Terry Theise Tasting Notes

What's the right thing to do at an enormous industry wine tasting? Do you try to taste every wine being poured? Do you find some way of narrowing the field, and taste only a subset of the wines? The answer is personal, I suppose. I used to try to taste everything but in the end I learned less that way, and did not really enjoy myself. Nowadays I try to figure out what I most want to taste before I get there.

I was invited to both the Terry Theise Selections/Skurnik Champagne Portfolio Tasting and the Louis/Dressner Selections tastings last week, invitations that I am truly grateful for. The largest and arguably the finest portfolio of grower Champagnes in the US, and the largest and finest portfolio of natural wines from France and Italy - what a treat to participate.

Both tastings, however, took place on Tuesday October 21st from noon-4:00. Admit it - that just sucks. Thoughtfully tasting everything in the Terry Theise portfolio alone is challenging enough, but to do that and then find a way to do the same thing at the Dressner tasting...that's a tall order. Luckily I had my buddy and fellow blogger David McDuff as a partner in tasting.

I did a much better job at the Theise tasting simply because I went there first. I learned that if I had to pick one Champagne producer's lineup to take to a desert island, it would be that of René Geoffroy. From top to bottom, just amazing. I re-discovered Pierre Peters and Marc Hébrart. And best of all, I am beginning to put together an understanding of terroir in Champagne. Here are some of the wines that I would buy for myself (great wine, good value) from the Theise portfolio (prices are estimates):

NV Pierre Peters Cuvée Réserve Blanc de Blancs Brut, $50. My favorite on this day of the non-vintage Côte des Blancs wines.

NV Marc Hebrart Sélection Brut, $50. Deep rich perfume, just gorgeous. 65% Pinot Noir and 35% Chardonnay. Complex, delicious, and balanced. I never see this in stores though...

NV René Geoffroy Expression Brut, $50. Heavy in the Meunier, and one of my favorite non-vintage wines of the whole portfolio. If you're skeptical of this whole grower Champagne thing, and you buy only one wine from this portfolio, try this one.
NV René Geoffroy Empreinte Brut, $60. This one is 82% Pinot Noir and it's gorgeous. Again, I've never seen it retail. Not in New York, nowhere. Please, someone...buy this wine so I can buy it.
NV René Geoffroy Cuvee Volupté Brut, $80. For the first time (I think) this is a Blanc de Blancs. It's all 2004, although it's not a vintage wine. It's a baby and it's very delicate, but it's already got a well defined and muscular physique. This will be a knockout in a few years.
2000 René Geoffroy Brut, $125. I didn't say that I'd be happy about spending the money, I just said that I would buy these wines myself. And since I buy maybe two wines at this price each year, this is a serious comment on the quality I saw in this wine at this price. This wine has no sugar in the dosage, but you might not guess that when drinking it. What a thing of beauty! It is full and deep and rich and delicate and a full-on sensory experience. If you have the money and the inclination, this is not to be missed. Will someone carry it in their store, though?
1995 René Geoffroy Cuvée de René Geoffroy Brut, $300 (magnum). Truffles and strawberries. This was the wine of the tasting for me, and although I cannot spend my own (and my wife's) $300 on a magnum, I'm hoping that the gods of wine will somehow allow me to taste this again someday.

NV Gaston Chiquet Tradition Brut, $45. Also heavy on the Meunier, and another favorite non-vintage wine. I haven't always loved this wine, but on this day it was great.

NV Margaine Brut Rosé, $55. Refined and delicate, yet bold and lovely fruit. Delicious.
2000 Margaine Special Club Blanc de Blancs Brut, $75 (but this price could be totally wrong - the book is missing information). Gorgeous mature nose of nuts and minerals, very rich.

2002 Henri Billiot Brut, $75. Just gorgeous 80% Pinot Noir deliciousness. So deep fruited and satisfying. And a keeper too - this has a long life ahead of it.

NV Lallement Brut, $55, Intense spicy fruit with a steely mineral backbone. Powerful but also delicate somehow in its purity.

