Beppe Rinaldi...Brunate-Le Coste a vertical...

The first of a few posts I hope to nail today, a rather large, but good, backlog has built up. I was pretty knackered when this dinner came around but I was equally excited by both the prospect and the chance to see some of my very favourite wine folk - Eric, Mr Burns, Column, Mr Rafferty (jnr) and my favourite, but sadly on sabbatical, pumpkin chef!!

The venue was the Medlar Restaurant which is seeing a lot of action these days including these events. It came about through the wish to drink some Rinaldi, or Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Rinaldi to give it is full name, wines! Eric kindly co-ordinated this with Chris Delalonde at Medlar and everything was in place for a fun evening - expectation dangerously high.

To start, and after Burnsie had insisted on hugging everyone (is he really English), we had 
Louis Roederer Cristal 1999. It was an amusing choice as I had only been saying in the office that day that of the prestige Champagnes it is the one I see served least at wine dinners. It was mellow and a little honeyed but not OTT at all. More biscuity than nutty and with some citrus. If you had to be critical it could do with a dash more verve and length but that really is nitpicking, lovely.

Predictably we then all had the Crab Raviolo, Medlar's signature dish that has to be had. Alongside this we had Puligny-Montrachet 1er Cru Les Referts 2011 from Francois Carillon, here comes the usual bias warning but this is "a point" right now I think, in common with a lot of white Burgundy 2011s. A slight whiff of reduction  then easy yet rich fruit and lemon driven energy, a little spice on the finish...these two led us to the "work" at hand.

There are very few estates that I fearlessly buy totally "blind" - by this I mean I would buy more of these these Rinaldi wines than I can afford, at any chance I get. This doesn't mean to say they are all brilliantly faultless and perfect - wine isn't like that and arguably isn't meant to be. However, if I think of the top ten producer labels that lift the spirits immediately then this is one (others include - Soldera, Conterno, Coche, Rousseau, DRC, Chave etc - must do that list one day). I have only visited Rinaldi once but it was memorable in the extreme. Beppe's views and manor is well documented and long may it last. There will be a follow on to this post when we look at Barolo Cannubi S.Lorenzo-Ravera next month. The Rinaldi estate makes brilliant: Langhe Nebbiolo, Dolcetto, Barbera and Freisa but the focus tends to go to the two Barolo which I tried to explain at the end of the post here. Essentially from 2010 you can't have two Crus on the same label so in crude terms.

Barolo Brunate-Le Coste (65% Brunate and 35% Le Coste) has become (from and including 2010) Barolo Brunate (85%Brunate and 15% Le Coste) and...

Barolo Cannubi S.Lorenzo-Ravera (a blend of the two named Crus, sorry I don't know the rough balance) is now Barolo Tre Tini (a blend of Cannubi S.Lorenzo, Ravera and the remaining Le Coste that now can't now go in the Brunate).

To add some confusion there have been vintages when a Brunate alone has been made and also quite often the magnums have been pure Brunate (*see notes at end of post for clarity with thanks to Ken Vastola). Right, enough facts...the wines. We attacked them three by three, deciding not to work by age but my vintage type, often a more fun and logical way to do things.

Flight 1 - Brunate-Le Coste - The Warm vintages

1997 - A predictably more evolved and less pure colour than the others in the flight. Saline and deep fruit with some cucumber-water (sorry but I know what I mean). Spice and cherry fruit, deep, a shade powdery in texture which somehow works. Good. Perfect now, will last but in 5 more years will be old and whilst in 20 years it'll be interesting there is, for me, no real upside - enjoy now, degraded hedonism.

2003 - A little more cherry here and an almost candied note (that Monprivato and Cascina Francia both have in 2003 as well). There is a glycerol character here. If I had to draw a parallel with another producer in another region for this 2003 it would be Rayas, there is red fruited, Grenache like purity. When to drink is very tricky. If I had 12 bottles (as if!) I'd have drunk three by now, drink a bottle a year for the next six years or so, hold three just to see.

2007 - Tight, focussed, very fine, a shade muted on the nose, brilliantly saline on the palate. I know this wine quite well, a splendid 2007, does not show "warm" at all. Much as I would want to own more of this than any wine in the flight the 1997 is the wine I would drink most of right now. This is a 2007 to buy if you can find it!

Flight 2 - Brunate-Le Coste - The "should be a bit open" vintages.

