So, I jumped the gun and went to Apiary on Saturday evening with friends. The place was packed. Good wine list, but I opted to pay corkage. They had a smoked salmon appetizer special that came with some caviar and a poached egg that was awesome (more like breakfast food, but happy to eat breakfast all of the time). The pork chop was bigger than me head. One of my friends had the Rabbit Papardelle. Not sure I have ever had Rabbit so tender. And, for a bargain appy, wifee had the Mushroom Soup for $8, that was very tasty...onto the wines...
2002 Bernard Morey Chassagne Montrachet Morgeots- Man, I am not sure this ever tasted better. Talk about a "suck down" Chardonnay...this was absolutely delicious. I think I paid about 50 shekels and worth every penny. Such lively fruit integrated into the oak, wow!
1999 Alban Pandora- After the AWFUL btl of 2005 Alban Reva at SLONYC #1 with Pobega, I had to pull my last 99 Pandora from my "extensive" cellar. I fell in love with the 1999 Albans back in the day, which led me to buy up subsequent vintages for the store. We decanted this for about 45 minutes. The nose was open for business and absolutely stunning. I think the bouquet could be smelled across the room. The wine, in the front and mid palate, was terrific. Delicious, sweet, candied fruit, it was a good pair for the pork (everything pairs well with pork;)). But something was amiss on the finish. It just dropped off a cliff. While the wine was certainly delicious, it left me wanting more. Maybe drank a couple of years too late? Still a good effort.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Carillon Bienvenue Batard Montrachet Vertical and 1 "Fake" btl of 1962 Volnay!
Last night, 6 drinkers of Burgundy descended upon Blue Hill at Stone Barns, to go where very few others had gone before...a vertical of the very rare and very sought after Bienvenue Batard Montrachet from Domaine Louis Carillon. Six vintages would be tasted before we moved onto a very impressive array of Pinot Noir from "Mecca," also known as Bourgogne, or Burgundy!
Before we get into the wine, let's talk about Blue Hill for a moment. Personally, I dined there numerous times when they first opened, but after a few hiccups and a couple of large private wine dinners that went awry, I have stayed away the last few years. Well, they may have brought me back with what they served last night. We opted for the "Farmer's Feast" at $135 per person, but we practically had to stop them from bringing more food. All of the the little starters were great, including the zucchini flowers, chicken pate surrounded by chocolate, corn soup with verina (sp?)as well as the charcuterie (Lanzo? was extraordinary, I would like to purchase that by the pound at my local deli). They even served pig face bacon!!! The "savory dishes were even better...Lobster with local veggies melted in your mouth, and the Berkshire pig was delicious. It came with an almond and bean side that really worked. Finally, they forced us to the ER with two delicious lamb chops, and lamb NECK, which was a lot like Pork Belly but with better texture. Something better than Pork Belly? Who would have thunk it?
Thomas Carter, and staff, treated us like royalty (well, shit, Laurent Drouhin practically is royalty, so that explains it)!
Onto the wines...first Carillon...Peter provided all except...
1984: I brought this pristine looking btl and, of course, it was corked. Thomas came to us and said it was very slight...but the "corkiness" only picked up steam over time and rendered the wine undrinkable. Before that happened, the wine, to me, showed amazing youthfulness. There was good fruit under there somewhere. The color was lighter than the 1998 and the 1996. A good show, despite the cork problem. Anyways, only corked one of the night.
1998: This was right in my wheelhouse when they poured it. Very rich, fat fruit (not in the CA way, though), this is the second time I have enjoyed this wine over the past 6 months. Over time, the wine did lose a lot of its character, but that took a solid 45 minutes to an hour of it in the glass. Impressive and delicious.
1999: There was much debate as to the order we should pour these wines in and, inevitably, I lost. I thought the 1999 ought to be in the next flight and the 1997 here. Well, the 1999 was put here and stole the show for most of us. An absolute baby, this took about 30 minutes in the glass for it to really come out of its shell. Someone used the word, precise, to describe this one and that appeared to be very accurate. At 10 years old, this one clearly has more life ahead of it, but on this night, it was still outstanding!