NV Chartogne Taillet Cuvée Sainte Anne Brut, $45. Bring this to someone who thinks they don't like Champagne. It's a classic, well balanced, fragrant, deeply fruited wine, and delicious wine. And I've seen it, the same disorgement as in the tasting, based on 2004, with the new label, for as little as $36.
2000 Chartogne Taillet Brut, $65. Bold and rich, with a spicy depth. This is big wine, but it's well balanced and gentle.
2002 Chartogne Taillet Cuvee Fiacre Brut, $75. From their oldest vines, this wine is refined and elegant, and still pretty closed. The 2000 Fiacre that I tasted in September was much more approachable. But this will be a beauty in a few years, I suspect.

Dressner notes coming soon...

Hung up on Classification, Champagne Style

I think that the lines that distinguish grower Champagne from big house Champagne are too rigidly drawn. If a producer farms their own grapes and makes wine from those grapes, we say that they are making grower Champagne. If a producer like Francis Boulard, for example, buys just over 5% of the grapes he uses to make his wines, do we still say that he makes grower Champagne? Most of us would say yes, and that's probably because his practices in the vineyard and in the cellar reflect the values that are encapsulated within the grower Champagne ethos. We're willing to give a little, in other words, when categorizing producers and their wines.

Entry hall at Champagne Louis Roederer.

Unless those producers are operating on a large scale. Consider Louis Roederer, for example. Roederer is a huge estate that owns vineyards all over Champagne, over 200 hectares in total. Roederer's range includes a non-vintage Brut, three vintage wines including a Blanc de Blancs, a blended Brut, and a rosé, and then Cristal and Cristal Rosé. All of these wines are made exclusively from Roederer's own grapes, except for the non-vintage Brut. That's right - Cristal is a grower Champagne. And if you're ready to dispute this, thinking that the farming is Monsanto-style industrial, think again. Listen to what Peter Liem has to say in his overview of the house on ChampagneGuide.net:

...Roederer has completely stopped using systemic herbicides and is increasingly investigating more environmentally-friendly methods of viticulture, even attempting trials at biodynamics beginning in 2007 (following a seven-year period of “cleaning” the relevant parcels), which has since been expanded to five hectares in all. Another 25 hectares are planted with cover crops, tilled and worked organically, and the house is seeking to gradually expand these practices in the future.

The grapes are estate grown, viticulture and cellar work is conscientious and modern, and yet I do not think that anyone who pays attention to these things would classify Cristal, or any of Roederer's wines as grower Champagnes. Unless I am misunderstanding the definition of grower Champagne, Roederer's wines are grower wines, except for the NV Brut.

The point of this, actually, is not to convince you that Roederer makes grower Champagne. The point is that our thinking about grower Champagne might be a bit too rigid, having been shaped by marketing forces that although more romantic and not as well funded, are still marketing forces, in the end.

Jean-Baptiste Lecaillon pouring 2002 Cristal.

What would you rather drink - Cédric Bouchard's Roses de Jeanne or Roederer's Cristal? Until recently I would have immediately chosen Bouchard's wine, and although I'm not sure right now which I consider to be the finer wine, in the past I would have always chosen Bouchard based on my ideas about the stylistic differences between the two houses. But you know what - Bouchard sells a wine that he didn't farm or make, wine that was made by an old friend of the family, a wine called Inflorescence La Parcelle. If you bought that wine before the 2007 vintage, you are buying wine that Cédric Bouchard selected, not farmed or made.

And there's nothing wrong with that! I love Inflorescence, and the fact that Cédric Bouchard didn't farm the grapes or make the wine himself doesn't make it a lesser wine. The fact that Roederer is huge and a luxury brand doesn't make Cristal a lesser wine. Rappers and bling aside, Cristal is among the greatest wines of Champagne, and if you reject it based on dogma about grower versus big house Champagne, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

2002 and 2004 Cristal, and pretty tasty too.

And here's another thing - I don't see how any Champagne can be considered to be "natural wine." Almost without exception, commercial yeasts are added to the bottle in order to initiate secondary fermentation, and that goes against the "natural wine" formula. So Bouchard, Selosse, Lassaigne, and all of the rest of them, everyone is equal when it comes to not conforming to "natural wine" standards.

