Sunday, November 07, 2004
Thursday night I was able to showcase some wines that I have been holding in my cellar at a special dinner along with fellow WinePal Ray McKewon at a dinner associated with his fine company, Accredited Home Lenders.
We began with an experiment. I had found a bottle of 1992 Matanzas Creek Sonoma County Chardonnay. Over the years this wine has never let me down, but at age 14, one would have to say that what we had was almost timeless. The wine was a clear golden yellow color. It was almost pristine. The crispness and bright fruit was there, evidence of the proper storage it has had. The wine was all golden delicious apples, green apples, peach and pears. If I would have told someone it was a 2002 release, no one would have guessed I was pulling a fast one on them.
Ray brought along a delightful 1995 Dom Perginon. There is a reason why people like Dom. This bottle proved it once again. Nice and toasty almonds, a load of peach melba, some aromatics of fresh baked bread and a long finish of apples. Wow.
As for the rest of the evening, accompanied by some of Carl Schroeder's best cooking in town at Arterra the wines were all one knock 'em over after another.
2002 Mesh Australian Riesling was a charmer. It was devoid of saturated sweetness, and had the kind of high acid that stood up perfectly to fresh briny oysters. Lemon and lime, with a gasless 7Up flavor. Solid limestone base and a long lingering finish.
2002 Fourcharme 1er Cru Chablis. This wine, from Lacroix, never lets me down. It got a lot of smiles and raised eyebrows when it was served side by side with the Riesling. Had I known how great the Matanzas Creek was going to be, it would have been an interesting match up. The Chablis is crisp, but layered with dried tropical flavors.
We then switched to red. 1990 Ravenswood Old Hill Sonoma County Zinfandel and 1990 Ridge Geyserville. Both of these wines are from what can easily be called century old vines. The Ravenswood said 99 year old and the Geyserville, well, lets just say that the vines are as old as the hills. Early on the Ravenswood had the lead, as the Ridge took a while to open up. The Ravenswood was typical Sonoma style Zin. Fruity, jammy, youthful. It had a nice plum and black cherry flavor, all interlaced with copious notes of berries. About 20 minutes later the Ridge started to emerge from its sleepy mode and revealed some very Claret like aromatics before really coming on strong. It was classic Geyserville. Those who have had Geyserville will know what I mean. I put the glass aside to drink with some Bordeauxs I knew was coming later.
2000 Deydier and 2000 Vieux des Mas Papes Chateauneuf du Pape
This are two totally different types of wines. The Deydier is very primary fruits, sauvage, hedonistic and screams for Cassoulet. The Vieux des Mas Papes, the all Grenache wine from Vieux Telegraphe is more forward and lush. Both have years to go. Each has its own pluses and minuses, the biggest being that they are both very young and have the kind of builds that will prove out over time. If you have them in quantity, try one now and then judge when you think you want to open them again. My guess is five years or more.
1978 and 1986 Chateau Margaux. If purchased off of a restaurant list these two wines would have commanded over $1000 dollars easily. Both are monumental. The 1978, which was my last bottle, could not have been consumed at a better point in time. It was glorious, and the cork showed that it had done its job, but given how high up the wine had penetrated I would not be holding these more than another two years at best, but now at age 26 it was as best as this wine has ever been in the 14 years I've held it. It was old school Margaux, not the Margaux of the 80s. Still rustic in nature, the tar, black fruit, tobacco leaf and coffee notes were all evident. The 1986, which still can go another 25 years easily has lost its backwards, tight and tannic shell. At age 18 it is clearly ready to be drunk, as it may be one of the most elegant Margauxs I've ever tasted, even more than the 1985 or 1982. It was very smooth and lush. It has gobs of forward fruit and a pristine quality that lingers in the throat for minutes. While I have a few more of these in the cellar, I won't be in a rush.
1992 and 1993 Dalle Valle Napa Cabernet. Maybe these should have been drunk first, before the Margaux wines, I'm still not sure for they showcased how great Napa Cabs can be. The 1993 is clearly more further developed and forward compared to the better structured, more age worthy 92. But I'd be splitting hairs if I said one was better than the other. The 93 is open and more aromatic. The 92 is more elegant. Think of the 93 has a more carefree wine, that you won't ever feel bad opening at any time for the next 10 years. Then realize that when you have a special occasion that the 92 with decanting and aeration will be the wine to savor for a special occasion. Black cherries, plums, mint some stony minerals. They both have it, with the 92 having the edge in what would be more wine snob appeal. Give me the 93.
