Saturday, March 21st, 2009
21st March 2009
Anne Siegrist of top Pfalz producer Bürklin-Wolf joined hands with Bürklin’s importer in China, Globus Fine Wines, to host a fascinating dinner and tasting at Jaan Restaurant (Beijing Raffles Hotel).
The stars of the evening were the 2002 Bürklin-Wolf Riesling Gaisböhl ‘Grand Cru’ and the 1990 Bürklin-Wolf Wachenheimer Böhlig Riesling Reserve Auslese.
However, the 2007 Riesling Trocken is well worth looking at (and is, mercifully, not too on the Trocken side with the ripeness of fruit Pfalz can boast).
Here’s what we tasted:
Bürklin-Wolf Riesling Trocken, Pfalz 2007
Bürklin-Wolf Riesling Gaisböhl ‘Grand Cru’, Pfalz 2002
Bürklin-Wolf Pinot Noir, Pfalz 2006
Bürklin-Wolf Wachenheimer Böhlig Riesling Reserve Auslese 1990
Saturday, December 6th, 2008
6th December 2008, Maison Boulud, Beijing
Xavier and Marie-Helen Borie of Chateaux Grand-Puy-Lacoste and Haut-Batailley, two of Pauillac’s most respected properties, hosted a dinner at Maison Boulud in Beijing’s impressive Legation Quarter. They were joined by Mark Walford of specialist UK importer Richards Walford.
With a fantastic menu (see below), overseen by Daniel Boulud (in New York) and executed by Maison Boulud’s superb Beijing team, guests tasted their way through the following vintages (click on links for full tasting notes):
Château Haut-Batailley, Pauillac 2004
Château Haut-Batailley, Pauillac 2002
Château Grand-Puy-Lacoste, Pauillac 2002
Château Grand-Puy-Lacoste, Pauillac 2000
Château Haut-Batailley, Pauillac 1996
Château Grand-Puy-Lacoste, Pauillac 1996
Château Grand-Puy-Lacoste, Pauillac 1990
Château Grand-Puy-Lacoste, Pauillac 1986
Menu:
‘Pâte en Croute’ (Mosaic of Fall Game with Foie Gras in a Savoury Crust)
Langoustine and Rabbit ‘Gumbo’ (Pyramid Ravioli of Simmered Rabbit with Herbs and Crispy Langoustine with Okra)
‘Truite Pique au Lard’ (Green Cabbage-Wrapped Trout with Pine Nut Gremolata, Studded with Pancetta and Sage)
Duo of Beef (Braised Short Ribs with Porcini Marmalade and Pomme Paille, Roasted Tenderloin with Walnut Marrow Toast)
Brie aux Truffes with a Frisée Salad
Sorbet aux Fruits rouge with a ‘Minestrone’ of Forest Berries and Madagascar Vanilla Ice Cream
There were clearly some beautiful wines here (the 1990 Grand-Puy-Lacoste was showing brilliantly). The Bories were on something of an Asian tour, in place of showing their wines at the UGC tasting, having taken in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore with similar dinners.
Our thanks go to the Bories, Mark Walford, Simon Zhou, Ignace Lelceir, Koen Masschelein, Carine Chu and Marcus Ford for making these dinners possible.
Wednesday, May 28th, 2008
An excellent seminar presented by Stefan Schindler of the German Wine Institute:
2007 Riesling Auslese Hattenheimer Nussbrunnen, Georg Müller Stiftung, Rheingau
Riesling Auslese Hattenheimer Nussbrunnen 2007
Appearance: light green gold.
Nose: green apple, but also some white peach with some slate aromas.
Palate: good fruit, very good balance of acidity to residual sugar (around 80 g/l) with promising length.
Conclusion: lovely stuff. Very young now, but with great potential. Ideal around 2017, if you can wait.
Rating: 18/20
2005 Riesling Auslese Leiwener Laurentiuslay, Reh Kendermann, Mosel
Appearance: medium green gold.