Ever find yourself not buying Pierre Peters Champagne because it is too popular, a Terry Theise big house within the world of grower Champagne? Ever find yourself turning up your nose at a glass of Roederer NV Brut in favor of another, perhaps lesser wine because Roederer is a big house? Every find yourself secretly thinking that some or other grower Champagne really doesn't taste so great, or secretly enjoying a glass of big house wine? I have, and it's all pretty silly. Pierre Peters makes utterly fantastic Champagne, truly fine wines, and so does Roederer. The Roederer NV Brut will surprise you if you drink it with an open mind. Actually, I have no idea what you'll think of it. But neither do you, unless you get rid of the presumptions that we both have about big houses and grower wines. These presumptions grew out of noble ideas, but we might not need them anymore, as we become more sophisticated drinkers who can think for ourselves.

Wine Glasses and Champagne

Warning: I am about to write about an expensive wine glass, and I will suggest to you that it is the best of its type, and worth the money. And furthermore, that if you pay good money for good wine, you should buy this glass if you have not already.

Why the warning? A lot of folks think that wine glasses don't matter, and that appreciating good glasses is snobbery or snake medicine. These people are wrong - there's no other way to say it. It's not entirely their fault, though. There is an unfortunate snobby culture that has been part of the modern history of wine appreciation and people might mistake the idea that some glasses are better than others with the false notion that you must use a certain glass to drink wine correctly. This is obviously not true. We have all had memorable experiences drinking wine out of bad wine glasses. It is not necessary to have the best glasses in order to enjoy a wine.

That said, some glasses really are better than others. A good Burgundy glass, for example, allows a good Burgundy wine to show more of what makes it a good Burgundy wine. If you drink a wine out of different glasses, the wine will show best in one of those glasses - there is a difference. And I'm not suggesting this in a snobby way - there is no "right" way to drink wine, and you should do whatever makes you happy. But there is something to this, this glassware thing. If you are someone who will spend $75 on a bottle of Champagne, for example, you might consider experimenting with different glasses. You might find that the wines you care about actually show better, given certain glasses.

There are few instances in which I feel that I know which glasses are best. Here is one instance: Champagne shows best out of Riedel Sommelier Series Vintage Champagne glasses. In the above photo the Riedel Champagne glass is on the left. It is a flute, basically, and this is not the fashionable way to drink Champagne these days. People like to drink Champagne from wider bottomed glasses like the Zalto (the middle glass in the above photo), or even from a Burgundy bowl. To me, the flute is the riskiest way to drink Champagne. Bad flutes (which to me are most flutes) restrict the aromas and flavors. But this is no ordinary flute. It is wider everywhere, and widens even more above the glass's halfway point. I cannot say that I understand the science here, but I appreciate the results.

This is not my discovery, by the way, Peter Liem first told me about this. The photo above was taken at his house in December as we drank 2002 René Geoffroy Cuveé Volupté out of three different glasses. I went in with an open mind and there was no mistaking it. The aromas were more focused in the Riedel glass and yet still expansive and complex, and it just moved onto the palate better, feeling more balanced. I had tried drinking Champagne out of this glass before, but after this experiment I literally refused to open a bottle until I bought a set of these glasses for myself. This, my friends, is an expensive proposition - they are about $75 a stem. But I own some decent Champagne, and the value this glass adds to the experience of drinking Champagne makes the glass worth more than its dollar value.

The first Champagne I drank from my new glasses was the 2008 Marie-Noëlle Ledru Rosé de Saignée. It's not a wine that emphasizes fruit, instead feeling very mineral and earthy. In the Riedel glass the wine's subtle fruit flavors mingled with the more intense minerality, and the wine showed perfect balance.

