and the styles could not have been more different. Masuizumi 2008 Sake was, I am afraid, just not for me. It was served blind and I had no idea what it was. It was a little like hazelnut and white chocolate but with no sweetness at all, odd, I clearly need educating. Quinta do Noval Nacional 1967 was simply brilliant. I have had "Nacional" twice before, once it was also the 1967 and once the 1983. Both times I have been incredibly impressed. This tastes so young but not in a one dimensional fashion, it has developed but just at a snails pace. Dates and sweet spiced fruit, power but so graceful, I would put Nacional up there as a wine that any wine-lover has to experience.

It has been a very special lunch, lots of brilliant conversation and so many good bottles, very well pulled together from both a food and wine standpoint. Bravo and thank you!

Some pics for the Foodies!

Crab Raviolo - a Medlar signature

Cornish Turbot

Quail legs, Iberico Ham

Anjou Pigeon

Ox Heart with Veal Sweetbread

Burgundy 2004 - Ten years on…

Following on from a few other tastings (2010 Whites, 2001 Grand Cru & 2003 1er Cru reds, 2008 Whites) with this same group we found ourselves in front of a selection of 2004’s. Now reputation would have you believe that the whites are really pretty exciting and the reds a weak vintage, may be the weakest since 1997 or 1994 depending on your view of the freaky 2003's.

The format was a good one with the whole tasting co-ordinated and hosted by Mr Laing. We did the whites pre-dinner and a couple of reds then the remainder of the reds with a good dinner at Launceston place. There were some very amusing comments about some of the wines, some repeatable and several not!

For another version of events - a friend in the trade - click this.

Whites

2004 Mâcon Verzé, Domaines Leflaive

In theory a humble start but an interesting one as this is the very first vintage of Macon Verze from Anne-Claude. The nose was balanced and not showing the reduction it did in youth. It loosened up with time in the glass. The best approach would be nicely chilled. A good wine that has mellowed slightly beyond interest but is still balanced. 15

                                                           

2004 Chassagne Montrachet 1er cru La Romanée, Fontaine-Gagnard

A dash of reduction. A lovely waxy texture after an expressive and slightly high-toned nose. Quite bold and showy with a little unctuousness. This just stops short of being “OTT” and is impressive for it. 17.5

2004 Puligny Montrachet 1^er cru Clavoillon, Domaine Leflaive

Reduced a touch, good fruit with the gunsmoke, quite opulent and almost decadent on the nose…the palate didn’t quite follow it through, lacking a touch of class and being a little clumsy. I feel I’ve been a little harsh. 16.5

2004 Puligny Montrachet 1^er cru Perrières, L. Carillon

Yeasty, decent, very old school, old oak in style, all about the texture. There is a slightly melony note. The palate is long and has some complexity. In many ways the opposite of the Clavoillon. 16

2004 Puligny Montrachet Les Enseignères, J-F. Coche-Dury

Quite mellow for Coche, I may be unfair in expecting a little more focus. There is though a citrus liveliness to the body of the wine and lots of energy and length. I think my only problem with this wine was that I expect so much from Coche, in short for a Lieu dit from anyone else I’d be heaping on the praise. Well received in the room. 18

2004 Meursault Tessons Clos de Mon Plaisir, G. Roulot

A little bit of brine on the nose, a tight and taut wine. I expected more of the 2004 whites to be like this. Very impressive. There was a grapefruit core with a long finish that had a very classical “proper” profile. Some people were less excited but I thought this had real class. 18.25

2004 Meursault 1^er cru Poruzots, F. Jobard

Not pleasant, pencil-led, unbalanced mineral flavours. This wasn’t corked or obviously oxidised just not very nice. One taster suggested “it might be made from Parsnips”. 11

2004 Meursault 1^er cru Charmes, Domaines des Comtes Lafon

CORKED                        

2004 Meursault 1^er cru Goutte d’Or, Domaine d’Auvenay

By substantial consensus one of the white highlights and a few peoples wine of the night. Shame that only 1200bts were made. Had a lovely reduced, gunsmoke nose with the weight that could only be Meursault. Opulent but persistent, generous but with no lack of focus. Exciting. 18-18.5.

The score is a cop out because I wouldn’t always want to drink this over the Roulot or Coche.

