A favorites tasting

We did something a little unusual at the Pen & Pencil Club 3 May when I presented a tasting of favorites to a private group. (I should note that I stand available and ready for private wine events, tastings, consultations, and the like: contact me at the email address here on the blog.)

The same format as usual, four wines, food to match. But there wasn’t a theme other than wines I like and want to tell others about. The group had a great time and fun was had by all.

We did two whites, a sparkler and a red. Tasting notes follow:

2006 Touraine Sauvignon La Potine Domaine Ricard
Never in any tasting will I ever have a better match of wine and cheese. This Sauvignon is Blanc, of course, from the middle Loire near the town of Cher, along the “steep, calcereous” slopes (to quote the Moore Bros. tasting notes). The goat cheese we served was Selles-sur-Cher, made, you guessed it, near the town of Cher. Who knows, maybe the goats nibbled the vineyard leaves, for the match of the cheese, ashy and stiff at first, then creamy and smooth in the mouth, with the tart, quince-y, aromatic, almost exotic, wine was heaven. It will not ever get better than this as a match. The wine was fruity, massive aromatic on the nose, spicy fruit, and, yes, the ‘cat’s pee’ Sauvignon Blanc aroma, grapefruity, lovely acidity but in balance, gooseberries and quinces, tart, delightful, refreshing, served maybe a hair too cold but warmed nicely, soft, mouthfilling finish. Organic, low-yield vineyards. Slam-dunk summer wine. Good with shrimp, poultry, sausages, bean casserole, salmon, oysters (oh yeah), Cornish hens, but most of all good with that goat cheese. These days, $12 for a wine like this from France is an absolute steal. The crowd liked it a lot. Now-2010. **** (at the Pen & Pencil Club, Philadelphia, 5/2008).

2007 O Fournier “Urban Eco” Torrontes
Speaking of exotic, I have been wanting to serve this white from Argentina’s Cafayete Valley in the northwestern province of Salta for a while; here came a good chance. Torrontes is the premier native white grape in Argentina, and if I am only an occasional fan of the country’s rather too aggressive and obvious Malbecs, I do like this grape. Under a screwcap. Not too pale, golden-ish, exotically spicy on the nose, then tons of fruit, soft, gentle, like a tropical Riesling, a hint of sweet, not a whole lot of body but enough acidity. No food served with this one, but would be good with spicy shrimp, well-flavored fish, pork, chicken. Or by itself. Alcohol there at 13.5 but in no way hot. Pears on the long finish. Intriguing wine, wonder what the $25 bottles taste like? This was a bargain at $8 but the crowd was less enthusiastic. Well, it is surely different. Good nominee for the ABC – Anything but Chardonnay – Club. Drink now. *** (at the Pen & Pencil Club, Philadelphia, 5/2008).

2004 St. Hilaire Blanquette de Limoux Extra Dry
Down in the western Languedoc, near the walled city of Carcassonne, they say this is the oldest sparkling wine in the world and they say they have been making it for 450 years, since monks first made it in the 17th century and nyah-nyah you Champenois! The Champagne people have had the last laugh, given how rich they are, but down in Limoux they still make this lovely gem of a sparkler. Despite the name, the St. Hilaire ‘Brut’ is even drier and to my mind a little sharp. This, the somewhat less sharp version, is to me better balanced and surely better with food (they also make a semi-sweet that is rarely seen; that is a dandy brunch wine). Unlike Champagne, this is made with strictly white grapes (Chardonnay, Chenin Blanc and the local Mauzac, which can be fiery). Always a classic nose and lovely light golden color, florid mousse, fizzy but not too much so, bready/appley on the palate, vigorous,
refreshing, not bone dry, hint of citrus, a nice contrast to the sweet crabmeat and shrimp cup we served. Excellent value at $11 and it’s cheaper outside of Pennsylvania. Crowd enjoyed it. This could age. Now-2012. ***1/2 (at the Pen & Pencil Club, Philadelphia, 5/2008).