Since then I've used these glasses quite a few times and always with great results. It makes sense to me that wines based on Chardonnay would show beautifully from this glass. I've tried several times now and the pinnacle for me was this:

The 2002 Pierre Peters Blanc de Blancs Les Chétillons is a stunning wine, and in this glass the aromas were positively regal and flowing. Incisive chalk, green tea, and floral aromas, just beautiful and complex aromatically, and very finely detailed on the palate, which builds in complexity through the finish. Amazing wine, and although I did no empirical testing, it's hard to imagine a wine glass that would be a better medium through which to experience this Champagne. 

What about Champagne made from red grapes - would a Pinot Noir based Champagne also show as well? From what I've seen, the answer is emphatically yes. It's not about displaying the fruitiness of one kind of grape. What makes this glass special is the way it amplifies detail of aroma and flavor while facilitating balance, and this is not grape-specific.

Not long ago a few friends and I cracked a bottle of 2008 Marie-Noëlle Ledru Blanc de Noirs Cuvée Goulté, you know, just to see where it is. Although young and tightly wound, in this glass the wine's bright and energetic fruit shows through brilliantly, as does the vibrantly chalky floor on which everything rests. The next day I poured a small bit into a Burgundy bowl and a Zalto universal and in both cases, the aromas were more diffuse and the overall experience less pleasing.

The other night, on Peter's birthday, (and because of his generosity - he gave us this gift, on his birthday) I had the opportunity to drink a very special wine.

This is one of Selosse's single vineyard Champages. It comes from the village of Aÿ, from a vineyard called La Côte Faron. Selosse began the mini-solera for this wine in 1994 - there are wines that are19 year old in the blend! Until recently this wine was called Contraste, but Selosse has been releasing a series of single vineyard wines in the past few years and this one is among them, its name now La Côte Faron. The wine is gorgeous and there are many fascinating things about it. One thing I was conscious of as we drank it (over 4 hours) was glassware. We drank it out of the Riedel glass. But this wine is made entirely of Pinot Noir, and is composed of wines from vintages 1994 - 2003 (the current release includes some 2004 I believe - this one was released a few years ago). Would the inherent complexity, the aromatic expansiveness be compromised in the flute-shaped glass?

No, as it turns out. I didn't try the wine from a Burgundy bowl, but drinking it out of the Riedel glass was enough. The wine, especially after a couple hours open, showed incredible breadth, complexity, and detail, but in this glass was also entirely chiseled in its focus.

Here is a wine that I love, but have yet to drink out of the Riedel glass. Éric Rodez Cuvée des Crayères is a wine that comes entirely from Ambonnay, but it is not a Blanc de Noirs. It is a blend of a little more than half Pinot Noir and the rest Chardonnay, and it is a blend of several vintages - in this case the base wine is 2008 and there are reserve wines from 2007 back to 2002 in there. In this way it is reminiscent of the Selosse wine - the wine has an intrinsic complexity due to the high proportion of reserve wines. Okay, it's not Selosse, but it's not trying to be. And it is $55 compared with the $400 you'd spend on La Côte Faron if you could locate a bottle in the US. I look forward to seeing what this wine is like in the Riedel glass - maybe some experimentation with other glasses is in order. 

Champagne Rambling...and Tasting

I've been slowly but surely exploring Champagne in the past year or so, tasting as many as I can from both the big houses and individual growers. "Big house" refers to producers who purchase grapes from various growers and craft a Champagne that expresses a certain style that will be consistent from year to year. Examples of big house Champagne include Perrier-Jouet, Bollinger, Krug, and Duval-Leroy. "Grower Champagne" refers to wines that are crafted from grapes grown by the producer. Examples of grower Champagne include Lallement, Pierre Peters, Gaston Chiquiet, and Henri Billiot.

The distinction between "big house" and "grower" Champagne is an economic one. If a grower can profit from making wine (assuming they want to make wine), they usually make wine. If the costs of facilities, equipment, labor, risk, etc. are high enough, a grower might instead elect to sell grapes. Some producers both sell grapes and make wine.

In Champagne, there is room for market manipulation, apparently, and this is much under discussion lately. What happens, for example, if the financially deep "big houses" band together to squelch the supply of "grower" Champagne? How would they do that? By promising NOT to purchase grapes from growers who also make their own Champagne. Alice Feiring wrote about this recently and Eric Asimov mentioned it also in his recent blog post.