Nose: very mineral first nose with a touch of petrol, then green fruits (apple principally) with a little botrytis.
Palate: quite rich mouth-feel for Mosel (Auslese-effect). Very good balance of sugar to acidity (at a higher level of about 108 g/l r.s.). Good length.
Conclusion: high quality Mosel Auslese. Drink now to 2015, perhaps longer.
Rating: 18/20
2005 Riesling Auslese Zeltinger Deutschherrenberg, Markus Molitor, Mosel
Appearance: medium green gold.
Nose: distinctly spicy – Stefan Schindler mentioned that the Zeltingen vineyards tend to impart this aromatic, spicy quality – with lovely apple fruit. Very concentrated nose.
Palate: lovely balance of residual sugar to acidity (121 g/l r.s.). Great extract and very good length.
Conclusion: excellent stuff, not surprising given the overall quality of Markus Molitor’s wines. Drink now to 2015, but will last longer.
Rating: 18.5/20
2006 Riesling Auslese Goldkapsel Forster Stift, Bassermann-Jordan, Pfalz
Appearance: medium green gold.
Nose: bright apple fruit, lovely pure nose all round, if a bit closed right now.
Palate: marked residual sugar – actually at 130 g/l and was almost classified as Beerenauslese – with great acidity and decent fruit.
Conclusion: clearly very good. Needs time, however. Drink 2010-2016 or longer.
Rating: 18/20
2005 Riesling Beerenauslese Bernkastel-Kueser Kardinalsberg, Moselland, Mosel
Appearance: lovely gold.
Nose: very raisined with candied apple underneath, dried apricot, and very well-integrated botrytis.
Palate: excellent balance of marked residual sugar (180 g/l r.s.) to acid. Considerable extract and length.
Conclusion: clearly very good Riesling Beerenauslese. Drink now to 2015, or longer.
Rating: 18.5/20
2005 Riesling Beerenauslese Brauneberger Juffer, Max Ferd. Richter, Mosel
Appearance: lovely gold to amber.
Nose: rich quince and fig nose with considerable botrytis and some petrol notes. Complex.
Palate: extremely well-balanced with super sugar (260 g/l), but superbly well-balanced with lovely acidity, fruit and considerable length.
Conclusion: very, very good indeed. Top stuff. Drink now to 2015, but can age longer.
Rating: 19/20
2007 Scheurebe Beerenauslese Ziegelangerer Ölschnabel, Winzergemeinschaft Franken, Franken
Appearance: medium gold.
Nose: peachy tart nose with ‘sweet and sour’ quality.
Palate: peach-driven palate with white pepper. Quite well-balanced with 166 g/l sugar to quite good acidity.
Conclusion: interesting to taste. Scheurebe is a cross between Riesling and Sylvaner. Drink now to 2012.
Rating: 17/20
2005 Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese Johannisberger Mittelhölle, G. H. von Mumm, Rheingau
Appearance: deep amber.
Nose: immensely concentrated, yet restrained nose of pleasant botrytis, raisined and savoury fruit.
Palate: intensely sweet (334 g/l r.s.) with lovely acid and very good length.
Conclusion: very good indeed. Johannisberg was actually where Spätlese was nominally discovered, at least the properties of later harvesting and/or botrytis (apparently). Drink now to 2015, although basically indestructible.
Rating: 18.5/20
1990 Riesling Auslese Niersteiner Pettenthal, Rappenhof, Rheinhessen
Appearance: deep gold.
Nose: very concentrated quince fruit with some mellowed apple fruit, spice, slate and a touch of petrol.
Palate: mellowed high acidity, decent length and well-balanced (with 134 g/l r.s. but mellowed).
Conclusion: very nice indeed, from a lovely year, and nice to see a wine of this quality from Rheinhessen which tends to get overlooked simply because of the volume of cheaper wine the region produces. Very good. Drink now, but can still go a bit, clearly.