Brunate Riserva 1986 - Ok so one of the exceptions I mentioned above and a wine I have had, and loved, once before in magnum also with Eric. A clouded texture, some frazzles and red fruit, degraded sweetness followed by a little bitterness. The mid-palate is a little quiet but the finish is super, a little herbal green drive at the end. Lovely. At it's peak.

2000 - A bit of a brute. The only wine in the first two flights where I thought this would be good alone but not in this company. It's a good wine, savoury and a bit adolescent right now. I feel I am being harsh but there is just a little sweetness missing. I'd love to try this again in 3-5 years.

2004 - Superb and universally the "wine of the night", not that one is needed. Power and poise, drive and precision. Not ready to show everything but is appreciably good. My note says "what wine is all about". Bold in density and structure but in no way too much. The nose is just sublime and the palate follows through. Don't open for 5 years I recon because if you do you will just drink the bottles you have.

Brunate-Le Coste - "Classic or closed?"

1999 - Bricky, salt and orange spice, very serious, delicious, good astringency, already in third gear, may be a little more open than I expected. Nervously classical. Hold but try every two years.

2001 - In Piedmont I have found quite a few 2001s to be just that bit too serious, too heavy. This is not one of them though Eric was a little disappointed in it. Savoury, serious and dense. Tight, a slightly soupy structure but a good savoury Bovril like finish, a real food wine (aren't they all). I would take the same drinking approach as the 1999.

2005 - I almost didn't mention this, we figured there was some labelling error with this bottle. The juice was not Nebbiolo and was more like 3-5 years old. Nice but not Nebbiolo...

1998 - This bottle was opened at the beginning of the evening and put to one side as it was a shade disappointing but we drank it again at the end and whilst it is a weak link and, on this showing, a lesser wine than the 1997 it is still true to the Nebbiolo grape if a little prematurely aged.

We had a most bizarre Champagne to finish and clearly the level of conversation deteriorated rapidly but then that that was to be expected.

Conclusions, or what auditors always refer to as the "opinion piece". My feelings about this estate are unchanged...I will keep buying. There is so much character to these wines, a lack of compromise that I love. Is there more precision (in the same period of vintages), elsewhere in Piedmont? Yes for sure...but is better always actually better? The daughters are having more and more input and the precision is being refined. Recent bottles from 2008 and 2011 were simply stunning, moreish and intense without being in any way remotely a waste to drink now.

An iconic man? Yes. Iconic wines? They probably are but the thing is, I am not sure they want to be...drink them whenever you can.

------
*The labeling of Brunate with Le Coste  began with the 1993 vintage, when Beppe took over the winery from his father, Battista.  It was Battista  who (in the best vintages) bottled Brunate separately (and usually as a riserva) starting in 1964.  I think, but am not sure, that some Le Coste may have been in those old Brunates as well. Ken Vastola 
www.finewinegeek.com

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!

Latour a Pomerol - historic vertical...

After a run of really rather amazing "Jordi dinners" over the last year or so:

40th Birthday
La Tache vertical

Grouse and Richebourg at The Square

Clos des Ducs 1920-2002 at La Trompette

I was especially looking forward to this - a very thorough look at the wines of Latour a Pomerol at Les 110 de Taillevent in London with Edouard Moueix in attendance. I have always had a real soft spot for Latour a Pomerol, now yes there might be a commercial edge to that (I work for the agent) but it is more than that. The estate has made several legendary wines. It is part of a very great collection of right bank estates in the hands of ETS JP Moueix. It still somehow seems to fly slightly under the radar. I think this is for a couple of reasons, it is made as a wine to drink, it tastes well when young but is not showy or uber-extracted. People always tend to think that something must be wrong if the legendary wines of the past have not been replicated, not so. I am always excited to open a bottle, even more so a magnum of course, of Latour a Pomerol.

A few stats and background on Latour a Pomerol

7.9 hectares

90% Merlot

10% Cabernet Franc

Two plots: Firstly the nucleus which is 5 ha from the original Clos de Grandes-Vignes located on the central plateau on gravel soils close to l'Eglise St-Jean. The second plot named l'Ecole is located around the Chateau adjacent to La Grave a Pomerol on gravel soils and produces a slightly lighter wine than the first plot.

Production: Around 2500 cases a year, with no second wine

The team at "110" did well with the wines and the full menu can be seen here (a few pics are at the end of the post).