Stylistically the difference between big house and grower Champagne might not be detectable in a blind tasting - I wonder whether or not tasters would be able to identify wines as big house or grower in a blind tasting. Note to self - make this tasting happen this holiday season. I prefer to buy grower Champagne because I like the idea of buying wine made by a family who also grows the grapes, and also the idea of supporting smaller (or medium sized) businesses. I happily drink big house Champs too, but only when some kind soul is pouring it for me. When it's my dollar, I go for the growers.

Grower Champagne in my favorite wine shops tends to cost in the mid $30 to mid $40 range, a bit more for rose. Not cheap by any means, regardless of the value. So how to choose bottles to taste when a flop means over $30 out the window? I look for " A Terry Theise Selection" on the label. Theise has been a thorough and amorous student of Champagne (and other wine too - German Rieslings...) and his catalog (also recommended by Mssr. Asimov) is a great place to start.

Take a look at these quotes from the Theise catalog regarding two of Henri Billiot's Champagnes:

Henri Billiot Brut Réserve, N.V.
Many times I’ve felt, and said, this is the best N.V. Brut in all Champagne. That I’ve tasted! But I’m going to hedge just a little on the current cuvee, until I see what it does on the cork. I tasted a wine disgorged 2/07, made up of 50% 2003 and 25% each of ‘02-‘01. It was racy, loaded, complex and potentially amazing, but it was also disjointed and querulous from disgorgement-shock. The cuvee is always about 80% Pinot Noir but no one ever guesses, the wine is so animate, kinetic and hyper.

Henri Billiot Brut Rosé, N.V.
I forget how good this is because it’s always gone before I have a crack at it. They were pouring at at Alinea and I had a glass, and for a moment I almost forgot where I was (almost! It’s hard to forget when you’re sitting in the greatest restaurant in America…) the wine was so absurdly delicious. Again I tasted an 02/07 disgorgement but the Rosé withstood it superbly. The wine is always a year younger than the NV Brut, based only on demand; this one’s 50% ‘04 and 25% each ‘03-‘02, and the still red is 10-year old Ambonnay Pinot Noir. This may well be the best bottling yet; pure, direct roses and strawberries; chalky, vinous and charming; virtually perfect.

I don't know about you, but that really piqued my interest. So we recently tasted two Champagnes from Henri Billiot. We opened the Brut Réserve with a dessert of stewed rhubarb with fresh Vermont ricotta and a touch of wildflower honey - a terrific pairing. The astringent rhubarb with the rich and creamy ricotta went perfectly with the crystalline bubbly.

Henri Billiot Brut Réserve, N.V., $36 (Chambers Street Wines).
Nose of brioche and toast - lots of toast. Later on some berry and floral aromas. Honeysuckle, citrus, and a bit of yeast on the palate. All of this hangs on a strong frame of icy-stalactite acidity (yeah, that's a weird description, but work with me on this). Elegant and velvety mouth feel, but also structured and powerful. It is this contrast that makes the wine so fascinating to me. A definite re-buy.

We opened the rose to celebrate making it back to Brooklyn from out west in one piece, with a healthy and some what well rested baby. We enjoyed this wine with our brunch of Tello's Farm eggs, Flying Pig's Farm smoked ham, and Pain D'Avignon rye bread. Sorry - I am not one of those people who forces you to care about where my food comes from, but I do really like all of these products, so indulge me this once. Another great pairing, as the very dry rose bubbly worked perfectly with the smoky ham.

Henri Billiot Brut Rosé, N.V. $45 (Chambers Street Wines).
Lovely pale rusty pink color. Reserved nose at first but then glows with strawberry, flowers, toast, and caramel. Fresh palate with strawberry and some chalk, but the thing is the texture and the structure - light and elegant but somehow full and strong at the same time. Solid and ethereal. A great acid backbone. Another definite re-buy, but at $45 this falls into the special occasion category (sadly, as I could happily drink it every day).