1997: I think others liked this more than me, I thought this was a good wine, but would have expected more. I found the finish to be a little short, and a little nuttiness to the wine (possibly some oxidation?). Over time, the wine did actually get better in the glass. It took on more weight, but it just never got there for me.
2005: Why not, right? This had 2005 written all over it. Upon pouring, I noted the distinct tropical fruit flavors in the wine. It was sewet, rich, and fat. There should have been a sign on my glass that read "do not drink for 2 hours!" Upon revisiting the wine much later in the evening, the nose had turned to a coconut smell, and the wine lived. Good show.
1996: Well, when drinking white Burgs from the late 1990s, you are bound to get an oxidized one, and the 1996 was it for us. Deep yellow. light orange color...the wine was very simple and monolithic. I took two sips...that was enough for me.
Onto the reds...
1990 Drouhin Bonnes Mares: DQ'ed (maderized)
1985 Pierre Amiot Clos de la Roche: This was not a favorite of mine. I found it a little old and uninteresting. A very short finish...drink 'em if you got 'em! Paul brought this one!
1993 Drouhin Bonnes Mares: Man, these 1993s are delicious. Who was the wine critic that pancaked them? Oh, yes, RP. Laurent had a good laugh about that as we all enjoyed this sexy wine. Big, rich fruit, this wine is still in its infantile stages...got to find more 1993s...thanks Laurent for this btl!
1990 Jean Grivot Clos Vougeot: I brought this one. I am never a huge fan of Grivot. His wines tend to be a little rough around the edges for me, and upon opening, this one was no exception. Closed, muted nose. Then, after about 30 minutes in the glass, this wine shined...for about 20 minutes, with a nice sweet long finish...but then I found it declined again...a roller coaster never seen by a wine critic that spends just 45 seconds with each wine!
1962 Potinet Ampeau Volnay Clos des Chenes: Even brought this one. He purchased it from a prominent retailer. He guessed about 8 years ago. The label was gleaming white (obviously a new label). The fill was up to the top (obviously topped off)...and the color was an amazingly bright red...and the wine was tasty...very tasty. We all just sat there in disbelief. I kept questioning the color on this wine as I sipped it. Finally, Laurent put his hands in the air, and said, "I have something to say...there is no way this is 1962 Volnay!" He sounded frustrated. The wine was good, but clearly noy 47 years old. The cork was saturated as if it had been recorked when it was topped off, about 10 years ago. Of course, no branding on the cork. There is not one indication that this wine came from 1962, except the sparkling white label. Even says that he purchased 1959s, 1966s, and 1971s as well. He says that the 1966s have been very bad. He is sure he has more 1962 in the cellar. Who would fake such a wine? Not sure...stay tuned...Robert Parker will investigate...
1982 Clair Dau Chambertin Clos de Beze: Many of us know the history by now. Jadot bought Clair Dau's holdings in the mid 1980s and Jadot became a star in Bonnes Mares, Musigny, etc. This Beze is from a very underwhelming year, and I found the wine fairly underwhelming. At first sip, the wine was tasty, but the wine quickly fell off the cliff for me. In the end, it was a harsh, rustic wine, that could have used more fruit. But, alas, the fruit just was not there. Peter shared this one.
1985 Pierre Bouree Chambolle Musigny les Amoureuses: Paul brought a very nice surprise for all of us...this wine kept getting better in the glass. It started off a little tight, but you could sense that this wine was going to be good. Not a flashy wine, but just a very solid wine that was a pleasure to drink! I need to find more Pierre Bouree like this!
It was a great night, with some great people!
Before we get into the wine, let's talk about Blue Hill for a moment. Personally, I dined there numerous times when they first opened, but after a few hiccups and a couple of large private wine dinners that went awry, I have stayed away the last few years. Well, they may have brought me back with what they served last night. We opted for the "Farmer's Feast" at $135 per person, but we practically had to stop them from bringing more food. All of the the little starters were great, including the zucchini flowers, chicken pate surrounded by chocolate, corn soup with verina (sp?)as well as the charcuterie (Lanzo? was extraordinary, I would like to purchase that by the pound at my local deli). They even served pig face bacon!!! The "savory dishes were even better...Lobster with local veggies melted in your mouth, and the Berkshire pig was delicious. It came with an almond and bean side that really worked. Finally, they forced us to the ER with two delicious lamb chops, and lamb NECK, which was a lot like Pork Belly but with better texture. Something better than Pork Belly? Who would have thunk it?
