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

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….

The Connaught...three pairs...

This was a dinner at the excellent "Sommeliers Table" at The Connaught...the first time I had been back since Sussex's 40th some four and a bit years ago. I am delighted to report the food is as outstanding as I remember it being. The gathering was a very knowledgable and opinionated group which is always good, this was my first outing with this group though I know them all individually.

We kicked off with a magnum of Krug 1996 which was tasting very well, serious with real depth and power. There is great acidity which balances the biscuity, saline and savoury palate. Clearly a wine with a long life ahead of it (especially in mag of course). It begged to be drunk but at the same time served the perfect role of making you hungry, very impressive. Thinking about this afterwards I wish I had left a small glass to re-taste later.

The main part of the evening was three pairs of red. There was a 1998 in each flight so the fundamental questions were.

1) Did you like both?

2) Did you have a preference?

3) Which one was the 1998?

4) Once 3 was revealed what vintage was the other?

5) Have a stab at what they are?

Now clearly getting all five questions answered and recorded for each of 6 wines by the seven who didn't know the wines was going to be a task - or 210 tasks in fact. So we tried our best and i'll refer to general themes where I can. Interestingly the there pairs were very obviously from the three regions, namely - Burgundy, Piedmont and Bordeaux.

So the first pair was La Tache 1998, DRC & Romanee-Saint-Vivant 2001, S.Cathiard, we had them with two delicious courses. Pumpkin Ravioli, Mostardo di Cremona, lobster with sage and Sea bass with white cocoa beans, clams, calamari, parsley.

To start with two of the most sought after and talked about producers is a rare treat. The preference for each was split down the middle. I got the vintage the wrong way round feeling that the initially more savoury nose of the Cathiard was the 1998 and the purity of the nose on the La Tache was 1999. As time went on the initially purity of the La Tache faded an the wine remained complete but may be without the depth you might expect of the this great Cru. The consensus was that it was slightly underwhelming. The Cathiard was just not very 2001 to me. It showed well. A little degraded and deeper/darker of fruit than 2001 would generally be from my experience. There is very little (circa 2.5 barrels) of this made. I liked it, as I think everyone did, I just ever so slightly wished the extraction had been a little more sympathetic...either way a lovely opening pair.  

As soon as we were served White Truffle Risotto from Aquerello rice, Parmagiano Reggiano I knew that we would probably be in Piedmont. The dish was great as was the Chicken, Jerusalem artichoke “albufera" that followed. The two wines in question were Barbaresco "Asili" Riserva 1996, Giacosa and Sori San Lorenzo 1998, Gaja. The room was fairly split over the preference possibly a slight leaning toward the Giacosa.

There was a collective failure on the 1998 scenario mostly, I feel, because the Gaja was so incredibly youthful. The Giacosa was open and slightly "frazzled" (a good thing with traditional Nebbiolo), there was sweet fruit on the nose and some oranges, always a traditional oxidative style. The Gaja was a markedly different style but a very impressive wine, vibrantly primary with cherry fruit, dark cherry at that, quite powerful too, I would be fascinated to see if it stays so bold and then fades over time or whether it does degrade and may be show more Nebbiolo character. A lovely pair for the stark differences.

So now Bordeaux - Cheval Blanc 1998 & Petrus 1999 served with Venison, Medjool date, pumpkin and Brussel sprout. This was a brilliant pairing, wine/wine and wine/food. Both wines had such lovely perfumes, helped by the cool but not cold serving temperature. The Cheval was initially more savoury and I think a shade more complex, I had it down as Trotanoy and I did just prefer it when forced, although in honesty I think the whole table loved both. The Petrus was a little closed initially then, with air, a high toned red fruit started to come out more and more, that trade mark Tropicality (not that that is a word) of Petrus. Both wines just had that fruit, structure, savoury balance that you want - really top notch. Both have serious futures but to own either and not have tried them at this lovely stage strikes me as a little bonkers.

The sommelier for the evening, Mirko, was then asked to pick a wine for the deliciously comforting and correctly over the top Armagnac Baba with chestnut and quince. We were all discussing mature Sauternes with vintages from 70's and 80's getting a few shouts. I thought the wine had an element of Rieussec rancio richness about it...but actually it was Chateau Tirecul-la-Graviere Cuvee Madame 2001, Monbazillac so despite all being "wrong" we were wrong for the right reasons I suppose. A good choice.

A brilliant evening of gentle teasing, wonderful wines, smashing food and lots of laughs. Our organiser/host and the team at The Connaught had all done us proud...

The baba

Lunch at Ronaldinho's...