2005 Chateau Thomas-Laurent Bordeaux
A challenge, because I snapped this one up salivating at the vintage – 2005 may have been the best in Bordeaux since 1982 – and it was going for $11. Now, I was not expecting Latour or Lafite-Rothschild or Petrus at that price, but I was also not expecting that my usual extensive research would turn up absolutely nothing about the wine, other than that the chateau does exist in the hills above Blaye on the right bank of the Gironde. No information on the terroir, cepage, anything. An e-mail in my awful French went unanswered. So, here it was. The basic Bordeaux, I guess, in its standard form – 12 percent alcohol, nicely deep and dark, the kind of everyday wine the Bordelais have been making for centuries and have had trouble selling lately. This kind of Bordeaux is more typical of what is made there than the Grand Crus. Anyway, very thin and disappointing on first taste, but let it in the glass for 30 minutes, or decant, and the magic of Bordeaux appears: plummy, cassis, some leathery aroma. Fruit, a tad thin, on the palate, soft mouthfeel, I am guessing a 50/50 Cabernet Sauvignon/Merlot cepage at this point. More air brings out more cassis and leather, and cigar box, cherry, earth on the finish. Maybe some Cabernet Franc here, could have a jolt of Petit Verdot flavor. Nice if not profound, a good quaff, good food wine; the match we had, with pork or chicken stew, was not ideal but the kitchen’s requirements made most other choices impractical. Would be terrific with red meat, esp. with an assertive sauce. Also fine with less grand meat, such as meatloaf. I’d be fascinated with how this would age. Crowd liked it, but not as much as the Sauv Blanc or the sparkler. Now-2013? *** (at the Pen & Pencil Club, Philadelphia, 5/2008).

2007 Wine Dinner Tasting Notes

It appears that the original posting of these notes vanished with the Angel's Share. The following represents tasting notes from the 2007 Wine Dinner held at the Pen & Pencil Club of Philadelphia in October 2007.

NV Heidseick Monopole "Blue Top" Brut
Somewhere, there's a checklist for classic Champagne: toasty aroma, plenty of mousse, crisp, appley flavor, zesty, lemon finish, and a desire to drink another flute immediately. This one checked all those high points. Couldn't have been more well-received by the guests. We served it with Scottish Imperial smoked salmon, dill cream and red onions and its freshness and zestiness cut the rich salmon very well. No, this did not have the breed and richness of Pol Roger, the evanescent lightness of Taittinger, the boldness of Lanson Black Label, the depth of Bollinger ... but it was a very nice middle-of-the-road prototype of a classic. Lasted nicely in the glass, still with crisp mousse 40-45 minutes later. At what we paid ($24) a steal. (And the elegant packaging was a plus ). ****

2004 Zind-Humbrecht Herrenweg de Turckheim Riesling
Now, if the Champagne was a prototypical classic, this was not: not much Riesling tastes like this. Would that more did. Words slightly fail me here because I was so blown away. That ultra-rich aroma, tinged with kerosene, pineapple, perfumed fruit, and hint of vanilla. Pale yellowish color. Massive depth of flavor and structure that hits you right away. Almost Sauternes-like in richness, but racier, and with a mind-blowing fruit finish (esp. apricots) that went on and on and on. Zind's wines are known for depth of flavor and richness. This was all of that. A nervous wine in that the structure had to fight off being swamped by the richness. Not especially sweet for Riesling though as it warmed, the sweetness level amped up. Could age for a decade or more; that might settle the richness down a touch. Good right now. We served it with luscious little crab-and-pimento cakes. This wine would overpower a lot of things; really good crabmeat would be fine. Also some Alsatian cheeses, veal sausages, blue trout would all be good. Not cheap ($32) but worth every penny. ****1/2

2005 David Duband Bourgogne Hautes Cotes de Nuits "Louis Auguste"
One word: fresh. From the delightful berry aroma to the entrancing first sip to the grandly sweeping, woody, earthy, Pinot Noir finish, all young and delightful and oh so fresh. Almost as effervescent as a good Beaujolais Cru (a compliment from me). Served lightly chilled - I highly recommend doing so - it was like a wine of young cherries and raspberries, with a fleeting, heady, almost magical Pinot aroma. If 2005 was like this in the Hautes Cotes de Nuits, just imagine what it was like in Gevrey or Chambolle (and given the 2005 prices imagining is what most of us will have to settle for). A pleasant bitterish finish left the palate ready for another bite of creamed portobellos. Excellent value at $25 from a wine shop in Chicago. Can age, but if you can buy village or 1er cru wines and age them and drink this lovely charmer while it's ... fresh. ****