Pate en croute
Foie Gras canape

Mushroom Tartlet Cocktail

-

Duck egg, poached, lardorns, champignos de Paris, baby onions

-

Risotto, creamy with a fricassee of girolles

-

Turbot meuniere, beurre blanc

-

Saddle of lam, roasted with pickled garlic, glove and rosemary

-

Le Vieux Comte, 30 mois d'affinage

-

Petit Fours

I have resisted the temptation to score the wines in this post. I would find it very difficult and therefore it is rather pointless. When comparing a wine that is young (2005) with a wine that is very old (1929) what do you really achieve with scores?

Bollinger started us off as so often at Jordi's dinners, it was rather apt here as the Moeuix family often serve it. R.D. 2002 en magnum was the choice here, very taut and reductive with a little mocha note, clearly will repay considerable time.

The wines were split into logical flights as below:

Recent Vintages
2005 - So full of vibrant fruit with just a dash of saline. Very moreish and alive, voluptuous but with good structure...excitingly good. As with other 2005's this is just starting to "strut it's stuff".

2000 - A little bit of stink, then opens into a wine that is lovely from now onwards, still primary in fruit but with added complexity. I would love to drink this alongside the 2005 in another 5 years. A little spice to finish. Proper!

1998 - A little more savoury and textured, a little iron on the palate . Very moreish indeed. At a lovely point in its evolution - the beginning of the second phase. The quality of the 1998 right bankers is still not really as well known as it should be. Complete. 

1996 - Quite iodine like, with a little meatiness and then a very slight lack of flesh on the palate (the vintage) compared to what went before. Nice to drink now without profundity coming along. More a wine of minerality than fruit. Solid.

1995 - Really good, a vintage that has somehow not had the profile or praise it deserves. There are proper tannins here with the nicely mellowed fruit to contrast. Will age well for sure but good now. Everything as it should be. Classically Pomerol.

Mature Vintages
1990 - Sadly not a perfect bottle. there was a minty volatile edge but then an overly lean and savoury palate. A shame.

1986 - Meaty but also sweet, elegantly developed, pretty and almost fragile. Surprisingly good for such a "Cabernet" vintage. Really like-able.

1985 - Ever so slightly muted nose initially but then this revealed a lovely red-fruited sweetness and lovely moreish (how many times do I have to say this!) texture. This is perfect now, so wonderfully drinkable, preferably in volume! There is the balance to age further by why would you. Just lovely.

1982 - Some iron-like savoury note then almost sweetness, a little blood but with lovely fresh acidity, expressive, extrovert and slightly high-toned.

It was lovely to see the wines so far had almost perfectly translated the general perceptions of the specific vintages. 

Iconic 1970's
1978 en magnum - Volatile, "bricky", harsh and dried out more like 30 year old Sangiovese than Bordeaux. Edouard commented that this was almost exactly what he had expected from this substandard and very dry vintage. 

1975 - Corked (gutted as this is both Jordi and my vintage)

1971 - Stunning, so easy to enjoy, lovely now, so persistently sweet and fine. A cracking Pomerol vintage. Delicious notes of pure ripeness. Supreme...Wow!

1970 - Corked (a real shame as Edouard spoke very highly of good bottles of this)

Transition to ETS JP Moueix
1966 - A little more gritty and grainy and truffled than the 1971. I initially wondered if this might fade in the glass but it did the opposite getting more focused, there is a lovely nuttiness, not normally a positive in reds. There is a sweetness. Very fine.

1964 - Sightly briney, almost a note of bill-tong and pepper, lovely body with good texture and considerable power, a fully mature but not fading wine. Masculine and intriguing.

1962 - Really impressive, fully mature, precise, really lifted, pretty special, almost a mocha note towards the end, stood up well in the glass. A treat.

1961 - Corked, a rather collective sigh, but then one shouldn't meet their heros.

Madame Loubat
1955 - Really lifted, extrovert, superb, manages to be refined in a mellow way at the same time as being unreservedly hedonistic. Is there a better vintage for Bordeaux? My experiences of the 1955 vintage are almost universally spectacular. This was so good that I don't know I would want to have it again, if that makes any sense.

1953 - I think this suffered from following the captivating 1955 because in every other way it was glorious, a little creme brulee richness on the nose. Decadent. 

1952 - Clearly a cooler vintage, bricky and a little lactic, a very slight Bual character, just a well-bred wine that is getting weary.