Holiday Wine Dinner

We went a little over the top for this holiday version of Wine Dinner. BrooklynLady and I hosted, and we settled on the theme of Burgundy, in honor of our recent trip. Our very good friends Deetrane and his wife (and 2 month old son), and NorthCarolinaGuy and his wife NorthCarolinaGal wined and dined with us. Such a great way to spend some time with friends near the holidays - celebrate all good things together over a good meal. BrooklynLady and I prepared a 5 course dinner and everyone was asked to bring a mature red Burgundy. BrooklynLady and I put together the rest of the wine. Overall it was a hedonistic wine and dinner experience, that a brisk jog around Prospect Park the next morning did little to counter.

We nibbled on unsalted almonds and toasted with a bottle of 1998 Pierre Peters Champagne Grand Cru Blanc de Blanc Brut Millesime. This bubbly was surprising in its weight and power. It had sherry-like notes at first, seemed a bit over oxygenated. But after a few minutes it found its footing, and had nice almond and toast aromas to go with big mineral and nutty flavors. Unusual to me in that I detected no actual fruit in this wine, but plenty of minerally, nut, and herbal characteristics. I think I need to try more Champagne. Deetrane said that his favorite wine pairing of the night was actually the almonds and this Champagne.

Here was the Menu:

Fish soup with quenelles and aioli
Mushroom and shallot quiche with green salad
Rack of lamb with buttermilk mashed potatoes and white truffle oil
Five cheeses
Poached pear in vanilla and cardamom syrup with whipped cream and ginger cookies

The fish soup came from the stock I made and froze, and although the broth was okay, it was nothing like it was when I first made it. The bright flavors didn't survive the freezing and defrosting. The quenelles, my pal Adam's suggestion, were fun though. The simplest dumplings in the world, they were simply fresh flounder, cream, and grated nutmeg, all combined in a blender until smooth. Shaped using two tablespoons and poached. They had the consistency of matzoh balls, and in fact looked like matzoh balls.

The aioli was my favorite part of this dish. I have never before made aioli or any kind of mayonnaise, but this recipe from Gourmet was so simple and delicious - I might be making this regularly, to the great sorrow of my cardiologist (when I get a cardiologist, that is). It would be great with boiled shrimp or any kind of seafood and brown bread. It was great the next night with simple fried flounder.

We had 2005 Domaine Roulot Bourgogne Aligote with the soup, and it was exactly as it should be - light, crisp, clean tasting, briny and citrusy acidity. Deetrane reminded us that Aligote is the wine traditionally used to make a Kir (an aperitif using white wine and a touch of creme de cassis). I happen to have some cassis lying around the house and will investigate later today whether or not this Aligote does the job right.

BrooklynLady lined the bottom of her home made quiche crust with fresh thyme, and the mushroom and shallot mixture combined with the thyme to produce a potently earth quiche. I loved it. We opened (an hour before eating) two white Burgundies to taste with the quiche. With a little research I decided to focus on the 2000 vintage because it is considered a good, not great but good, vintage for white Burgundies, and more importantly because the wines should be ready to drink.

2000 Paul Pernot Puligny-Montrachet 1er Cru les Pucelles. We tasted at Domaine Pernot while in Burgundy, so this was a sentimental favorite. This wine had tropical fruit smells and the vanilla that I associate with new oak. NorthCarolinaGuy found prominent barnyard smells to. I could not detect them without prompting, but he is known throughout the eastern seaboard for his ability to differentiate and name the aromas of a wine. The texture of this wine was rich and thick, and to me the minerality was more prevalent than fruit or flowers. I preferred this wine to the next, as did NorthCarolinaGal, but every one else preferred the next wine...

2000 Joseph Drouhin Puligny-Montrachet 1er Cru Clos de la Garenne. Lighter, fresher nose than the Pernot, with a little bit of a floral component. The texture was more medium bodied, and the oak less prominent. Very nice minerality also, with, to me, a rainwater purity that I usually associate with Loire Valley wines. I liked this wine very much (particularly the next day on its own...sip...sip), but the quiche might have overpowered it for me.

We had three reds (opened 90 minutes before drinking) with the lamb, each interesting and immensely enjoyable.