2002 Sociando-Mallet
I have always like this big-shouldered Haut-Medoc (from St. Seurin de Cadbourne, just north of St. Estephe. It shares some of the characteristics of a St. Estephe, notably its firmness and body, but Sociando always drinks better young than do the great St. Estephe wines (or even the less great ones; I had a 2001 St. Estephe, I forget the chateau, in Paris in 2004 that was like drinking a brick wall. A big one). 2002 was one of those in-between vintages in Bordeaux, not a dazzler like 2000 or 2005, not as hot as 2003, but good wines were made, and the Sociando is one of those. All the classic Bordeaux elements: that elusive aroma of earth that says "Bordeaux" before you take a sip - it's what "terroir" is all about - then a jammy, cassis flavor that broadens to tobacco, lead pencil and leather as you swirl in the mouth, then a clean, crisp finish that went on for a while. Layers of flavor that came out in the glass. Not as fruity as, say, a 2003 would have been, and a touch austere for people used to Napa Cabs. Lacked that richness and depth of a top vintage, but also did not cost as much ($32). Perfect with lamb chops. A classic Bordeaux. Could age for 10-15 years, probably best in 2010 or so. My kind of wine. ***1/2

1989 Clos Baudoin (Prince Poniatowski) Vouvray
All of what is good about French wine is in this bottle: the historic plot (a walled vineyard), the family traditions (the Poniatowskis fought with Napoleon), the regional grape (Chenin Blanc in its homeland, the middle Loire Valley), the refusal to pander (some years, the Clos makes wines that are sweet, some years they are dry, depends on the grapes and the weather. You have to know, or ask) and attention to detail and quality. The '84 Clos was one of the best dry whites I have ever had, even after 15 years it had power and lushness. The '90 is all power. The '89 is sweet, but not overly so, pale in color, lovely quince and apricot nose, plenty of acidity to tame the sweetness, and an elegant, sweet/sour finish that went on forever. DO NOT SERVE TOO COLD!!! It will lose its luster and just be a nice quaff. Changes personalities in the glass, becomes pineappley and denser as it warms. We served it with cinnamony bread pudding, but could also go with fruit desserts (but not chocolate or anything overly sweet), foie gras, and even scallops, shrimps or a flatfish. The Prince has sold the Clos and his winery so grab these classics while you can. At $19 the steal of the century. Could age for 40 years. Any I have won't get the chance to last that long. ******

Craig LaBan's unfair, inappropriate comparisons

I am a fan of the food writing of The Philadelphia Inquirer's gastronomic critic, Craig LaBan, though that may because I don't own a restaurant. His savage negative reviews are legendary; he carpet-bombed a trendoid haven, Trust, right out of existence a few years ago much to the moans of the smug, overly complacent Philadelphia restaurant community more used to coddling than criticism. (For a recent example of a vicious LaBan pan, see: this.)

For the record, his food criticism that I am informed to comment on seems pretty accurate; if he lacks the generosity of spirit and dry wit of Frank Bruni of the New York Times he can be better on details and zeroes in on faults much more precisely.

LaBan's rather more erratic on the subject of drink; his booze clunkers come often enough so you wish the Inky would hire a wine and spirits critic (fat chance of that, given the economics of journalism these days).

His taste in red wine is, frankly, crass and obvious (fruit bombs away!), though he's much more dependable discussing whites and his work on spirits is admirable.

The latest LaBan wine effort that falls short is this. Besides reading like the winemaker paid him for the story, there's this:

"When we entered the tasting room, I saw his wines posed for a test-sip against two of France's most famous bottles."

Oh boy. Trot out the old beat-up-on-the-French gimmick again. Isn't the more obvious comparison to California wines, given the price point? And the New World origin of the wines? Or maybe to New York State?

"When you want to do something good, you can do it anywhere if you have the passion, dedication and knowledge," Razzi said.

No, you can't. You can't make Bordeaux in Pennsylvania. You can make a good red wine in Pennsylvania, but you can't make Bordeaux. Only the Bordelais can do that.

He then proceeded to pour his 2005 Ameritage, a $55 Bordeaux-style red blend, against a Bordeaux legend, a 1998 Chateau Mouton-Rothschild that runs $253 in Pennsylvania. We sipped his 2005 Chardonnay Reserve ($33.50) against a 2003 Corton-Charlemagne from Laboure-Roi (about $100), one of Burgundy's most storied whites.

Where do we start with the problems here? First, it is utterly unfair to poor Signor Razzi to compare his wine to Mouton-Rothschild, one of the world's greatest and most historic wines! Later in the story other wine experts comment that the red wine matches up with lesser Bordeaux wines. Why not use one of those, taking care to match Mr. Razzi's cepage (nebbiolo?) as much as possible - sounds like Cos-Labory, d'Armilhac, or Gloria might work.

