Easy Buy: Clos Roche Blanche

Keeping an open mind is often hard to do for wine lovers. Impressions become hardened, be it those that assume all California wine is over-ripe, oaky monsters or that all red wine from the Loire is insipid. That latter opinion had been mine for a while, but like most uninformed opinions it was based on erroneous assumptions. The fact is that, no matter what region you are talking about, you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find your prince. Well, my prince has come in the form of Clos Roche Blanche. Completely guilt free wines, this producer was making wines organically before it was all the rage to do so and vinification is in a decidedly non-interventionist way. These wines deliver wonderful purity of fruit and food-friendly acidity at affordable prices (all under $20); what's not to like?

• 2005 Cuvée Côt - Great pure, plummy dark fruit excellently framed. Some licorice and white pepper add to the complexity to the nose. Great minerality. Still pretty dusty from the tannin even with a decant, but it showed impeccable balance and control for a wine this inexpensive. This is how Malbec should be done.
  
• 2006 Cuvée Côt - But for the fact that this is not the '05, I would have been pretty excited about this wine.    Very good purity of fruit and some nice complexity, but I found it a bit hard and rustic. It still had the great minerality I've come to find in Clos Roche Blanc and good balance. This may blossom with a little more bottle time. In any event, it certainly makes a nice everyday, food friendly wine.
  
• 2006 Sauvignon No. 2 - A lovely, delicate expression of Sauvignon Blanc with a floral citrusy nose. It has an herbal quality of the Loire, although not the grassiness of Sancerre. With clean lines and great acidity, you forgive the lack of truly interesting fruit. I'd be shocked if this saw anything but stainless steel. A perfect wine to cook with and drink at the same time.
  
• 2006 Sauvignon No. 5 - More interesting aromatically than the No. 2, the No. 5 is not quite as focused and clean cut. That said, I loved the juicy tropical fruit it showed which seemed reminiscent of a good California Sauvignon Blanc, but with more minerality and acidity. Of the two Sauvignons it is the more creamy and full in the mouth leading me to believe this has seen some oak.
  
• 2006 Cabernet - I liked this OK, but it was probably my least favorite of the stable. Primarily Cabernet Franc with some interplanted Cabernet Sauvignon, it is fairly typical Loire. It had nice floral aromatics with a pleasant herbal quality over dark berries and pronounced earth and leather notes. It was much less interesting on the palate with mouth-drying, rustic tannins adding some mouthfeel to an otherwise thin wine. It did show nice minerality and a surprising grapefruit-like acidity. Ultimately though, it lacked the charm of the Côt or the '05 Cabernet.
  

Clos des Papes Vertical - 1969-2005

There is no better way to assess a domaine than to do an extended vertical. I was one of nine hardy souls that gathered at Tribeca Grill (which has an amazing Rhone list) to sample a dozen vintages of Paul Avril's Clos des Papes.  One of the consistent stars of Châteauneuf-du-Pape, the 2005 was memorialized by Wine Spectator as their 2007 Wine of the Year, the wines of Clos des Papes are traditionally Grenache dominated (around 65%, vintage depending) and the character of that variety is evident across vintages. I wouldn't say there is a "house style," but there was an amazing consistancy across vintages that show the quality of the terroir.  The showing reenforced my views of Clos des Papes and proved out my thought that these wines are best left alone for at least 10 years.

We had the best intention of dumping the underperformers, but those were somewhat lacking (which had a somewhat deleterious effect). Most of the bottles were drained to the dregs. I've not listed the 1993 and 1997 which were corked.

• 1998 Clos des Papes Blanc - An interesting wine. The nose was somewhat delicate which belied the fullness it was to show in the mouth. Underlying the ample fruit was a lemony acidity and an impressive minerality that made me think of peach pits. Surprisingly, there was also a popcorn-like note that made me and others think of white Burgundy. Thank goodness this wasn't blind or we'd look pretty foolish.
  