2004 Bienvenues-Bâtard-Montrachet Grand Cru, L. Carillon

Nice mellowed nose, subdued but with balance, not exciting Grand Cru quality, gentle and slightly non-descript if perfectly decent. 16.5

2004 Bâtard-Montrachet Grand Cru, M. Colin

A little lemon merangue-ish. More volume in the way you would expect from , broad shoulders. Bold, unctuous and long. Lacks for a little refinement. 17.5

2004 Corton Charlemagne Grand Cru, L. Jadot

Odd and disjointed. I thought it had a peaty Islay Whisky note (someone suggested “JD & Coke”). There was also a bruised apple yeasty note. May be not a great bottle. Not undrinkable but not pleasant. 12 (though judgement reserved)

REDS

2004 Charmes-Chambertin Grand Cru, D. Bachelet

A Chunky chap. Pencil-led, good dark fruit, masculine. Has the cool vintage minerality you would expect with a little pine resin also. Not skinny but not over-extracted very herbal. I can’t help but feel a nod to the northern rhone here. Nice now. 17 

2004 Charmes-Chambertin Grand Cru , A. Rousseau

Red fruit, lovely delicate nature, a dash of dryness but then a lovely finish. Drink soon I feel as the red fruit is attractive. So different to the Bachelet. 17

2004 Charmes-Chambertin Grand Cru, C. Serafin

Nice clean nose, simple but good, a little cheesecloth whiff, very easy. Not very 2004 except for a slightly dry and hollow mid palate. Safe if a little non-descript. 16

2004 Charmes-Chambertin Grand Cru, Dujac

A whiff of chlorine to start, dry and forced, grippy with too much winemaking. “Cheap brown bread”. A disappointment. 15

2004 Griotte-Chambertin Grand cru, L. Ponsot

A little but warm, high-toned with the smell of high acidity. Stewy and a little forced if not dry. Lacks purity. 15

2004 Gevrey-Chambertin 1^er cru Clos St Jacques, A. Rousseau

Nice wine, very Rousseau – poised red fruit but with persistance, has good balance. Not lush and may be a tad lean to be anything but 2004 but a nice drink. 17

                                                                      

2004 Clos Vougeot Grand Cru, A. Hudelot-Noellat

Slightly gamey nose with degraded sweetness. At the same time some very good acidity. A good effort. 16.25

2004 Clos Vougeot Grand Cru, T. Liger-Belair

Ribena, bacon fat and frazzles. L;ush but shallow, the taste of dried blood also. The palate is a little hollow also. Odd wine, OTT in everyway, strikes me that it is a bit of a “throw everything at it and see what sticks”. 15

2004 Clos de la Roche VV Grand Cru, L. Ponsot 

Beef stock, Bovril. A little stewy, gamey with high acidity that sits over the wine not in it. Quite tannic, not that clean. 14.5

2004 Bonnes-Mares Grand Cru, N. Potel

“Cabbage and dirty rags” not a good bottle. No Score

2004 Bonnes-Mares  Grand Cru, de Vogüé

A good balanced and slightly elegant if muted nose, no faults but may be no excitement either. Overall a simple, understated and good wine but either needs time or just doesn’t have the ingredients needed. 16

2004 Musigny VV Grand Cru, de Vogüé

Poised red fruit, nice palate, good energy. Lifted and elegant, has very good balance and purity. Strange that this shows more than Bonnes Mares. 16.75-17

2004 Echézeaux Grand Cru, J. Grivot

Nice red fruit, poised and quite fine. A dash stringy but that lean freshness is no bad thing. Pure. 16.75-17

2004 Echézeaux Grand Cru, Domaine de la Romanée-Conti

By popular consensus the wine of the night(by a little distance in the reds). Escaped any 2004-ness. Really poised, delicious texture that combines some good fruit weight (75% red) with a little sweetness. Very good. 18-18.25

So what was the view on the 2004’s?

My feeling was that I expected more of the whites to be exciting. They were more consistent than the reds for sure, but there seemed to be two schools. Too lean or too voluptuous. On the reds I was not as disappointed as I feared (and to answer the question I nearly posed at the top I would buy 2004 over 2003) but clearly it was a vintage when the less you tried to “make” a wine the better. The lean red fruit and decent acidity can be a strength. I feel this is a weak vintage and in general terms I feel it lags, for red and white, a good point or two behind the 2007’s. It was a very good tasting and as ever no real surprise to see DRC, Rousseau, Roulot, Coche-Dury and d’Auvenay near the top.

Our host, kindly, then got 2 wines from his cellar, both a treat:

                                                                                            

1996 Nuits-St-Georges 1er Cru Clos de Foret St Georges, Arlot (Magnum)

Served at the perfect temperature. Really delicious and without a harsh texture or acidity (which can happen in 1996). I was well beyond writing many notes at this stage but this was very impressive. 17.5-18

1966 Volnay 1er Cru Santenots, Collection Bellenum, Roche de Bellene

Truffle and mushrooms, a little savouriness on the palate but with good degraded sweetness and acidity. This is an old wine but the sweetness means that the sherry and Bovril flavours work well. 16-17

There were post tasting emails about the same thing next year with the 2005’s, now that will carry a weight of expectation for the reds and opulence for the whites…