Thomas Carter, and staff, treated us like royalty (well, shit, Laurent Drouhin practically is royalty, so that explains it)!
Onto the wines...first Carillon...Peter provided all except...
1984: I brought this pristine looking btl and, of course, it was corked. Thomas came to us and said it was very slight...but the "corkiness" only picked up steam over time and rendered the wine undrinkable. Before that happened, the wine, to me, showed amazing youthfulness. There was good fruit under there somewhere. The color was lighter than the 1998 and the 1996. A good show, despite the cork problem. Anyways, only corked one of the night.
1998: This was right in my wheelhouse when they poured it. Very rich, fat fruit (not in the CA way, though), this is the second time I have enjoyed this wine over the past 6 months. Over time, the wine did lose a lot of its character, but that took a solid 45 minutes to an hour of it in the glass. Impressive and delicious.
1999: There was much debate as to the order we should pour these wines in and, inevitably, I lost. I thought the 1999 ought to be in the next flight and the 1997 here. Well, the 1999 was put here and stole the show for most of us. An absolute baby, this took about 30 minutes in the glass for it to really come out of its shell. Someone used the word, precise, to describe this one and that appeared to be very accurate. At 10 years old, this one clearly has more life ahead of it, but on this night, it was still outstanding!
1997: I think others liked this more than me, I thought this was a good wine, but would have expected more. I found the finish to be a little short, and a little nuttiness to the wine (possibly some oxidation?). Over time, the wine did actually get better in the glass. It took on more weight, but it just never got there for me.
2005: Why not, right? This had 2005 written all over it. Upon pouring, I noted the distinct tropical fruit flavors in the wine. It was sewet, rich, and fat. There should have been a sign on my glass that read "do not drink for 2 hours!" Upon revisiting the wine much later in the evening, the nose had turned to a coconut smell, and the wine lived. Good show.
1996: Well, when drinking white Burgs from the late 1990s, you are bound to get an oxidized one, and the 1996 was it for us. Deep yellow. light orange color...the wine was very simple and monolithic. I took two sips...that was enough for me.
Onto the reds...
1990 Drouhin Bonnes Mares: DQ'ed (maderized)
1985 Pierre Amiot Clos de la Roche: This was not a favorite of mine. I found it a little old and uninteresting. A very short finish...drink 'em if you got 'em! Paul brought this one!
1993 Drouhin Bonnes Mares: Man, these 1993s are delicious. Who was the wine critic that pancaked them? Oh, yes, RP. Laurent had a good laugh about that as we all enjoyed this sexy wine. Big, rich fruit, this wine is still in its infantile stages...got to find more 1993s...thanks Laurent for this btl!
1990 Jean Grivot Clos Vougeot: I brought this one. I am never a huge fan of Grivot. His wines tend to be a little rough around the edges for me, and upon opening, this one was no exception. Closed, muted nose. Then, after about 30 minutes in the glass, this wine shined...for about 20 minutes, with a nice sweet long finish...but then I found it declined again...a roller coaster never seen by a wine critic that spends just 45 seconds with each wine!
1962 Potinet Ampeau Volnay Clos des Chenes: Even brought this one. He purchased it from a prominent retailer. He guessed about 8 years ago. The label was gleaming white (obviously a new label). The fill was up to the top (obviously topped off)...and the color was an amazingly bright red...and the wine was tasty...very tasty. We all just sat there in disbelief. I kept questioning the color on this wine as I sipped it. Finally, Laurent put his hands in the air, and said, "I have something to say...there is no way this is 1962 Volnay!" He sounded frustrated. The wine was good, but clearly noy 47 years old. The cork was saturated as if it had been recorked when it was topped off, about 10 years ago. Of course, no branding on the cork. There is not one indication that this wine came from 1962, except the sparkling white label. Even says that he purchased 1959s, 1966s, and 1971s as well. He says that the 1966s have been very bad. He is sure he has more 1962 in the cellar. Who would fake such a wine? Not sure...stay tuned...Robert Parker will investigate...