1949 - Quite high toned and a shade volatile, a little madeirised and delicate.

1945 - Decadent notes, dates in the mix, delicious, good acidity, lifted (the acidity) but also dense, really lovely. 

1937 - Butch and rich but then disjointed not quite sure what this was, very dry and did not really fit with the other wines. 

1929 - High and dry, a little pithy, the palate is clean but totally dried out, rasping. The acidity means it is drinkable but astringent. By all accounts a very small crop with heat in September.

Climens 1942 - Sweet cep nose, mushrooms and brioche, oranges and now quite dry. weirdly would have made a good appetizing aperitif as well as a fascinating ending.

So what would I say in conclusion or summary? Well, Latour a Pomerol certainly has a great past but it is the present and the future that were the learning for me. I think everyone around the table, with the possible exception of Edouard who already knew, was very pleased to see how beautifully the younger vintages drank. Any site that can make wines as brilliant as the 1955 and 2005 but 50 years apart is exciting. There is a grace and elegance to Latour a Pomerol that can almost work against it in terms of standing out around En primeur time or in amongst other showier, glossier wines at tastings. To me Latour a Pomerol remains a very very good Pomerol that portrays the character of a vintage very well and drinks so splendidly...long may it continue! Thanks for the opportunity to taste these Jordi!

Duck egg, poached, lardorns, champignos de Paris, baby onions

Risotto, creamy with a fricassee of girolles

Turbot meuniere, beurre blanc

Saddle of lam, roasted with pickled garlic, glove and rosemary

The last Hurrah...

When the news of the end - for now - of Zucca came out there was quick booking made by fellow Zucca addict - Mr Rafferty for the last but one night, the last night would have been too much.

So nine of us including Mrs Duvault-Blochet joined together for a dinner. The theme being the last bottle from a case, any case. When I say bottle in true style most people brought a magnum or two bottles. This was a very relaxed evening with much opinion expressed and piss-taking. New friends made. We ate from the "normal" menu and rattled off the classics:

Zucca Friti

Carpaccio of Sea Bass

Burrata with Cavalo Nero

Beef Carpaccio

Vitello Tonnato

Squid Bruscetta

-

Taglierini, Pork & Fennel Ragu
-
Grilled Octopus

Veal Chop
-
Chocolate SemiFreddo

We hadn't managed to co-ordinate anyone doing some fizz so we started with a couple of bottles of the fresh but just a shade toasty Satin La Montina Franciacorta. I really ought to get to know what's what with Franciacorta, beyond Ferrari and Ca'del Bosco I am just not that knowledgeable.

Then time for some white and we started with "Jazz Hand's" magnum - Meursault Les Grands Charrons 2009 from Boisson-Vadot. I've been lucky enough to drink a decent amount of Boisson-Vadot but never have I had it from magnum before. This had all the smokey, slight reduction you expect of this producer and the richness you expect of 2009, a really decadent start to proceedings. Alongside this was Hattenheimer Pfaffenberg Jubilee Spatlese 2008 from Schloss Schonborn from bottle. This wine was served in the same room at Mrs D-B's 40th so it seem appropriate to have it again. Lovely Rhine richness with the middle ground of Spatlese, a wine to just enjoy, no pretence.

And on to the reds! Tignanello 1986 was a really easy wine to quaff, not to say it was not more serious but it had slightly lost a sense of place. It wasn't showing the Sangiovese acidity and it's kind owner was a little disappointed as it was from "his" vintage (youngster!). I liked it just think that 5 years ago it would have had that bit more personality. 

It's partner was my offering, Cascina Francia Barbera 2008 from Giacomo Conterno, my thinking being that it is a producer I love and we (C&B) even did a dinner here with Roberto. On the other hand none of the Conterno wines are what could be remotely called mature so this seemed a good compromise. It drank well, still good rich dark cherry fruit but with that cool saline edge you always get from the site, wonderfully food friendly as ever. That was my last mag but I do still have a bottle somewhere.

The next flight was unplanned but set itself up as a great pairing. Two of the top names from respective banks in Bordeaux. Both top estates. VCC (Vieux Chateau Certan) 1998

and Palmer 1998 . Having them then served blind I was delighted to get them the right way round. Anyone in the trade who says they aren't relieved to get this right especially after 10+ years in bottle is probably lying. The VCC had real poise and such balance, really lovely, young yes but not infanticide at all. If you have a case of this (in bottles) then don't be afraid to have a bottle of two now, you'll be missing out otherwise. The Palmer actually tasted to be a little more mature, a little more developed (2nd base may be), not quite the layers of the VCC but splendid.