• 1969 Clos des Papes - A stunning wine. The nose was ethereal and full of mature nuance of wild mushrooms, truffles and herbs overlying a bed of raspberries. The palate was exceptionally delicate with earthy wild raspberries framed on the entry and finish by garrigue. The finish also showed a touch of spiciness. With no noticable tannin, the fruit lulled quietly along on string of acidity. While others remarked that the finish was short, I could not disagree more. I found a sneaky persistance to the wine that I believe owed a debt to the acidic structure. The thing I loved about this wine was the quiet self-assurance it showed. Whereas many of the later wines shouted to you, this one made you lean in to hear a whisper.
  
• 1989 Clos des Papes - This wine is built to age and gave the impression of a much younger wine in both its vigor and how primary the fruit showed. The nose was a kirsch bomb with kirsch-y kirsch and some kirsch. The fruit was exceptionally pure and was not completely without secondary nuance, however, with notes mushrooms, black tea and touch of truffle. The palate was even more kirsch and black pepper. Whatever reservations I have about the showing of this wine are assuaged by the amount of tannin and the great underlying acidity. This wine has made it almost 20 years and it will probably be another 10 before it blossoms, which is amazing for a Grenache based wine.
  
• 1994 Clos des Papes - A workhorse of a wine that is probably drinking as well right now as it ever will. It started out feral and funky, sauvage, with raspberries, blood and tar, as if a horse had run for miles only to be run over on a stretch of newly paved highway. On the palate it was thick and sappy, the herbal raspberry character over a current of acidity. Without food, it was a little sharp and it evened out nicely with charcuterie. Still, I didn't sense that this had the stuff to be a great wine.
  
• 1995 Clos des Papes - I had figured this would have opened up some over the years, but it remains tight and unrelenting. On the nose there is an appealing earthy raspberry character and some spiciness. It is was quite ungenerous on the palate, which is a shame because you could sense the great purity to the fruit. Nice architecture, but structure for structure's sake. Some wines are just hard wines.
  
• 1998 Clos des Papes - An absolutely stellar showing for this wine. It was quintissential CdP with a heady mix of sweet red fruit, garrigue and licorice. Notes of bloody beef and tar also made an appearance. The palate presence on this was just astounding with raspberries, herbs and a slight spiciness carried through the finish by a tart acidity. The tannins were present but not obtrusive and added to the mouthfeel rather than obscure the fruit. It also possessed an appreciable earthy minerality that should come more to the fore with age. Really one of the few wines of the evening where the breadth matched the exceptional depth and the length. Easily wine of the night for me and the favorite of the majority of the group.
  
• 1999 Clos des Papes - We were lucky enough to drink this out of magnum, so we were able to go back and get a second impression. At first, it was fairly charmless. Some kirsch, some vanilla, a bit of garrigue, but not much there. In the mouth in was a bit thin and diluted with a short finish. When we went back to it later, while it was still firm and buttoned down, it started to show a more elegant side. It was still more structure than anything else, but it came across as classy and old-school instead of stiff. Perhaps the .750s would show a little flashier, but I suspect that these will take time.
  
• 2000 Clos des Papes - A very good wine that will require a measure of patience. The nose of sweet red fruit is a mit obscured by a distracting dollop of vanilla. Once that integrates it will be able to express better some of the bloody beef and garrigue characterisics underlying. Fairly big, but not outsized, in the mouth, there seemed to be a little less in the way of tannin and acidity, but certainly was enough to carry the fruit. It was a little less evolved than the '98, but was still fairly open and friendly. That said, just because you can drink it doesn't mean you should and allowing time for the pieces to knit together is a must for this wine. It shows great promise.
  
• 2001 Clos des Papes - A great marriage of power and elegance. It is still unspooling and requires some patience, but it's all in there. The nose is classic CdP with raspberries, herbs and a little gaminess. It was fairly nimble in the mouth with good ripeness unlinerlined by refreshing acidity. The tannins are a bit obtrusive and left it feeling a bit thin on the midpalate, but it fleshed out as the evening wore on and should come around with bottle age. Whatever urge you have to open this one, resist because there appears to be a lot of subtlety here that needs substantial time to emerge. It is certainly built to last.
  
