A "1996" dinner…two decades on

A note came round, a couple of months back, about the idea of a dinner to drink some 1996's. The logic (as if one is needed) being that for the majority of those who might come along would have started in the wine trade around the time that the 1996's, in most regions, were released. We ended up as eight people which is probably a good number for sharing a bottle. I did a brief sum and recon we had about 150 years of wine trade experience amongst the group. For another version of events have a look at this blog from a regular vinous sparring partner of mine, the often contrary Mr Fowler - Vinolent.

The venue was the, always good, Medlar Restaurant which does good wine service and is open to these sorts of evenings in the spacious room upstairs. Several of this group had been involved in the below dinners and tastings before.

Two very different vintages 2001 Grand Crus and 2003 1er Crus

Burgundy 2004 ten years on...

White Burgundy 2008s - 1er and Grand Crus

White Burgundy 2010's

So 1996: I was half way through a Sport Studies degree and already with Mrs H, it was a good year from memory. Winewise it is one of those vintages that seemed to be good everywhere. The point of difference from other "all rounder" vintages like 2001 and 2010 is that in 1996 the Champagne was top notch which certainly can't be said of 2001 or 2010.

The Menu, well what I chose, is below:

Crab Raviolo with Samphire, Brown Shrimps, Fondue of Leeks and Bisque sauce

Rump of Lamb with Gnocchi, Pied Bleu, Wild Garlic and roasted Baby Gem

Cheese - comte

Chocolate Pave with milk ice cream, peanut brittle and salted caramel

The format: Wines were served blind, mostly in pairs chosen by the sommelier. The fact that we knew the vintage highlighted to me that when I taste blind I try to assess age first, of course rather pointless in this scenario but almost unavoidable.

Having just mentioned Champagne that was were we started with two superb and wonderfully contrasting wines. Bollinger Vieilles Vigne Francaise Blanc de Noirs 1996 and Taittinger Comtes de Champagne Blanc de Blancs 1996 were both exactly as you might hope from a Blanc de Noirs and a Blanc de Blancs. The Bollinger, I'd never had VVF before and may never have it again, was the drier and more intense of the pair, nutty with a saline and sherried character, it reminds we of top notch white Rioja in the fruit character but then has a classy texture and gorgeous mousse, this is a serious wine. The seriounesss of the Bolly is contrasted by the openness and easy enjoyment of the Comtes. This is less dry, more floral and a little more citrus, delicious. The Bollinger continued to evolve in glass and to me is a food wine. The Comtes slid down a treat. It was a fabulous pair to kick off with.

Only one white Burgundy showed itself which I guess is understandable. The one we had was Meursault Tessons 1996 from Pierre Morey, the bottle was in good shape. A lovely nose of reduction with a little ripe citrus in the background gave way to a more unctuous and slightly less refined palate but still a good one. This was in great shape for what it is, technically at least, a village wine albeit that Tesson is a pretty top end Lieu dit.

The second white we had was a unique bottling - Pinot Gris Hommage a Georgette Trimbach 1996 from Trimbach - which I have not managed to find out a lot about but can only imagine was a one-off tribute to the named. This was good, certainly not bone dry. The fruit character was apples, pears and a little apricot to start that then as air got in there there was a definite lychee character. This was delicious with that typical Alsace Pinot Gros character of weighty spice. A flexible wine to serve at almost any stage.  

We then had the first of several full on pairs of blind reds. First we were in Burgundy via a conversation where we tried to convince ourselves we might be in the northern rhone.

Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Cras 1996 from Ghislaine Barthod was a little stalky with a note of cheesecloth maturity. This is a quite stern wine, not offering flirty Chambolle fruit, more like Gevrey in character. It was good but possibly a shade lean. The other wine was Clos Vougeot Grand Cru 1996 from Grivot, this was richly pungent and much more dense, a good example of Clos Vougeot character. A shade reduced but in a good proper way. A nice pair without either suggesting, as seems to be the case, that there is a lot of sweet fruit about 1996 red burgundies.

Bordeaux was always going to figure strongly in this tasting. The next pair turned out to be Ducru Beaucaillou 1996 and Leoville Barton 1996. Sadly the Barton was the only bottle on the evening that was not quite right. It was not corked but was very muted and a little metallic, a shame as it's a good wine when bang on form. The Ducru was very good, rich, full, quite lush and juicy, a little volatile (no bad thing in my book) and with a good bit of Iron to it. It tasted how I imagine the Ducru's made today will taste which is good. I was a big fan.

Dalla Valle Cabernet Sauvignon 1996 went up against the Flor de Pingus 1996 that I took. This was an interesting pairing the Dalla Valle was/is not an estate I know at all. The wine was bold, quite glycerol without being over the top, an edge of tarry savoury character. The Flor was a better balanced  wine (the general view, not just my bias) with a little more poise, nobody got it as Spanish. I have had it a few times before and since and it's a lovely wine.