The next two bottles, from Mr Rafferty were a treat - Rauzan Segla 1947 a BBR bottling - was exuberantly sweet and reminded me of some of the 1955's I have been lucky enough to have had. A lovely bottle and so fitting to have something this old and special on a night like this. Hermitage 1994 from Chave has no right to be anything like as soft and lovely and just downright delicious as it is. The vintage is not great but then how many times do us wine lovers have to be told "producer, producer, producer".

One special glass got passed back to us in the Pdr from the main restaurant and it was the really rather lovely Sori San Lorenzo 1990 from Gaja a real treat from Mr Bowker.

Hattenheimer Pfaffenberg Spatlese 1989 from Schloss Schonborn (another coincidence to have this) finished us off for the evening in some style, oily and menthol fresh with good acidity. Is it wrong to say that I think people were concentrating more on the puddings by then.

It was great that Sam (Harris) managed to pop in and join us for a glass here and there.

The end had come - I've loved Zucca and shared so many wonderful times there…I am sure it'll be back. Thanks to all those who have brought bottles and served them, cooked and given great service I am not singling anyone out as it was a team effort…onwards!

First of the last Suppers...

From the second it was announced that Zucca is to close on the 23rd December there were several last meals planned. As I write this I only have two dinners left. Zucca has featured large here with endless blogs that I have written over the last 5 and a half years. To say I will miss the place is a savage understatement but I am sure Sam has something up his sleeve. It is the deliciousness of the food, the simplicity of the produce, the easy service and the emphasis on wine without subservience to it that has kept me going back.

This was a  really fitting meal as it was with many of the people whom I have shared the most meals at Zucca, all folk who for me "get" what this rather wonderful world of food and wine is all about. That Eric, who introduced me to Sam as well as being ever helpful in my Piedmont obsessions, organised it was all the better. The only shame was that Sam himself was ill and missed out (Sam - I advise you stop reading here - it was rather good!).

The brief was to bring special bottles. So what better way to start than two of the best and most contrasting of Champagnes; Salon 2002 and Pol Roger Cuvee Sir Winston Churchill 1999. Both performed just as you would hope. The Salon was fresh, zingy, citrus and minerals, stones even, tight, elegant. Contrastingly the "Winnie" was toasty and rich but not heavy, yeasty, serious, coiled tight. There was no contest here they are both superb and both will be fascinating in 10, 20, 30 years time. A fun and good start.

As you can imagine the food was already flowing thick and fast from Megan in the kitchen. Many of the classics - Seabass Carpaccio, Zucca friti, Vitello Tonnato - going down as well as ever. The next flight was white Burgundy:

Meursault Tessons Clos de Mon Plaisir 2009 from Roulot, this was almost Chablis like in refined texture, quite an achievement for 2009. There was then a slight unctuous waxy texture, delicious. Spot on right now.

Batard-Montrachet Grand Cru 2006 from Domaine Leflaive, a little lactic and lacking drive, village Meursault in style rather than Grand Cru, generous and opulent, almost to a fault. The 2006's from almost anyone in Burgundy need drinking. A generous bottle but underwhelming on this occasion.

Puligny-Montrachet 1er Cru Pucelles 1999 from Domaine Leflaive, this followed the Batard in order but flew straight past it for quality and reminded me of having it once before at the end of a White Burgundy 2008's dinner. There is something brilliant about the Leflaive 1999's, a whiff or reduction and a moreish refinement. Either way it was delicious.

A brace of Barolo magnums from Rinaldi is something you dream of as a Barolo drinker. It might well be the only time it ever happens to me. First up it was Barolo Brunate Riserva 1986, this was a marvel, lifted, lovely freshness, brine and saline, herbal. There was such floral freshness. I am not a mad fan of people saying Barolo is like Burgundy (despite the obvious similarities of attitude, size and layout) in terms of taste but this magnum was exactly that. It went from being Brunate through and through to the elegance of Chambolle, simply put it was delicious and "right up there". The Barolo 1999 was a contrast - tight intense, almost hard, there was a fear it was corked but it seemed not to be to me just introverted. Briney, dark and deep with some grainy tannins. I like it but it was very different to the 1986. I have a bottle of each of the Rinaldi 1999's in 75cl and will keep them longer before sharing with the provider of this mag.