Rating: 18.5/20
Saturday, September 15th, 2007
Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo, Vertical Tasting
Presenting his wines at Aria restaurant in a tasting organized by ASC, Michele Chiarlo revealed that the family owns some 6 hectares of the Cerequio vineyard or about 40% of the total (with the likes of Angelo Gaja, Roberto Voerzio and Aldo Conterno controlling the rest of the vineyard).
The yield is generally at 35 hl/ha. He affirmed the care taken in extracting the better tannins from Nebbiolo before the bitter tannins take over: something the grape can easily show in less carefully made examples. 33% of production is sold in Italy with the rest going overseas, principally to the US and UK.
2003 Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo
Appearance: deepish purple-red, orange rim.
Nose: Very ripe red cherry, some ‘heat’ from the alcohol here, but there are still Nebbiolo characters coming through with some tar aromas. Oak is not over-dominant and with most of these notes I’ve hardly talked about oak because it’s well-integrated and almost hidden as Nebbiolo takes over.
Palate: big fruit, tight and close but ripe tannins; has impressive acidity for such a difficult vintage, some almond character and also peppermint and clove.
Conclusion: a very good wine for such a demanding vintage. Sensibly, they did not de-leaf in this vintage knowing that the grapes hardly needed much exposure to the sun in the fierce 2003 heat. Good, but it will never be a great Barolo year, not even from this vineyard and this producer.
Rating: 17.5/20
2001 Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo
Appearance: Medium to medium-deep purple-red, orange rim.
Nose: toasty first nose, a lot more immediately perfumed than the 2003 with a gamey aroma and beautiful red fruits (cherry, redcurrants, even cranberry).
Palate: has ripe large grainy tannins, excellent acidity and considerable finesse. There’s a great balance here on the palate with delicacy, freshness and lovely length.
Conclusion: Very good. A lovely expression of Barolo in a fine year.
Rating: 18.5/20
2000 Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo
Appearance: Deep purple-red (deeper colour than the 2001 certainly), slightly orange rim.
Nose: More tar on the first nose than perfume. Lavish fruit: more black cherry here than the red fruits you’d normally expect from most Piemonte Nebbiolos (at least those that haven’t had a bit of Barbera added!).
Palate: tannins are ripe and chunky. Considerable black fruits, but there isn’t the staying power here of the 2001 and there’s a slight problem with the palate. It’s not that the wine is short in length: there’s a gap between the generosity of the nose and a palate that gives a little less.
Conclusion: the palate notes here sound overly critical; but I can see why Chiarlo himself has more time for his 2001. This won’t last as well as the 2001 and will be an attractive earlier drinker, still of impressive quality.
Rating: 18/20
1999 Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo
Appearance: Medium to medium-deep purple-red, orange rim (similar in colour to the 2001).
Nose: Very perfumed indeed – in that way that Nebbiolo at this level is indescribably perfumed, just like great Pinot Noir. Very concentrated ripe red fruits.
Palate: has the feel of ‘sweet’ fruit on the palate, excellent acidity and gripping, ‘angular’ tannins (whereas the tannins on the 2000 were chunky and chewy).
Conclusion: very, very good indeed and, along with the 1997 and 1990, probably my favourite (with the 2001 being a close contender).
Rating: 19/20
1998 Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo
Appearance: dark purple-red, orange rim (but orange rim is less extensive than that on the 1999).
Nose: has an immediate clove nose with tar, pepper and ripe cherry fruit.
Palate: tannins are chunky here and the palate is very much like the 2000 but with a better overall structure, i.e. the ripe cherry fruit is more integrated and there’s a better balance between fruit, tannin, acidity and alcohol.
Conclusion: very interesting to taste comparatively. Obviously similar to the 2000 in style, but better overall. Although the below rating is the same as the 2001, I think I prefer the 2001 to the 1998, at least in this tasting.