And so to our last pairing. I think consensus had it that Pichon Lalande 1996 was the wine of the night. So classically left bank in nature, gunpowder, dark fruits, some saline and lovely deep but balanced texture. The wine it was "up against" was the Dunn Vineyards Howell Moutain Cabernet Sauvignon 1996 which had a deep power about it some of the tar of the Dalla Valle as well as licorice and a slightly syrupy feel. It was good and would have been all the more lovely if not up against the powerful grace of the Lalande.

Whilst we had a nice squabble over the wines we drank a bottle of Latour a Pomerol 2009 which slightly suffered by comparison with more mature wines but is good from the previous tastings I have had if not quite at the level of the 2010. In fact 2009/2010 became one of the main discussion points. All in all, and from this small sample, 1996 remains a good all round vintage for the serious wine lover.

I just want to thank everyone for their generous bottles and Mike for organising the evening so well. What next?

A "must have" - the Crab Raviolo with Samphire, Brown Shrimps, Fondue of Leeks and Bisque sauce

Grouse and Richebourg - The Square

When an email appears from Jordi entitled "Grouse and Richebourg at The Square" one tends to pay attention. Fortunately the date worked well and the brief was as simple as it was exciting, turn up at 6.30 pm and bring a Richebourg. The birth of the evening was a meal a year earlier when we enjoyed some of the best Grouse either of us had experienced, it is covered in this post.

So fourteen eager dinners gathered. We started with a magnum of Champagne Chartogne-Taillet Cuvee Saint Anne NV, not a wine I knew but a good, balanced Champagne from a producer that a few of the crew knew. One to find out more about.

The first course arrived after the usual Square canapés (always excellent if not healthy!) Carpaccio of Sea Bass with Fennel Juice, Olive Oil and Orange was served with two white 2006's from magnum:

Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Ruchottes 2006 from Ramonet (it is a site they describe as their "little Montrachet") and Chablis Grand Cru Les Clos 2006 from Dauvissat. I think it is fair to say that neither was that exciting. 2006 is a vintage in which the vast majority of whites lack precision and freshness to my mind. The Ramonet was nice as it hit the glass with a good refreshing edge coming from the cool temperature but the stem ginger and tiny amount of reduction (both positives in my book) quite quickly turned to a slightly flat toffee and a little looseness. I am being hyper-critical here. I love Ramonet and have had many spectacular bottles, some recently, from this great domaine. In short drink up 2006 whites. The Les Clos was a more complete wine and possibly fought the vintage a little more, wet stones and lots of minerality. I did not dislike either but we were now all looking forward to the main attraction.

We had wines from many of Richebourg's eleven owners. The site is one of the best known of Burgundy's Grand Crus, a "decent" size at 8.03ha and comprised of two "Lieu Dits" - "Les Richebourgs" and "Les Verroilles ou Richebourg". You can read more about Richebourg in many books/sites amongst the best sources being Jasper Morris, Clive Coates and maps from Sylvain Pitiot.

The next course - English Duck with Roasted Figs and Turnip - was to accompany the first flight of Richebourgs. It worked superbly.

Richebourg 2007, DRC - I have been luck to have all the DRC 2007's, up to La Tache, in the past year and I really think they show well. There is a brightness and a "verve" with them, energy comes to mind. There is good red fruit, not masses of depth, a little structure and a little graphite, I really like the precision. I will though, stand by what I said on the night, this is a lovely and very good wine but I am not sure that in the overall context it is a great Richebourg. It is more a superb 2007 than anything else. It was well received. If you own it drink a bottle it would be a shame to miss this "phase".


Richebourg 2004, Grivot - Much darker, more saturated, quite "stinky" in the way that Graves can be, quite farmyardy, not overly forced but just not balanced or charming. This wasn't well received generally, too much dryness, in many ways the opposite to the DRC. possibly trying to make too much from a tricky harvest.

Richebourg 2004, Hudelot-Noellat - Initially a little closed but then it opened out with a nice charming red fruited nose. In contrast to Grivot you get the impression that this wines has been allowed to "be itself". Balanced and pretty, one of the wines of the flight for almost everyone.

Richebourg 2001, Anne Gros - Tarry and richer, in many was more what I think of Richebourg being like. Primary, gutsy, quite obvious, though not harsh, grip. A wine needing time, someone said may be a 2008 if it were served blind and I agree. Patience required. I do not know the house style but those that did said it just needed patience. Impressive.

Richebourg 2000,  Anne Francois Gros - I thought, and my neighbour was polite enough to agree, this may have been the only wine in the first two Richebourg flights that was a "sub-par" bottle. There was a slightly bruised toffee-like note for me and after a nice saline dimension some "metal". I can well imagine a good bottle being very good. Opinion deferred.

Flight Summary - With the mix of vintages and two (2004 and 2007) being tricky ones I thought this told us more about the approach, and to an extent, style of the producers than Richebourg itself. Fascinating differences and to my mind, forgiving the bottle of AF Gros, only one weak link.