We moved to another 1999 - Barolo Monprivato 1999 from G.Mascarello, this was a little maderised in character with a slightly mocha and dark chocolate thing going on. It was decent but unexciting, a little too savoury despite the comments above. The last bottle 

Vosne-Romanee 1er Cru Cuvee Duvault-Blochet 2006 from DRC, showed a primary voluptuousness, overflowing with expressive fruit notes but without any lack of focus. I am totally biased for all sorts of reasons but it really was a lovely bottle on which to finish.

We were all at bursting point by now with so much good food and lovely wine. A cracking evening with lovely people in a setting we will all miss so very much!

So simple, so delicious...

There's some pasta under there!!

The "Lads" at The Greenhouse…

So a gathering of what - for reasons of confidentially - I seem now to refer to as "The Lads". The Greenhouse was the venue and sadly we were five not seven but with Nobby shuffling the deck winewise we had a hell of a line-up.

Salon 1997 is always a good place to start, it is showing a lovely balance, Lemon, citrus with a little shortbread, good life, it has a slightly saline edge...very long future ahead but it is no waste to drink now. Interestingly the sommelier served it decanted in the Zalto white wine glass…both of those things showed the wine well at this stage. The menu had been prepared specially, you don't get 2 stars easily...

Canapes

Beef, Avocado, Wild Mushroom

Cornish Crab

Mint jelly, Cauliflower, Granny Smith apple, Curry

Veal Head

Mint, Peas, Herbs

Native Lobster

Potimarron, Grapefruit, Vanilla, Tarragon

Dover Sole

Beetroot, Red Wine, Vadouvan spices

Chicken

Erbette, Snail, Wild garlic

Strawberry

Thyme, Sesame, Milk

So now it was time for the line up to go up a notch. We did the three whites one by one and blind, only blind for a few moments that is.

Meursault 1er Cru Les Boucheres 2011, Chateau Genot-Boulanger is a wine I do not know at all. I'll be totally honest and say I had an inkling towards white Bordeaux so fresh was this. That was never going to be likely but "nothing ventured" and all that. The freshness was from a nettley "good greenness". This looks to have a good future and when it was revealed as Meursault it made me think of the tight, mineral styles like Roulot, nice wine.

Chevalier-Montrachet Grand Cru 2011, Francois Carillon was the bottle I took, only the second time it has been made. Francois Carillon as an estate being first made (fully) in 2010. This is from a tiny 0.045 hectares. It was good to have it after another 2011, it opened up more and more with time as you'd expect. There is a slight lemon sherbet element but also some of the saline quality, clearly it is a "nipper" now but has a good future and it was fun to keep re-visiting it. Pretty classy.

Batard-Montrachet Grand Cru 1986, Ramonet was so obviously much more mature, it was in now way tired, it was unctuously classy and moreish, there were elements of toffee and butterscotch but always with a drive and liveliness, really lovely, propper breadth too, it wasn't afraid to be Batard, full and quite masculine, the empty glass smelt like a sweet wine. Splendid.

The three Burgundian reds were served in turn so that we could look at each but also look at them together:

Mazis-Chambertin Grand Cru 1993, Rousseau was absolutely delicious straight "off the bat" with red black fruits and a soft persistence, a lovely freshness went through the wine that kept it lively and airy, rose petals showed and a delightful balance. Very good indeed, very 1993 and very Pinot.

Chambertin Grand Cru 2001, Rousseau was every bit as good as I have dared hope. My note reads: Orangey tang and delicious, delicious brooding rich red and black fruit, a "puppy", very primary with a stunning palate but delicious now, does have a savoury edge, cheese and smokiness, love this...  

Romanee-Saint-Vivant Grand Cru 2001, DRC - followed the Rousseau (not easy) brilliantly, lots of flavours, good fruit but also herbs, pencil shavings, less obviously so young, a little spice and herbs again, the some power too, graphite and just a dash of white pepper. Very complex.

It was a truly glorious trio, just what those two producers and Burgundy are, and should always be, about - complexity and drinkability. We then had two pairs of Bordeaux. It was one of those splendid occasions when nobody was bothered about a "winner", a real treat all round.