And then the unfairness reverses. To have white Burgundy, at its height perhaps the world's most sublime white wine, represented by the wine chosen is ludicrous. First, 2003 was a notoriously hot summer in France (it was the horrible summer that so many elderly people died of heat-related illnesses) and the wine made that year all over France was fat, flabby, baked, completely atypical. And while certain American critics raved about the vintage, one Bordeaux wine maker noted, "We didn't think it was very good. But then (the American critic) raved, so we knew ..." 2003 was probably the weakest white Burgundy vintage of the 21st century so far.

Then to pick a wine from a Laboure-Roi, one of Burgundy's most pedestrian and dull winemakers, one unlikely to deal too well with 2003's special challenges, compounds the problem.

Corton-Charlemagne is unquestionably one of the great vineyards of the Cote d'Or, but a 2003 C-C from Laboure-Roi is simply not going to be anything like a Grand Cru should be. I'd bet many wines would taste as good.

These kind of missteps make me wary of the judgments that follow:

Remarkably, the Penns Woods wines held their own quite well - even if they did not have quite the resonance or complexity of those French classics. The Ameritage, mostly cabernet sauvignon, cabernet franc and merlot (with a splash of nebbiolo), was plush with licorice, cassis and cedar, riper and more balanced than almost any other local red I've tasted. The chardonnay was touched with butterscotch and zesty tangerine, but also braced with a long and flinty, mineral finish. Other Penns Woods wines, such as the lively sauvignon blanc and rich gold pinot grigio, were also impressive.

Rich Pinot Grigio? Well, maybe.

I'd like to try Mr. Razzi's wines, though their pricing, as LaBan notes, is not enticing. (For $50 I can drink good Bordeaux, for $33 Premier Cru Chablis or village Chassagne-Montrachet, Beaune, or Meursault.)

But this kind of wine writing does not help the cause. Comparisons need to be with well-made wines that match the wines being tasted, not just by spending a lot of money on big names. And the comparisons need to be fair.

LaBan would cringe at comparing haute cuisine to a crêperie, but he's made the same kind of mistake here.

Lunch at Le Bec-Fin: food good, wine off the charts

I was one of the last customers to enjoy a weekday luncheon at Philadelphia’s temple of haute cuisine, as they only serve lunch on Friday and Saturdays now (and just this week chef Georges Perrier announced he was scrapping his prix-fixe-only dinners and will serve a la carte). I still think the $52 lunch menu was a bargain, given that it offered an appetizer, entrée and the fabulous, Lucullan, dessert cart, perhaps the greatest landmark to the sweet meal-ending course ever devised. There are at least 20 choices, you can have as many as you want, and among the classics such as gateau de l’Opera, sorbet de cassis, and floating island, there pop up things such as lemon-basil cake. Get anything with pears.

I have eaten at Le Bec occasionally over the years since 1983, and the food is always never less than terrific, though at times one wonders if it could be a tad less rich and still as good. Perrier’s quenelles of pike in lobster sauce still set the standard for me for seafood and nobody does veal better. His service has had its ups and downs, which it should not given the price (prix-fixe dinner with wine for two was not less than $400 assuming a decent bottle of wine and a tip) but service at a 2007 lunch was near-perfect.

So when I was invited to luncheon by an old friend on his dime, I was of course thrilled. Since both of us needed to be functional afterwards, and we like different foods (he almost always orders a steak) we decided on wine by the glass.

And was I glad I did. Three brilliant wines, each better than the last – I was left staggered at the quality. I would imagine Le Bec’s glassware (Riedel of course) helped a lot.

I wanted a wine aperitif, knowing that: a) Le Bec’s liquor prices are staggering and b) their mixed drinks have always been so-so. So I chose a 2002 Domaine Armand Gilg Grand Cru Moenchberg Riesling from Alsace, and it was just what I wanted: a bouquet bursting out of the glass, pure Riesling fruit, a little petrol-scent, apples and peaches, tons of structure and acidity carrying the fruit, long, scented finish. Talk about whetting the palate! Served perhaps too cold, warmed up nicely. A solid ****. Now-2015.