Rating: 18.5/20
1997 Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo
Appearance: Medium to dark purple-red (I know this sounds strange, but these wines are a real mix of colours and hues)
Nose: first nose has lots of violets, perfume and also rose petal. Throughout, there is the ‘sweet’, ripe red fruits of the 1999 vintage.
Palate: similar to the 1999 with ripe red fruits and perfume, but the tannins are bigger here. Excellent length.
Conclusion: the 1999 is more ‘delicate’ or lighter on the nose and palate than the 1997, but the 1997, with its relative burliness, might last longer. There are both wonderful vintages, however, and point-for-point, this and the 1990 were my top wines.
Rating: 19.5/20
1996 Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo
Appearance: dark purple core with a real spread of red to orange in the rim.
Nose: shows a very clove and tarry nose – like the 2000 and the 1998 – with concentrated, even closed, red and black cherry fruit.
Palate: fruit is riper and ‘sweeter’ on the palate than expected with very big, chunky tannins and good acidity.
Conclusion: this wine will need a lot of time. Could do 10-20 more years and may well be superb eventually.
Rating: 18.5/20 [but could be higher with further age]
1995 Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo
Appearance: deep purple-red, orange rim.
Nose: lots of peppermint, tar and perfume with a mixture of red and black cherry fruit.
Palate: has ‘dusty’ big fruit, hefty and chunky tannins, acidity that seems higher here than on other vintages (or is more noticeable).
Conclusion: obviously impressive, but not as conversation-stopping as some of the other wines. Still very good, however.
Rating: 18.5/20
1993 Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo
Appearance: deep purple-red, orange rim.
Nose: has a very ‘Christmas cake’ first nose with clove, cinnamon and candied fruit.
Palate: shows more peppermint on the palate with lovely red fruits, decent marked acidity and ripe ‘fresh’, i.e. light, tannins (no doubt mellowed with age).
Conclusion: Ready to drink, although will still improve. A lighter, attractive vintage.
Rating: 18/20
1990 Barolo Cerequio, Michele Chiarlo
Appearance: medium purple-red, orange rim (still has considerable colour but has a wider gradation of orange rim than the other wines)
Nose: white truffle nose – the first wine to have this truffle quality – also other mushrooms, red fruits and some perfume.
Palate: mellowed but still lean tannins with generous fruit, complex truffle flavours and great acidity.
Conclusion: this wine still needs time in my book. It’s obviously a massive vintage and it would certainly be better to drink the 1993 before this wine. Stupendous and extremely generous of Michele Chiarlo to bring this over from his personal cellar.
Rating: 19.5/20
Monday, June 6th, 2005
1990 Tokay Pinot Gris, Vendange Tardive, Hugel, Alsace
Appearance: deep green gold verging on amber.
Nose: honeyed, spicy nose, with lingering pear fruit and a gingerbread note.
Palate: rich, fat palate with decent residual sugar but also good acidity and balanced high alcohol. Honeyed fruits are long and the balance here is impressive.
Conclusion: a classic Pinot Gris in this style. Hugel rarely disappoints.
Rating: 18.5/20
Friday, March 18th, 2005
We were delighted to be able to visit Krug at their historic house in Reims, Champagne (this was before the hand-over to LVMH). Our thanks to Pascale Rousseau and also Laure Mérillon who was very informative, forthcoming and an excellent host.
The sheer number of wines and range of years that comprise the base wines for Krug’s Grand Cuvée is astonishing: often up to fifty or so wines, some as old as fourteen years blended from the Reserve stocks. Krug also keeps all its bottles for much longer before release than any other house (as well as, notably, doing the first fermentation in oak).
So by the time you drink the Grand Cuvée you are getting much more than even a sophisticated NV or some vintage wines can offer. The emphasis is all on blending and not especially on vintages. In fact, Krug only tends to make vintage wines in exceptional years. For example, the house decided not to make any vintage wines in 1992 and 1993; so there will be a lot of pressure on stocks of the 1990 (not that we can afford to buy any in any case!).