1982 Clair Dau Chambertin Clos de Beze: Many of us know the history by now. Jadot bought Clair Dau's holdings in the mid 1980s and Jadot became a star in Bonnes Mares, Musigny, etc. This Beze is from a very underwhelming year, and I found the wine fairly underwhelming. At first sip, the wine was tasty, but the wine quickly fell off the cliff for me. In the end, it was a harsh, rustic wine, that could have used more fruit. But, alas, the fruit just was not there. Peter shared this one.
1985 Pierre Bouree Chambolle Musigny les Amoureuses: Paul brought a very nice surprise for all of us...this wine kept getting better in the glass. It started off a little tight, but you could sense that this wine was going to be good. Not a flashy wine, but just a very solid wine that was a pleasure to drink! I need to find more Pierre Bouree like this!
It was a great night, with some great people!
Friday, September 4, 2009
Sierra Car Crash-Fraud in da house!
So, yesterday was Sierra Carche's big day to shine at Grapes The Wine Company. I hosted a lunch for about 12 people, some clients, some ITB, some interested parties to showcase the 2005 Sierra Carche, a 96 point disaster courtesy of Jay Miller of the Wine Advocate.
We BBQ'd lunch (sliders for appys, filet for the main course) and then it was up to the Grapes lounge to enjoy the filet and some Sierra Carche. I selected the lineup and all anyone else knew is that there was a btl of Sierra Carche in the group. Sierra Carche has been a hot topic in the wine business after Jay Miller scored it 96 points and the wine appears to be worse than crap.
Double blind for everyone (single blind for me)...poured in flights of 3 (one corked 2005 Pico Madama) so just 14 wines were served.
Not a bad lineup
4 btls 2005 Sierra Carche @ WA 96 points each
2005 Pico Madama (corked, never served) WA 95+
2004 Pico Madama WA 93
2001 Clos Fonta WA 94
2007 Panarroz (Unrated by JM, but RP gave 2003-2006 all WA 90)
2007 Telmo Rodriguez A1 Murvedre unrated
2005 Pasanau El Vell Coster WA 97
2008 Edgebaston Pepper Pot unrated
2007 Emilio Moro Resalso WA 90
2005 Espectacle (unrated, but 2004 was WA 99, 2006 WA 96)
2008 Oriol Unrated
2005 Mollydooker Carnival of Love WA 99
Mostly highly rated Jay Miller wines. Well, then why did everyone hate just about every wine? The Sierra Carches were easy to spot. Dreadful and undrinkable. Turn the 96 around? Not even, lets say 4 btls probably totally 96 points!
One of the things I wanted to see was whether Pico Madama 2004 suffered like Sierra Carche 2005. It was not as bad but it was univerally panned by the group. I am curious to see where the 93 point btls of this are? Maybe Robert Parker can muster one up from another bulletin board member and taste it with his wife.
Onto Espectacle...first read this...http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... espectacle
I had the 2004 and it sucked. 2005 was a decent wine...for $10, much like the 2004. This is another example of what happens when an importer whispers into a wine critic's ear about 100+ year old Grenache vines in Montsant. In the 45 seconds that Jay Miller presumably spent with the 2004, he called it a 99 point wine. With the 2006, it is 96 points. Assume the 2005 would be a 97-98 pointer based on that scale. This is really a shame. I have not yet heard of anyone (besides Robert Kenney) have a full btl of this stuff and call it great. It should be noted that Robert Kenney thought the wine was crap yesterday.
When it came time to vote, only 5 wines received votes...