1995 Domaine Newman Latricieres Chambertin. This is a Grand Cru vinyard in Gevrey Chambertin, and Deetrane says that this is some American guy who bought vines and basically became a French man who makes wine. I have not yet managed to find out more online about this wine, but I am hoping that Deetrane will chime in with a comment explaining a bit more. As for the wine...bright and deep ruby, with appealing redfruit and spice smells. Classic Pinot flavors of earth, redfruits, and spices, with a medium bodied mouthfeel. This wine was delicious and it kept improving over the course of the evening (and tasted great the next morning right out of the decanter that I never washed out). The one issue that some of us noticed, though, was that it had a weak-ish finish.

1997 Domaine Groffier Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru Les Amoureuses. This wine BLEW MY MIND. I will admit that I was expecting to be wowed, but this wine exceeded my expectations. Deep dark garnet color. Nose of pine, underbrush, and forest, with some dark fruit underneath. After another 20 minutes the nose was truly explosive, with some animal elements. The texture was silky and seductive, and the flavors included plummy blackberry dark fruits, pine, leather, some herbs, and a cassis-like liquor near the finish. This wine was mysterious and brooding and I suspect that although they say 1997 reds should be opened now, this wine might have a few more good years in the bottle. What should I do now - I am stuck on Robert Groffier! This is going to get expensive...

2000 Ghislaine Barthod Chambolle-Musigny 1er Cru les Cras. This wine had more purple to it than the others, and a soaring nose of bright red fruits, some bay leaf or cedar also. Les Cras is the southward continuation of the Bonnes Mares Grand Cru vineyard, and the wine shows the power and elegance you would expect. Bright red fruit flavors with cranberry acidity carried through the palate. This was a very pretty, food friendly wine with an elegant and perfumed red fruit personality. Madame Ghislaine is apparently a rising star in Chambolle-Musigny, and her Bourgogne Rouge is supposed to be one of the best values in red Burgundy.

This post is getting pretty long now, so I will be quick about the last two wines. We opened a bottle I brought back from our trip, a 1986 Louise Perrin Cotes de Beaune Villages. I loved this wine when I tasted it at the Domaine, and I enjoyed a delcious glass of it by the fireplace before dinner one night. But on this night, with 5 scrumptious cheeses (inlcuding the very Burgundian Epoisses), it was more odd than anything else. Deetrane immediately detected oyster liquor, NorthCarolinaGuy agreed, finding seaweed. I thought it smelled like rotting vegetables and tasted like Japanese rice and seaweed crackers. Hmmm...I guess after 20 years, a Cotes de Beaune Villages might vary a lot from bottle to bottle.

With our dessert we opened a well aged Loire Valley sweet wine, a 1990 Pichot Vouvray Moelleux Domaine le Peu de la Moriette. All I can say is YUM! I love these old Chenin Blancs. This one was golden amber honey colored with a lively floral nose, some apricots too. Pure flowers and honey in the mouth with a minerally rainwater finish. I could drink this wine constantly, and I did enjoy it tremendously as an aperitif while cooking dinner the next day. Alder at Vinography reviewed the 1996 vintage of this wine here. Everyone seemed to like this one.

I hope that your holiday dinners are spent with the people you love, and that your wines and eats are delicious.

A Bubbly Surprise!

Yesterday I popped into Chambers Street Wines on the way home from work to ask them about a bottle of Loire white wine I bought there a few weeks ago. It was a 1992 Savennieres from a producer whose name I cannot remember now, but I tried it because it seemed like a good opportunity to taste an older Chenin Blanc without breaking the bank - $27 for the bottle.

My wife Brooklynlady got me into Loire whites a couple of years ago, and she, as usual, has great taste. I have yet to really explore the sauvignon blanc wines of Sancerre or Pouilly Fume (although I have tried a few of the more reasonably priced sauv blancs from Menetou Salon and Quincy). Instead, I have focused on the wines she loves, from Vouvray and Savennieres. Both made from Chenin Blanc, they can be bone dry, off dry (called demi-sec on the label), or sweet (called moelleux on the label). Better producers make wines with layers of flavor, rich texture, and great herbal and mineral flavors. These wines can age for decades.