A brilliant luncheon served by Ronaldinho at his house, brilliant food and just the job for the vast array of wonderful wines. Almost all the wines where from the cellar of the house. The storage, as the bottles showed, is perfect.

The assembled was the usual gang "The lads" – Ronaldinho, Irish, Chewy, Newcastle, Halifax and a couple of "Bon oeufs" who more than got the idea, I think they’ve spent years practicing!

There was the normal amount of boyish abuse as one would expect but at the end of the day everything was just so dam enjoyable…

The wines:

Scharzhofberger Riesling Spatlese 1999, E.Muller - Beautiful balance, fresh, young with a little spritz and soft citrus fruit, years ahead of it.

Wehlener Sonnenuhr Auslese 1996, J.J.Prum - A little resinous and with more volume than the Muller, more texture, more richness but not the focus in honesty.

Chevalier-Montrachet 1986, Neillon - Smokey, honey, yoghurt, then struck match, not really showing the full age that it is, a lovely wine.

Montrachet 1992, Ramonet - Beautiful acidity and richness, profoundly good, very fine, smokey element but also rich fruit, white fruit, a little reduced with that hint of struck match, sublime, a wonderful wine that would be in the top ten bottles of the year any year, a privilege.

Mercurey 1971, Hugues & Yves de de Suremain - (served blind) Fascinating, fully mature, not serious but with aged red fruit and a little spice too, we all had a guess and I think I went for 60’s Gevrey…one of us went for Grenache and I could totally see why. Not the shabiest of vintages!



Volnay 1er Cru Taillpieds 1993, d’Angerville - Deliciously opulent colour, nose of red fruit and violets, almost cranberry, a lovely crunch to the fruit. Very interesting to contrast with Clos de Ducs 1993 tasted a few weeks later (blog to come!).

Volnay 1er Cru Taillpieds 1990, d’Angerville - Beetroot strong in colour, slightly chalky texture, opulent, a wine you’d love all to yourself to drink over a few hours and really wallow in. Juicy richness and a combination of red and black fruit.


Dominus 1991 - Mint and eucalyptus, amazingly youthful, opulent, almost like a time capsule or like it had been under screw cap. This was served blind and while I said I agreed with the idea of USA (or Australia even) I said loudly that there was no way it was Dominus! Oh how wrong.

Giscours 1966, BBR bottling - Very distinct black pepper, some nervous acidity, very good, dark fruit but not without lift, somehow I couldn't get as excited as some about this but it was very good.

Palmer 1966, BBR bottling - Gorgeous nose of sweet fruit and a floral edge of violets, really stunning, the palate did not live up to the balanced fresh beauty of the nose but to be fair it was a crazy act to follow.

Ducru Beaucaillou 1970 - Saline, has a little hint of swimming pool, this goes quickly, then we have a good luscious palate that is delicious right now.

Palmer 1970 (magnum) - Pepper and mint with a savoury edge, more savoury than Ducru as a whole, my note says “I like this but it is not exciting”

Romanee-Saint-Vivant 2001, S.Cathiard - Quite high octane, very pure, very lifted and very red fruit, some creaminess to the palate, very much primary, really good, stops short of being too glossy. Impressed.


Romanee-Saint-Vivant 1990, DRC - Decadent, delicious, so fine, perfect now but no rush of course, has real depth of texture, red fruit mainly but also some black in the back ground, in an early secondary phase, so long, delicious, just lovely…

Bonnes Mares 1985, Dujac (magnum) - The sort of wine that almost makes you feel guilty for loving it’s openness and just pure opulent loveliness. There is a slightly degraded, sweet Asian spice and a slight orange rind aroma, really very delicious. Could drink lots of this...

Chambertin 1983, Rousseau - Mature in a masculine way, a savoury earthiness to this, good power but not a bruiser, I liked this, may be not the freshness of some of the wines but very impressive for 1983.

The order got slightly strange from here, as did my note taking...

Yquem 1975 – Superb, I have had this a couple of times and always liked it but this particular bottle was on electric form, bright and focused but maturing, a very classical Yquem, a sort of savoury crème brulee base but at the same time fresh fruit…bang on!
Cheval Blanc 1964 - dry but very decent if not exciting (bottle was a very low level).

Fonseca 1963 - in many ways a similarly brilliant experience to the Yquem, just a pristine example of a great bottle, black fruit and compote but also just the right amount of pepper and spice, not heavy but rich and full, still in mid age, excitingly good.

Chambertin 1990, Rousseau - Was just as you can imagine, rich, brooding and full. So very long...should have paid more attention...