• 2003 Clos des Papes - Looks like we got one of the good bottles of the '03. It really is a whale of a wine with tons going on. Kirsch, kirsch and more kirsch on the nose mix with a tasteful melange of asian spices, vanilla and tar. I'm a bit of a sucker for cardamum in wine, but the combination of the spice and vanilla got me thinking about oak and I really didn't want to go there. It had wonderful presence on the palate, being weighty but not heavy, with dark raspberry framed by silky tannins and a lemony acidity. It is of monumental size and is really exciting to drink, but it isn't quite at rest right now and all the pieces don't completely make sense in the context of the wine. The '05 seemed a touch more precise. Let it sit a while and cross your fingers you didn't get a bad batch.
  
• 2004 Clos des Papes - I was a bit surprised about this bottle, which I expected to show better. It had ample ripeness with sweet black fruit and Christmas spice, but it seemed too advanced for a 4 year old wine. It wasn't falling apart or anything, but it seemed a bit too precocious, too showy. Ali noted, "It's good tonight!" which left unspoken that it didn't really hold much interest beyond a one nighter. A look-at-me wine that I just didn't get, but I don't think anyone didn't enjoy it. A bit of a guilty pleasure.
  
• 2005 Clos des Papes - I felt this wine was slightly more compelling that '03. It had the quintissential Grenache character of sweet kirsch and herbs on the nose. It was showing a bit too much vanillin of its youth, but there was also some great secondary characteristics peeking out, such as licorice. The palate was pretty tannic and tightly wound, but the fruit was so pure and it was underlined by a nice acidity. It's a powerful, structured wine that didn't feel tricked out. Have some patience though; this is not as wide open as some other '05s I've had.
  

The Battle for Wine Hearts and Minds

For those French speakers out there, there is an interview of Robert Parker in today's Le Figaro. Not a lot on news in it (big shocker-'07 compares most directly to '97 or '99 vintages in BDX!), but I thought there was an interesting bit at the end. When asked about the dominant style of today, he dismissed the question (he basically calls the "international style" a media creation) and chose to highlight the efforts of young and new winemakers in the south of France, as well as Italy and Spain, working with indiginous cépages that in the past have been ignored or farmed off to cooperatives. In another place, he cites the move in Spain from a cooperative mindset to an artisinal one as the great improvement there. He also said that it was a myth that consumers love oaky wines (wood can mask the nuance of fruit in the name of rounding off the wine and adding flavors like espresso or spice).

I think that one of the reasons for this myth is the fact that I have been highly criticized for liking strong wines, very oaky and extracted. All that is far from the reality. It suffices to read my newsletter or my books to convince oneself. It's the same thing for the consumer. Consumers seek a pure wine, with character and this will always be the case. [my translation]

I had to double check that I wasn't reading an interview with Keith Levenberg. Not everyone is convinced though. As my friend Steve Eisenhauer noted, "I take what he says in his reviews much more seriously than what he says in an interview and there is a significant divergence between the two." In other words, notwithstanding his protestations, Parker rewards wines other than those he said are good for the industry in the Le Figaro article.

Still, I wonder if we can move past the old arguments. For those unaware, there has been a Balkanization of the wine world between what is regarded as the "Parkerization" of winemaking vs. "traditional" winemaking. The fight has gotten rather ugly recently with both side hunkering down and resorting to juvenile behavior (for example, Mark Squires prohibits mention of the anti-Parker gadfly Alice Fiering). Notwithstanding the vitriol, there is much common ground and the differences have narrowed, although no one seems to want to admit it. Change is afoot and the examples are many: the pendulum seems to have swung back to some degree on alcohol and ripeness in California; there is a revolution of artisinal producers in well-priced regions like the Loire; the concentration of corporate ownership in Champagne is causing people to seek out grower Champagne; and the list goes on and on. In some ways, the rocky dollar and pound and the spiraling increase in prices of the vins de garde is driving people to look elsewhere and that elsewhere is artisinal producers that are more in touch with the land (be it biodynamic, organic or good sense). That certainly has been the case for me, where my purchases of '05 BDX and California Cabernet has left me returning to my roots of searching for inexpensive wines from lesser know regions. I've discovered wonderful wines from Touraine, Beaujolais, Austria, among others that I wasn't even looking for a year ago. You should have seen Lyle Fass' face when I came in asking for Chinon. There have been misses for sure, but I finally enjoy the hunt again after cringing through recent high priced purchases.