Roast Breast of Yorkshire Grouse with Crousillant of the Leg, Pickled Elderberries, Wild Heather and Smoked Bacon - was simply a brilliant, and satisfyingly generous, course. Really excellent. It deserved what turned out to be a great flight of wines.

Richebourg 1999, Hudelot-Noellat - Very pure, pretty, a little asian spice on the nose, long, nice grip, delightfully poised. At the end of the flight I added a note to say "slightly less Richebourg than the others?". I am note sure if that is right, it was lovely either way.


Richebourg 1999, Grivot - I liked the initial nose and wanted to like the plate to show the 2004 was just a "weak showing". Sadly, I found the palate simply too dry and a little over extracted, not black fruit over extraction just "tea bag left in too long" extracted. This did divide opinion and when we all had two votes for wine of the night at the end, this got a vote from possibly out most qualified palate, will the fruit win out? I hope so but I fear not. 


Richebourg 1999, Anne Gros - This was rich, a little bit of soy showed on the nose and there was depth and spice on the palate to make this a sturdy and more masculine wine. Good.

Richebourg 1999, DRC - I love 1999's generally and have been incredibly lucky to drink a few DRC 1999's, in modern speak they appeared to have "nailed it" in '99. I am of course hideously biased. This and the Meo-Camuzet that followed were voted the wines of the night. This had stunning depth, poise, balance and managed to be both very young but also showed it's hand. I imagine it is only just opening up. My note just finished with the rather flippant "Proper Job". Pretty special.

Richebourg 1998, Meo-Camuzet - This contrasted the DRC brilliantly, this is in full stride, it's done it's warm up and is ready to perform. There is a lovely open, slightly grainy,  slightly degraded sweetness, lovely acidity too. All in all just a lovely wine to wallow in. 

Richebourg 1998, Anne Francois Gros - This was good too. Nice to have two 1998's both showing well as I have found it to be a "hit and miss" vintage. There was a lightness of touch here, a feeling of easy completeness. Somehow understated and I don't remember it being discussed a great deal through no fault of it's own. Good.

Richebourg 1995, DRC - This was very balanced, very easy to enjoy, the nose was in it's second phase, not decaying but evolved. It was the glass I finished first, there didn't seem much to dwell on, a wine to enjoy for it's completeness if not for its excitement. I haven't found many red 1995's that are truly exciting, it seems a good vintage that struggles to do much beyond that. A lovely end to the flight all in all.

Flight Summary - This was as strong a flight of reds of this level in Burgundy as I have had. Two things struck me (and I think most others). Firstly, 1999 is a lovely vintage that is only just starting to hit it's stride now. Secondly, there was much more of a Richebourg personality to this flight, helped of course by the vintages being stronger. The personality is one of structured grace and a certain darker fruited lushness. Really special.

The cheese then ushered in the older wines!

Richebourg 1982, Gros Frere et Soeur - Was extraordinary in tasting quite so bizarre, very viscous and heavy, smelling of degraded leather but then with a palate that can only be described as bitter and pretty rank…I can't quite see what the fault was because it had not faded from oxidation, anyway everyone just moved on.

Richebourg 1978, Rodet - this I found to be light but balanced, not very remarkable but correct.

Richebourg 1971, Bouchard - I thought this had some of the sweetness you really want from Grand Cru at this age, I thought it was impressive if a little lacking in personality.

Richebourg 1964, Thevenin - This sadly was madeirised, a shame as I had heard good/interesting things.

Richebourg 1928 Avery's, Domaine Gros - Served from two half bottles, as you'd expect one was a little better than the other but both were good and to a degree rode to the rescue of this flight. It had sweetness and acidity and also persistence. They had, generously, come from Averys that very day. This wine was voted third in the vote at the end of the dinner with DRC '99 and Meo-Camuzet '98.

Conclusions - This dinner was a great evening for several reasons. Good organisation but not over-organisation, A really good crowd so conversation as a whole table worked as well as in groups. The food was brilliant and having four, logical, courses was the correct format. Service was good and not over fussy. In terms of the wines it was very informative. There was a feeling that with the wines the influence, as is often the case, went in the order; producer, vintage, terroir. With Richebourg being almost exclusively Domaine-made now the older wines of the future may be a little more dependable. I would just re-iterate how good the 1999-1995 flight was.

There was one more wine served up at the end - Batard-Montrachet Grand Cru 2004 from E.Sauzet - and rather delicious it was too. A feint whiff of reduction, then good freshness and a nice citrus freshness to go with the Grand Cru richness.

-

Thank you to all those who attended for their bottles, to the the Square for doing what they do so well and to Jordi for the organising as always! Onwards into Autumn...

Carpaccio of Sea Bass with Fennel Juice, Olive Oil and Orange

English Duck with Roasted Figs and Turnip

Roast Breast of Yorkshire Grouse with Crousillant of the Leg, Pickled Elderberries, Wild Heather and Smoked Bacon

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…