Chewy and I managed to avoid the drinks trolley on the train home but I am sure we talked some right old nonsense rather loudly...

A legendary day...when's the next one?

The Square on a Wednesday...a great dinner...

None to shabby for a Wednesday!

So for this dinner we were six. I had done nothing to organise it, just turned up with a bottle, I knew everyone coming and knew the ingredients were there for a lot of fun and some rather splendid wine…I was not disappointed. We were:

- A collector / drinker with a passion for older/mature wines. (Many of these wines!)
- A collector / drinker with a passion for most wines and mainly in magnums!
- A wine writer and enthusiast.
- A Chateaux owner/producer, Wine merchant & Negoce.
- A broker/negoce.
- Me.

The venue also helped massively - The Square - as it was on top form. I regret not picturing the food as the Crab Lasagne (a Square classic) and the Grouse (possibly the best I have ever had) were both spot on and complemented the wines perfectly.

We started with - Clos de Goisses 1990, Philiponnat - A deep colour for Champagne, almost a slight pink orange hue, I have heard of Clos de Goisses being decanted and as this spent time in the glass I can see why. As with good white Burgundy this grew from a delicately biscuity but quite oxidative nose into something sweeter and easier with time.

As the first courses arrived we then had a pair of white Burgundies to contemplate.
Meursault 2004, Coche Dury & Le Montrachet 1991, Ramonet. A very good contrasting pair. The Coche was a delight, lemon and citric acidity with a small dash of reduction, it's cleanliness made me think of sorbet. It got better and better in glass but was linear to the end, a young wine but starting to open, very 2004, taught and poised, impressive. Never "just" a "village" wine from that man. The Ramonet was fascinating. I have looked back through the blog and realise now (one of the main reasons to do this exercise!) that I have been very privileged in having this wine from 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994 before. There is a commonality but also the desired vintage variation. The 1991 is a savoury wine to sip and think on, not gregarious or showy. A savoury almost saline hazelnut is in the there as well as tea and pine resin. Traditional and all the better for it…what a start.

The next three wines were served blind, all we were told was that there was a link and it quickly leaked out that all these wines were older than everyone at the table. Bordeaux was obvious. There was an even split of guesses for left and right bank. I was one of the wrong ones. The wines right to left as we drank them were Cheval Blanc 1949, 1948 and 1966. It was great to have three wines showing well, only the 1949 did not show much on the palate but the nose was superb. 1949 was deep in colour with a rich nose, lovely and hard to believe it is the age it is, the palate was just muted and tight. 1948 had a high-octane nose of exuberant cherry and compote fruit. There is a volatility that made this so extrovert and a little quirky, there was no way you couldn't like this wine, spice, herbs and a meaty density on the plate just made it amazing. It only started to fade when there was very little wine left in the glass (a stage I found myself at easily!). 1966 was incredible, cepe and other mushrooms initially but this left with time. There was a darker fruited succulence about this, I so wish that more St.Emilion was like this. Incredibly youthful in colour and wonderful fruited plate. Long and persistent, so complete that it is hard to write about. As mentioned above the Grouse with these older wines was just perfect. The character of Cheval Blanc was there to see, such a great site, it just makes you all the more sad about the pricing of the estate these days. People should be loving this estate and buying it almost blindly ever year but so wrong has been its positioning been that that is almost certainly insanity.

Next up was the bottle I took - Musigny Grand Cru 1998, de Vogue - alongside another red Burgundy - Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Amoureuses 1990, Drouhin. This was a lovely pair, briefly the wines were blind and people got close. I was really impressed by the 1998. I had thought it would be too closed. The 1995 that I had recently thanks to one of this evenings attendees was delicious on the nose but very tight. This 1998 put on weight from the moment it hit the glass, the purity of dark cherry fruit initially was trademark de Vogue. The Drouhin had a lovely soft easy sweetness, "persistent finesse" I have in my notes, fully mature but in a fruited way, really delicious.

With several petit fours we had a pair of "sweeties" - Disznoko Tokaji Aszu 2002 6 Puttonyos and Willi Schaefer Graacher Domprobst Beerenauslese 2009. The Tokaji was really good, oranges, creme brûlée and finesse, not too much rancio character but the trade good acidity to lift these flavours. The Schaefer was precise but at the same time generous, a dash of spritz and some real energy, white fruit. To only think that BA etc needs endless time to mature is a mistake, the vast majority are not a waste to drink young.

A delicious dinner and lots of good conversation, some quite vociferous as a debate should be…this dinner will live long in the memory. Many thanks especially to our organiser who provided the lions share of these wonderful bottles.