Anyway, I was psyched to taste this 92 Savennieres, and looking for the right situation to open the bottle. My pal jonnybongos, soon to move to the bay area, was around for a late dinner on Sunday night and I opened the Savennieres with the Chinese fried tofu in fermented bean sauce. The wine was just wrong - golden brown like sherry, and just as oxidized. We had to discard it, sadly.

Yesterday I decided to ask my wine gurus at Chambers Street about the wine. I haven't had many bottles of off wine and maybe I was wrong, maybe its supposed to be like that. After all, I've never tried an old Chenin Blanc that's not a dessert wine. The Chambers Street Winegirl said it was probably off, and she insisted on giving me a store credit! I was so pleased by this gesture, that I took the credit and immediately redeemed it for a bottle of NV Pierre Peters Champagne Brut. This champy is a grand cru wine made only from chardonnay, and it was described as light and elegant.

I LOVED it. It went so well with game 1 of the Yankees / Detroit Tigers series. Pronounced yeast and something nutty on the nose. Beautiful texture with fine bubbles and great acidity, and light lemons and bread on the palate. I would drink this Champagne constantly, if it were socially acceptable. And at 33 bucks a pop, it seems to be a great value in Champagne.

Now...what to enjoy with game 2?

Champagne - Some Last Tidbits

Some odds and ends to wrap up my recent trip to Champagne:

First of all, I was wrong when I said that Peter Liem hasn't yet written about single-vineyard wines in Champagne. He wrote an article that appeared in the San Fransisco Chronicle a few years back, and like everything he writes, it's worth reading.

And speaking of Peter...he was a great host. Our first night in Dizy, after a day of driving from Paris and through the Marne to visit a couple of growers, Peter whipped up quite a dinner. He likes to cook Japanese food and we ate simmered Sea Bream, age-dashi tofu, bok choy and mushrooms, miso soup with enoki mushrooms, pickles, and rice that he prepared in a clay pot.

And we drank a delicious bottle of 1999 Marie-Noëlle Ledru Brut, and then an absurdly good bottle of 1976 Diebolt-Vallois Blanc de Blancs. Amazing wine - must age more Champagne.

We also drank a fair bit of Brandy de Jerez, including the rich and concentrated Equipo Navazos La Bota de Brandy Nº 13 and the deeply satisfying Gutierrez Colosía Brandy de Jerez Juan Sebastián Elcano Solera Gran Riserva.

Peter and I drank lots of other interesting things in the late evenings, including a pair of rare Amaro that are not imported to the US. With each sip I could feel the growing outrage and resentment from my friend, the writer of the Amari file.

I got a kick out of the lunch that Alexandre Chartogne served after tasting through his wines. The terrine with the aspic ring around it was good - pork head on top, a strip of blood sausage in the middle, and other parts on the bottom. But the one that looks like a loaf of bread, the terrine with fois gras and pastry around it, that one was truly memorable. A glass jar of fois gras too, in case we wanted to sample it without the bothersome pastry around it. There was cheese too. There were no vegetables. Everything was delicious, but I hope that his diet is typically more varied. I was assured that it isn't.

I had my first taste of Bordier butter. And I got to eat it several times, actually. With sea salt, with seaweed, and plain unsalted - each one a special treat with layers of flavor and texture that I didn't know could exist in butter. It reminded me of how simple things are usually not as simple as we think they are.
I listened to Charles Philipponnat talk for a while, and he is as knowledgeable as they come. Friendly and charming, too.

I drank more Georges Laval wine in one sitting than I am likely to in the next few years.

Including his great 2009 Coteaux Champenois, from the tank.

I walked by the old vertical press at Champagne Pierre Peters. It's no longer in use, but it is a beautiful thing.

I stood mid-slope in the Clos des Goisses and looked down at the village of Mareuil-sur-Aÿ.

It was an amazing and unforgettable trip, but beyond the wine and the food and everything else, the best part was that I got to spend so much time with my good friend.