Espectacle 3 points
Pasanau 7 points
Carnival of Love 25 points
Oriol 19 points
Clos Fonta 18 points
Blind tasting is very revealing. Critics at the Wine Advocate should try it some time. Something is wrong with Sierra Carche. As Jay Miller first said, there was fraud somewhere. It is a shame that Robert Parker has no interest in seeing where it happened. It is a shame that Jay Miller will apparently continue to taste the portfolio of wines from Well Oiled Wine Co, when they have shown no proof that they are, in fact, innocent in all of this.
Special thanks to Steve Manzi and Robert Kenney. I worked this tasting around their schedules. I think I did right by them and the wine consuming public. I would have loved to taste a good btl of Sierra Carche. That would have made for interesting debate. Instead, we tasted 4 btls of crap. More importantly, many of these wines were crap.
So, where is the fraud really being committed?![[stirthepothal.gif]](http://www.wineberserkers.com/images/smilies/stirthepothal.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]")
For some fun reading, see here...http://www.wineberserkers.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9735
We BBQ'd lunch (sliders for appys, filet for the main course) and then it was up to the Grapes lounge to enjoy the filet and some Sierra Carche. I selected the lineup and all anyone else knew is that there was a btl of Sierra Carche in the group. Sierra Carche has been a hot topic in the wine business after Jay Miller scored it 96 points and the wine appears to be worse than crap.
Double blind for everyone (single blind for me)...poured in flights of 3 (one corked 2005 Pico Madama) so just 14 wines were served.
Not a bad lineup
4 btls 2005 Sierra Carche @ WA 96 points each
2005 Pico Madama (corked, never served) WA 95+
2004 Pico Madama WA 93
2001 Clos Fonta WA 94
2007 Panarroz (Unrated by JM, but RP gave 2003-2006 all WA 90)
2007 Telmo Rodriguez A1 Murvedre unrated
2005 Pasanau El Vell Coster WA 97
2008 Edgebaston Pepper Pot unrated
2007 Emilio Moro Resalso WA 90
2005 Espectacle (unrated, but 2004 was WA 99, 2006 WA 96)
2008 Oriol Unrated
2005 Mollydooker Carnival of Love WA 99
Mostly highly rated Jay Miller wines. Well, then why did everyone hate just about every wine? The Sierra Carches were easy to spot. Dreadful and undrinkable. Turn the 96 around? Not even, lets say 4 btls probably totally 96 points!
One of the things I wanted to see was whether Pico Madama 2004 suffered like Sierra Carche 2005. It was not as bad but it was univerally panned by the group. I am curious to see where the 93 point btls of this are? Maybe Robert Parker can muster one up from another bulletin board member and taste it with his wife.
Onto Espectacle...first read this...http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... espectacle
I had the 2004 and it sucked. 2005 was a decent wine...for $10, much like the 2004. This is another example of what happens when an importer whispers into a wine critic's ear about 100+ year old Grenache vines in Montsant. In the 45 seconds that Jay Miller presumably spent with the 2004, he called it a 99 point wine. With the 2006, it is 96 points. Assume the 2005 would be a 97-98 pointer based on that scale. This is really a shame. I have not yet heard of anyone (besides Robert Kenney) have a full btl of this stuff and call it great. It should be noted that Robert Kenney thought the wine was crap yesterday.
When it came time to vote, only 5 wines received votes...
Espectacle 3 points
Pasanau 7 points
Carnival of Love 25 points
Oriol 19 points
Clos Fonta 18 points
Blind tasting is very revealing. Critics at the Wine Advocate should try it some time. Something is wrong with Sierra Carche. As Jay Miller first said, there was fraud somewhere. It is a shame that Robert Parker has no interest in seeing where it happened. It is a shame that Jay Miller will apparently continue to taste the portfolio of wines from Well Oiled Wine Co, when they have shown no proof that they are, in fact, innocent in all of this.
Special thanks to Steve Manzi and Robert Kenney. I worked this tasting around their schedules. I think I did right by them and the wine consuming public. I would have loved to taste a good btl of Sierra Carche. That would have made for interesting debate. Instead, we tasted 4 btls of crap. More importantly, many of these wines were crap.
So, where is the fraud really being committed?
For some fun reading, see here...http://www.wineberserkers.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9735
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