Krug Grand Cuvée
Appearance: gorgeous deep straw gold to brass colour.
Nose: very complex nose featuring apples, custard, crème anglaise, white currants, floral notes, marked Pinot Noir and Pinot Meunier fruit, old oak, ‘a mixture of old and young characteristics’. Both rich (‘aged’) and very fresh.
Palate: intensely layered fruit and savoury aromas, fine high acidity and superbly delicate mousse. Very long, but a bit fierce at present.
Conclusion: amazing Champagne and one that would benefit from some further ageing in bottle, in fact.
Rating: 18.5/20
1990 Krug
Appearance: deep gold almost orange colour.
Nose: more developed nose than that on the Grand Cuvée, but you can tell a stylistic affinity between the two, even although they are very different wines in composition. Deep Pinot fruit, almost spicy, mature nose, oak, very layered.
Palate: intense and concentrated, but mellowing palate with strong Pinot-dominated fruit, great acidity, a lovely softened mousse and great length.
Conclusion: seems more ready to drink than the Grand Cuvée. Is this more approachable even than 1988 Krug? The 1988 is probably better, but both are amazing.
Rating: 19/20
Thursday, January 6th, 2005
1990 Graacher Himmelreich Riesling Spätlese, Friedrich-Wilhelm-Gymnasium, Mosel
Appearance: deepish green gold.
Nose: honeyed, fading apples and pears, kerosene, some cheese.
Palate: good balance of acid to sugar, rich, good length. Pleasant honeyed fruit.
Conclusion: we’ve enjoyed the 1990 wines from Gymnasium more than the 1989s, although the 1990s have usually been Spätlesen with that extra bit of richness (not discounting the difference between vintages, however). This was a particularly good bottle.
Rating: 18/20
Thursday, December 25th, 2003
1990 Château Léoville Barton, Saint-Julien, Bordeaux
Appearance: red purple, orange brick rim.
Nose: ‘indescribable’ was the first note, but the wine had everything on the nose that could be associated with sophisticated red Bordeaux, particularly from the Medoc: cassis, blackcurrants, pencil shavings, tobacco, spices (derived probably from aged French oak rather than the blend of grapes), beautiful oak. Amazing.
Palate: medium softened tannins, astonishing length, good acidity, medium-high alcohol, power and poise (maybe the alcohol seems higher than 12.5% because you are bombarded with so much sensation in approaching this wine - although labelling laws allow some latitude).
Conclusion: this was the first time we’d tried Léoville Barton and could easily see why just about every significant wine writer or journalist points to Léoville (and Langoa) Barton as a source of fairly priced fantastic claret: Michael Broadbent, Hugh Johnson, Jancis Robinson, Clive Coates, Andrew Jefford, Charles Metcalfe, Robert Joseph etc. If other bottles of the 1990 are like this they can be enjoyed now and for the next decade. Amazing.
Rating: 19/20
1986 Château Léoville Barton, Saint-Julien, Bordeaux
Appearance: red purple, some fading of the rim but still strong in colour (actually darker than the bottle of the 1990).
Nose: a little closed at first, dusty and requiring a good deal of aeration in the glass, but it showed through with strong cassis, maturing French oak (though by no means mature), spice and a general stylistic similarity to the 1990, although with less obvious fruit (and it was very different in weight and structure on the palate).
Palate: more tannic than the 1990, big structure, good acid, robust, chewy and showing potential for further ageing (apparently a lot of 1986s are like this). Very, very long.
Conclusion: utterly brilliant but requiring more time. In all honesty – although we’ve tasted red Bordeaux of this ilk and quality before – it takes a little getting used to the idea that this wine will mature for another 20 years or longer.
Rating: 18.5/20 [could be higher with time]