We began with an experiment. I had found a bottle of 1992 Matanzas Creek Sonoma County Chardonnay. Over the years this wine has never let me down, but at age 14, one would have to say that what we had was almost timeless. The wine was a clear golden yellow color. It was almost pristine. The crispness and bright fruit was there, evidence of the proper storage it has had. The wine was all golden delicious apples, green apples, peach and pears. If I would have told someone it was a 2002 release, no one would have guessed I was pulling a fast one on them.
Ray brought along a delightful 1995 Dom Perginon. There is a reason why people like Dom. This bottle proved it once again. Nice and toasty almonds, a load of peach melba, some aromatics of fresh baked bread and a long finish of apples. Wow.
As for the rest of the evening, accompanied by some of Carl Schroeder's best cooking in town at Arterra the wines were all one knock 'em over after another.
2002 Mesh Australian Riesling was a charmer. It was devoid of saturated sweetness, and had the kind of high acid that stood up perfectly to fresh briny oysters. Lemon and lime, with a gasless 7Up flavor. Solid limestone base and a long lingering finish.
2002 Fourcharme 1er Cru Chablis. This wine, from Lacroix, never lets me down. It got a lot of smiles and raised eyebrows when it was served side by side with the Riesling. Had I known how great the Matanzas Creek was going to be, it would have been an interesting match up. The Chablis is crisp, but layered with dried tropical flavors.
We then switched to red. 1990 Ravenswood Old Hill Sonoma County Zinfandel and 1990 Ridge Geyserville. Both of these wines are from what can easily be called century old vines. The Ravenswood said 99 year old and the Geyserville, well, lets just say that the vines are as old as the hills. Early on the Ravenswood had the lead, as the Ridge took a while to open up. The Ravenswood was typical Sonoma style Zin. Fruity, jammy, youthful. It had a nice plum and black cherry flavor, all interlaced with copious notes of berries. About 20 minutes later the Ridge started to emerge from its sleepy mode and revealed some very Claret like aromatics before really coming on strong. It was classic Geyserville. Those who have had Geyserville will know what I mean. I put the glass aside to drink with some Bordeauxs I knew was coming later.
2000 Deydier and 2000 Vieux des Mas Papes Chateauneuf du Pape
This are two totally different types of wines. The Deydier is very primary fruits, sauvage, hedonistic and screams for Cassoulet. The Vieux des Mas Papes, the all Grenache wine from Vieux Telegraphe is more forward and lush. Both have years to go. Each has its own pluses and minuses, the biggest being that they are both very young and have the kind of builds that will prove out over time. If you have them in quantity, try one now and then judge when you think you want to open them again. My guess is five years or more.
1978 and 1986 Chateau Margaux. If purchased off of a restaurant list these two wines would have commanded over $1000 dollars easily. Both are monumental. The 1978, which was my last bottle, could not have been consumed at a better point in time. It was glorious, and the cork showed that it had done its job, but given how high up the wine had penetrated I would not be holding these more than another two years at best, but now at age 26 it was as best as this wine has ever been in the 14 years I've held it. It was old school Margaux, not the Margaux of the 80s. Still rustic in nature, the tar, black fruit, tobacco leaf and coffee notes were all evident. The 1986, which still can go another 25 years easily has lost its backwards, tight and tannic shell. At age 18 it is clearly ready to be drunk, as it may be one of the most elegant Margauxs I've ever tasted, even more than the 1985 or 1982. It was very smooth and lush. It has gobs of forward fruit and a pristine quality that lingers in the throat for minutes. While I have a few more of these in the cellar, I won't be in a rush.
1992 and 1993 Dalle Valle Napa Cabernet. Maybe these should have been drunk first, before the Margaux wines, I'm still not sure for they showcased how great Napa Cabs can be. The 1993 is clearly more further developed and forward compared to the better structured, more age worthy 92. But I'd be splitting hairs if I said one was better than the other. The 93 is open and more aromatic. The 92 is more elegant. Think of the 93 has a more carefree wine, that you won't ever feel bad opening at any time for the next 10 years. Then realize that when you have a special occasion that the 92 with decanting and aeration will be the wine to savor for a special occasion. Black cherries, plums, mint some stony minerals. They both have it, with the 92 having the edge in what would be more wine snob appeal. Give me the 93.
Comments:
Post a Comment