Magdelaine 1990 and Margaux 1985 formed the first flight. For the Magdelaine I had "Ink-like colour, showing well, bold, iron-like, savoury but with enough sweetness, rich, beefy, stocky, then dates, lovely" it is certainly on the savoury side as Magdelaine always is. A magnum of the Magdelaine 1985  was a real treat recently and much as I understand the reasons why it no longer exists in its own right (it nows forms a large part of Belair-Monange), I do feel it is a shame. We were a long way off with guesses, being on the other bank of the river but I am never unhappy to get this wrong (with a few exceptions). The Margaux was splendid also, a little drier and more reserved initially it somehow it had a bolder core and then became more lifted and aromatic, really lovely.

With "lunchers" energy not even starting to dip we were into the last pair of reds Cheval Blanc 1981 and Cheval Blanc 1959. I have to say I count my lucky stars every time I get to drink these older wines, the 1959 I really mean by that, when knowing they are from good cellars and are genuine. The way things are these days we would (at work) sadly run a mile from the wines from 1945, 1947, 1955, 1959 and 1961. But first the 1981. This was "forest floor" in character but then really quite rich, it was a quite degraded but sweet "naughty" smell, fresh with good lift, a confusingly good Cheval, (fortunately) I can't remember what I though it was. And so to the Cheval Blanc 1959, I always find these very good but fully mature wines difficult to describe but then that is the very nature of complexity. My jottings say "sweet, savoury, leathery, tobacco and soy, more soy, more sweetness, dates, amazing savoury texture, more ferrous than frivolous". It really was quite something, I think I guessed 1955 because the few of those I have had have the same energy and colour.

The final wine of lunch was de Fargues 1986, it was the only wine of the day that may be didn't quite show its full potential, it was still good and not faulty but it lacked energy, there were bruised dried apricots, lots of rancho richness and lots of the brûlée character.

What a lunch it was, wonderful wine, lots of great chat and the chance to look at some try great wines and wines that might go to even more special places…thanks as ever to "The Lads".

nb My only regret is that there is no picture of any labels or a line-up shot, for this I blame Ronaldinho fully, he distracted me…how is another story...

When will I ever learn…I didn't need this delicious Negroni….

Clos des Ducs 1920-2002 @ La Trompette...

What a line-up

A Grande way to start!

This was an a unique opportunity, set up by the hard work of Jordi Orriols-Gil to taste so many different vintages of the Clos des Ducs a 1er Cru monopole belonging to Marquis d’Angerville. It was wonderful to have Guillaume d’Angerville there. Guillaume is the 6^th generation of the family to head the estate that by common consent is the pacesetter in Volnay. The Clos des Ducs itself is a 2.15 hectare site (Volnay 1er Cru is 110 hectares as a whole) and has a unique exposure in Volnay being the most northerly of the vineyards and facing East-South-East.

The dinner was held at La Trompette in Chiswick, the service and food really worked well. We started with Bollinger Grande Annee 1982 from Magnum – A little spritz on the attack then the wine gets quite mellow pretty quickly. Some toffee and richness, dry but nutty, quite a foody Champagne, very much Pinot based. Good.

Flight 1

Pot roast pheasant , root vegetables and chestnuts - A beautifully clean dish with just the right about of flavour, reminded me how much I love chestnuts in things.

Legend in the making?

2002 – A dash of cheesecloth, very red cherried purity, some lovely minerality to the palate, showing very well if dense and taut. Serious wine with really lovely balance. If you own it you’ll be best off being patient and excited!

2000 – A little darker in the fruit character than the 2002, with a little spice and black pepper, very typical of 2000 red burgundy in being balanced, easy and really quite accessible, there is a warmth. Nothing like the seriousness of the 2002 but a lovely bottle.

1999 – The last wine of the first flight. I often, almost always, prefer the 1999’s to the 2002’s. This had a very vibrant red fruit core with a little grip to the finish, serious for a 1999 when often they show less structure. Possibly not quite the potential of the 2002 but nicely different and very good.

Flight 2

Hand rolled macaroni with Vacherin mont d’or, ceps and burgundy truffle – A rich dish with flavours that complimented the age development the wines are starting to show.

1996 – Richness here and density but as with many 1996’s is there charm? I think the room was divided, I like the strictness of the wine but I think it is something of an acquired taste, may be my Nebbiolo obsession helps here. There is a nervous intensity, if it were a person it would be an academic.