Bob has been pretty consistent with trumpeting diversity as a great thing for the global wine market, but that has been fairly well drowned out by the din of the old arguments on style. Clearly uniformity, to the extent it existed or was regarded as a goal, is now fairly consistently seen as a negative and stylistic differences are being prized more greatly. I think everyone should be happy with that. Perhaps those here that feel they need to defend Bob so vehemently can prize the diversity of opinion when it trends away from wines of amplitude and those that constantly take pot-shots can accept his place in the world while they try to establish theirs...or perhaps people will continue to argue over the same old things.

My New Career-Pouring the '06 R-M Pinots

I had the pleasure to quit my day job for an evening and pour Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir for Thomas Brown at the Maybach event in New York last night. While I had not previously considered a job as a professional wine pourer, I think that I have the skills and the drive necessary to reach the top of that avocation. Most people that pour wines have to also work in the cellars, cleaning, disinfecting, getting their hands dirty. They call them cellar rats, honestly, enough said. I, meanwhile, stay above the fray imparting wisdom as if on high. It is not an easy job, mind you. I had to listen to myself say the same thing over and over again for almost 2 hours. Anyone that has spent an evening with me can attest to how tedious that can be. Yet, I persevered my own pedantic ramblings on vineyard sites and pH to enjoy the interplay with the hoi polloi. After all, I feel like I owe it to them, poor souls that they are. They need my cool reassurance and guiding hand extended to pour the next glass and describe to them what they were tasting. How would they know otherwise? Would they know sassafras if it hit them over the head? I think not. So, I was forced to drink with them. I do acknowledge a certain lack of professionalism in that act, however, I felt that my flock needed a shepherd. I debased myself, yes, but on their behalf, wretched as they were, devoid of wine knowledge. What else could I do? I felt that I owed it to them and, I think, they left a little better for it.

• 2006 Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir Sonoma Coast - Sonoma Coast - While this may be the entry level Pinot for R-M, it does not compromise stylistically. It is admirably structured without being angular and compares favorably to the wonderful '04 SC, although I didn't think it is as delicate. The fruit is a mixture of restrained red and purple fruit with some zingy cranberry as well. The fruit shows nice purity and is underined by a sharp acidity. Great restraint and percision. The temptation is going to be to open this early while you wait for the single vineyard bottlings, but that would be a mistake. This should unwind nicely over the next couple of years.
• 2006 Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir Summa Vineyard - Sonoma Coast - A beautiful wine representing the promise of the true Sonoma Coast; it was poised and elegant and you had the feeling it was exactly the type of wine that the grapes wanted it to be. The nose showed delicate and floral with red cherries, citrus and sassafras. The fruit is sweet and red in the mouth with silky tannins and a cross-current of acidity. There is some earthiness lingering in the background and I would expect that as this develops it will gain some foresty nuances that SC Pinots can provide. More than once it was described as Burgundian, but I think people were referring to the impeccable balance, as this wine is all California. This wine is going to require patience, but with pure fruit, tannic structure and high natural acidity, I expect that such forbearance will be amply rewarded.
• 2006 Rivers-Marie Pinot Noir Willow Creek Vineyard - Sonoma Coast - A nice addition to the R-M stable. The nose was floral and tended to the darker side of red. The palate was a bit weightier than I expected given the delicacy of the aromatics and trended darker still. Very well built structurally, the fruit, while expressive, seemed to lack a bit of complexity, perhaps due to the relative youth of the vines. Nonetheless, it seems very easy-going and self-assured; there are no angles, yet it does not feel excessively polished either. Of all the wines, I think that this is the one I would drink first (the acidity seemed tucked in a bit better), although I'd be sure to keep one or two around for the long haul.

Take my word though, these wines should not be opened any time in the next couple of years. Decanting is not a proxy for bottle age and these are built to last. Patience, grasshopper!

Wine Word of the Day: Corked!