For my monkfish-and-lobster napoleon first course, the sommelier ravished praise on the 2005 Domaine de la Chapelle Pouilly-Fuisse. And he should have – this was perfection. Easily one of the best white Burgundies I have ever had, even better than some Grand Crus – this blew away a 1998 (I think) Bonneau du Martray Corton-Charlemagne I was unimpressed with once. If I had been served this as a Puligny-Montrachet Premier Cru I’d have been very pleased and it would have trounced most village Pulignys and Chassagne-Montrachets. Pale, aroma rendolent with tropical fruit, toasty nose, spicy, creamy, rich, even a hint of pineapple, crisp, steely finish, a little vanilla there. If there was oak, it was judiciously used. Went on and on. Served just chilled enough. As I said, if this had been a Cote d’Or Burgundy, I’d have been thrilled, but this kind of splendor from the Maconnais, even from Pouilly? Who could have expected that? I didn’t want to finish it because then it would be gone. I kept the glass to savor the aroma. Easily a top-5 Chardonnay-based wine. This just shows how good the 2005 vintage was in France and especially Burgundy – as I said if the Pouillys are like this, what must the Pulignys be like (or the Montrachet and its hyphenated Grand Crus)? I can’t imagine. ****1/2. Now-2012.

Couldn't get better? Well, came pretty close. With my perfectly-done duck breast in a rich demiglace came a glass of 2000 Domaine de Courcel Pommard “Les Fremiers” Premier Cru. Here’s an example of fine winemaking in an iffy vintage; 2000 was not an easy year in the Cote de Beaune and the pinot noir can be temperamental even in a fine year. But Courcel, a family concern with four centuries of winemaking in Pommard under its belt, has few peers in Pommard; they do not destalk and try to get the most out of every grape. They conquered the elements to produce this earthy, fragrant, cassis-soaked wine which had a beguiling, soft, earthy, nose; sweet cassis and cherry on the palate, tangy, a hint of vanilla and coffee, but still tannic at the end, oak helps the structure, more cassis on the elegant finish, which never seemed to end. A mouthful of this was like having a succession of small flavor-filled fireworks going off on the tongue, one following the other in harmonic excitement. As I said, heavenly with the duck. Would have been spectacular with veal or even a well-roasted capon. At its peak, I’d say, but the tannins may last. Now-2010. ****1/2.

No wine with dessert, which included a pear tart, pistachio ice cream and macerated cherries. Finished with a lovely Cognac, I did not catch the label, smooth and well-balanced.

Let's do lunch again, eh?

The beauties of the off-vintages

As Bordeaux prices sail into the stratosphere for top vintages -- a D. Sokolin New York Times ad today listed a bottle (one bottle) of 2003 Ausone for $1,499 (!) -- these great wines become more and more inaccessible for the average wine fan. This is a terrible tragedy, really, because these are the finest red wines in the world on a consistent basis -- as good as great Burgundy can be the inconsistency factor there, especially at $100-plus a bottle, can be supremely disappointing.

So can non-Rockefeller wine fans bid great Bordeaux adieu? Not at all.

The same NYT food section had an ad for 2004 Bordeaux from Zachy's. 2004 is a classic "tweener" vintage -- between the deep-baked grapes of the 2003 heatwave that make, apparently, massive fruit-bomb type reds and the 2005s that everyone is having orgasms over (I must say that the 2005s from Beaujolais are dazzling, so maybe the vintage was great all over France).

People with more money than sense will fling their dollars after 2003s and 2005s -- forgetting the perfectly good 2004s. And the prices in the ad reflect this - classed-growth Pauillac under $28, Grand-Puy Lacoste under $40, Cos d'Estournel at $85, Leoville Les Cases at $90. This is Zachy's too, which is not known for low prices (indeed the opposite).

Believe me, the 2004s at those prices will give immense pleasure.

As an example of what pleasures non-marquee vintages can bring, I drank my last bottle of the 1997s the other day, from Calon-Segur (St. Estephe), one of my very favorite properties, with a roast beef, roasted veggies, Yorkshire Pudding dinner. It could not have been better -- an exotic aroma; rich and racy on first taste, with heady eucalyptus scents roaring up to the nose. Then came light cassis, leather, tobacco, followed by a refreshing finish with a touch of that eucalyptus flavor. Spectacular -- and 1997 was considered a very shaky vintage. (Having said that, it's time to drink up the 97s; a Lafon-Rochet I had in December was sturdily good at first but faded as the night went on.)

In short: skip the overpriced 2000, 2003 and 2005 vintages and go for the off-vintages: there are treasures out there.