1995 – This was a surprise package, balanced and approachable, really lovely actually, just easy to enjoy, there is structure but it has started to mellow.

1991 – This bottle had a little seepage and on tasting sadly it showed, not fair to comment really as there had been definite oxidation. Other reports on the wine from those who have tasted recently were glowing so a shame.

1990 – Deep colour and rich texture, the most savoury yet. I could see the 2002 developing this way. There is power but also hedonistic opulence, very impressive and very true to the vintage.

1993 – This was a late addition and a splendid one. I had the Taillepieds 1993 recently and really enjoyed it. This had a similarly, al be it more concentrated, feel to it, red currant fruit and crunchy freshness, really lovely right now, almost crisp which is amazing for a wine of 21 years old.

Flight 3

Fillet of John Dory with smoked lardo and creamed potato– A fish dish that didn’t really behave like one, delicious use of texture.

1989 – Quite savoury with an opulent texture, hazelnut, chocolate and mocha all appeared on the nose, amazingly different in style. There is fruit but it is secondary, a sexy vintage and a very impressive wine. The 1980 vintage flight as a whole was very strong.

1988 – To my mind this was not a perfect bottle, a dusty slightly metallic nose. With the flight being so good though, I just moved straight on…

1986 – A strange nose initially that reminded me of cucumber water, disappeared with a swirl. Thereafter the wine settled into a secondary aroma of cep and other mushrooms with an undertone of oyster shell, impressive.

1985 – Delicious even given the high expectation, lovely balance of fruit and a savoury sweetness, in a lovely phase right now…a little chestnut shows on the nose…special

1983 – Sweet leather and spice, brown slightly degraded fruit, good volume, very fine. A tricky vintage on the face of it but this really outperformed that…very complete, may be the pick of the flight for me but it had competition from ’89 and ’85 – a lovely problem to have…

Flight 4

Suckling pig belly with golden turnips – lovely dish with great fat that worked well…

1976 no1 – the first of two bottles of 1976, a crazily hot vintage, referred to as a “sauna” vintage by Guillaume (a phrase I plan to “steel”) who commented that Clos des Ducs never suffers hydric stress as there is a natural well in the Clos and when you combine this with there being woods above the site as well there is always a natural retention on moisture. This first of the two 1976’s was a little more subdued than…

1976 no2 – quite opulent and open, lovely now, just enough sweetness, slightly resinous, from all the chat around the table it would appear this has taken a while to open up.

1972 – Cocoa, mocha and a brown fruited nose, some people saw this as over-mature and on the palate I can see their point but on the nose is just very tertiary and a shade madeirised but fascinating, with ones eyes shut you could almost image this was old sauternes. I loved it.

1971 – Instantly good and enjoyable. Sweet and in impeccable condition manages to combine lightness of touch and a persistent brilliance of balance, very pure and with red fruit still there.

Flight 5

Pressed shoulder of Pyrenean lamb with Jerusalem artichokes

We then had 1953 Champans and Clos des Ducs served side by side – we were asked to guess which way around, amazingly it was fairly clear that we had Champans first and then Clos des Ducs.

1953 – Champans – Super, lightness of touch, a little dash of Soy which is just a slight sign of age but a good bottle.

1953 – Clos des Ducs -  Depth, even quite bold, my note says “becoming quite farmyard, delicious”, impressive definition. What struck me here was that the wines from this site age so well but never with a feeling that they needed to be big in youth to age, there is a balance at all times.

1920 - memorable to say the least

1947 – This didn’t quite show as well as expected by some, caramel, quite bold and opulent with decent concentration but it quite quickly started to tire.

1920 – This was served blind and comes with a fascinating story about how Guillaume acquired a “few” bottles of the 1920. The wine showed so well, full of life, the fruit was orange rather than red but that is as expected. The nose had an amazingly fresh aroma of tangerine rind but even the empty glass had a lovely sweetness and life…a truly memorable experience but not a novelty as these old bottle can be.

With some cheese we had the last wine of the evening – Meursault Santenots 1990– this was by far the oldest stage at which Guillaume has tasted his white wine. The nose was unctuous and nutty after a little air, it showed well and worked with the cheese.

And sadly a wonderful evening had to end, I think even those who came with high expectations, always dangerous, left very excited. There were many anecdotes and wonderful comments…exactly what these great evenings are all about! Bravo Guillaume and Bravo Jordi!