Woe the clarion cry of "CORKED!" Inevitably, a fine wine-centered dinner will be partially marred by that cry made as if at a bingo parlor. A few things happen subsequent to the first call, including discussion, confirmation or disagreement and the rueful dumping of the wine. With a $30 bottle of wine, one can emotionally move along very quickly. Unfortunately though, cork taint is blind to the value of a wine and kills indiscriminately and without mercy. God bless you if you've never had your stomach drop as your lone bottle of 1990 Cos d'Estournal is hopelessly corked. It is the functional equivalent of burning $100 bills.

One of the common misconceptions for newcomers to the wine world is that the term "corked" has anything to do with the structural integrity of the cork itself or with the flavors of cork. Indeed, I've had epiphany bottles of wine that had crumbly, soaked stoppers that hinted at something less than an impermeable barrier between the air and juice. What "corked" or "cork-taint" really is is contamination of the cork and, consequently, the wine with a chemical called TCA, which stands for Tri-ChlorasomethingorAnother (trust me, just remember TCA). High levels of TCA will impart dominating wet cardboard aromas to the wine or, on some occasions, can make the wine seem chlorinated. Low levels of TCA will mute the flavors of a wine both on the nose and on the palate. TCA-taint will become more prominent with air and irredeemably ruins the wine. There are tales of Saran wrap being a savior for corked wines (I kid you not) and have fun experimenting with that while I dump my bottle. The conventional wisdom is that 7% of all wines suffer from some levels of TCA, although I would suspect (completely unscientifically) that much of that is not apparent to the taster, so that the incidents of corked wine will appear to be fewer. Further, sensitivity to TCA varies from taster to taster. My friend Michel finds it more quickly than I, while unnamed friends will happily slurp down a corked wine unaware of the flaw.

The muffling of the qualities of a wine can be attributable to other things other than TCA (see, for example, the WWOTD: Backward) and, therefore, can be the subject of spirited debated, not just among wine geeks, but with a server. The fact is, most waiters and a surprising number of sommeliers have no idea what corked wine tastes like and will often just tell you "that is just how the wine tastes." Now, they may be correct that the wine is not technically flawed or they may be wrong, but that is a little beside the point. Their correct reaction should always be to take the wine back and give you another bottle. There are numerous stories of wine professionals being bullied by restaurant staff to accept a flawed wine. Dorothy Gaiter and John Brecher, a husband and wife team that write for The Wall Street Journal, recently described in an article about their treatment at Le Bernadin with respect to a flawed bottle. They got a call from the head sommelier apologizing. I assure you that you will receive no such call. So, you have to look out for yourself and stand firm; do not accept the insurance company treatment where first answer is always no. Make sure that you call over the head sommelier or the manager and have them taste it for themselves. As a matter of courtesy, you should ask for another bottle of the same wine showing commitment to your selection. In addition to sending the bottle back, make sure that the server replaces the glass as cork-tainted wine can effect the next glass as well. Cork taint is disappointing verging on depressing, but take heart, there is always another bottle to open and, hopefully, that is not corked too!

Thoughts on the 1992 Vintage in Napa

I recently read someone describe the 1992 vintage was a great vintage in Napa. To the extent that it was, I don't think the wines are holding up well now and I generally try to stay away from them. The wines seem to have some nice aromatics, but they really don't deliver consistently through the wine. I described the 1992 Joseph Phelps Insignia as the little engine that couldn't. I felt the same way about this wine from dinner the other night. Better to stick with the 1991 vintage, which has held up quite well.

1992 Mayacamas Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon - Napa Valley
While this wine certainly had some highlights, it showed fairly incomplete. The nose was intoxicating mature Cab with earth and truffles accenting the briary red fruit that speaks Mayacamas. The transition to the mouth started well enough with savory black cherry on a nice acidic structure. However, the wine seemed to give up about halfway through as it becomes muddled and then clips off hard. Nice entry...it becomes confused...then disappears. It was if it didn't have the strength to carry the burden of being a great wine. It didn't fall off really as the evening wore on, but it never got better either. In some respects this what I expect from the '92 vintage at this stage unfortunately.