Back to Basics: Blind Chardonnay Tasting

 

This blog is ostensably about wine, and my passion is wine, but let's face it, I've been a bit neglectful in talking about it lately. So let's get back to basics: a blind Chardonnay tasting.

When this was first proposed, I was excited. First, I love good Chardonnay, espcially from Burgundy (duh). Second, it's always fun, and humbling, to attend a blind tasting. All pre-suppositions about labels, place, year, quality or price go out the window. You are judging the wine based on its merits alone. Granted, the organizer must ensure that all the wines coming are equally ready to drink, or are placed in similar flights. Otherwise you might end up with some bottles that are completely closed for business while others shout out for attention, drowning out all the others. This drinking business can get complicated, no?

So a small group of winelovers descended on Apiary in the East Village, Chef Scott Bryan's new project. First, let me just say the food and service were fantastic and I heartily recommend it (no affilition, yadda yadda yadda...).

 

More importantly, the tasting was quite interesting and eye-opening. It would be interesting to see if we could pick out the New World from the Old World styles, something I heartily anticipated doing.

FLIGHT 1
-#1
Creamy lemon, perfumy oak on the nose, but more citrus than wood. The body is fat, with some spicy oakiness to it that's balanced and even lifted by some striking acidity. Everyone said Burgundy, I decided to be contrarian and say a 10-year old CA Chard. I was almost right! Woohoo!
1997 Calera Mt Harlan Chardonnay

-#2
Lemony butterscotch, some caramel, mushroomy with sweet oxydative notes on the nose. Ugh, sour lemony popcorn aspects on the palate, this was shot. Too bad, this could have been amazing. We all said mid-/late-1990s white Burg. Duh.
1996 Niellon Chassagne Montrachet Clos de la Truffiere

-#3
Ripe lemony popcorn wrapped in a layer of vanilla oak, the palate was sweet and somewhat fat with a spicy, buttery note to it that ended with a slightly bitter finish. Everyone voted CA.
2000 Pahlmeyere Jason

FLIGHT 2
-#4
Ugh, caramelized apples and not much more anywhere, neither on the nose or palate. I wrote "Undrinkable", and we all guessed another mid-1990s white Burg.
1995 Ramonet Batard-Montrachet Argh!

-#5
Right off the bat, this reminded me of those CostCo apple pies you see warming in the Bakery section. Not a bad thing, as it offers some nice apple compote and cinnamon aspects, with some hints of oxydation and orange marmalade notes. The palate was slightly fat, with nutty and lemony honey tastes, ending in a surprisingly sour finish. We were all over the map on this one, especially as the bottle shape made us think New World (most said CA, I decided to be a prick and say Australia). We were all wrong.
1991 Gravner Chardonnay

-#6
At first, this had some weird, but not unlikable minty/vegetal notes, which made me think Ramonet and white Burgundy. But the green started to dissipate, replaced by an almost petrolly smell, wrapping itself around a quartz and lemon core. In the mouth, this was medium-bodied and certainly tasted better than it smelled, with honeyed lemon, striking minerality and a nice, medium, well-balanced finish. We all said white Burg.
1992 Lafon Meursault Genevriere

FLIGHT 3
-#7
Orange zest, petrol, nuts and hints of oxydation on the nose, with a spicy, medium-weight frame offering hints of tea, lemon, nuts and ending in a long finish. Another vote for white Burg.
2000 Maltroye Batard Montrachet

-#8
Right off the bat, we could see this was a lighter-bodied wine, as it didn't pour as viscously as the others in the flight. It also smelled lighter, with fresh pineapple, steely lemon cream and light nuts (almonds?). The palate followed through with a similar (relatively) lighter feel, ending in a medium-length finish. Nice, but not in the same league as the others. Votes were all over the place, I said Chassagne Montrachet. Close but no go.
2002 Louis Latour Puligny Montrachet

-#9
Oooh, this smells nice, with minty lemons, almonds, hints of minerals like quartz on the nose. Its feel is nice too, with a medium, balanced body offering more minerals, lemony almonds, and a long, spicy finish. This HAS to be white Burgundy, and I voted as such. Whoops. Surprise of the night!
2005 Dierberg Santa Maria

FLIGHT 4
-#10
The nose is full of fat, ripe lemony almonds, Granny Smith apples, and a certain, lovely musky note. On the palate, this is lovely, even if a bit fat, with lemon and spices and almonds all balanced out by a beautiful, fresh acidity. Another vote for white Burgundy. Again, whoops.
2002 Aubert Richie

-#11
CORKED. DAMNIT.
2001 Lafon Meursault Charmes

-#12
ALSO CORKED. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
2007 Seven Springs la Source (a Lafon project in Oregon I believe)

FLIGHT 5
-#13
Whoa, this has GOT to be CA: dry almonds, minerals, perfumy oak, ripe lemons on the nose, with similar aspects carried through on the fat, ripe structure, but ending in a surprisingly short finish. Somewhat unbalanced, not to my liking, though I can see why others would enjoy it.
2001 Kistler Cathleen

-#14
Oxydated, nothing but burnt nuts and caramelized apples. Ugh.
2001 Peter Michael Pointe Rouge

-#15
Oooooh, this smells nice, what is it? Lovely herbal mint notes wrapped around a core of minerally lemons, carried through on a steely, elegant frame. The mouthfeel is just as lovely as the nose, with a laser-like precision that lifts flavors of spicy almonds, more fresh mint, and minerally lemons (think those crystallized lemons), with an understated power and elegance that is almost shockingly refreshing. The finish goes on and on and on and on. Quite nice, and we all said white Burgundy.
2001 Ramonet Chevalier Montrachet

FLIGHT 6
-#16
Ripe, honeyed lemons and almonds wrapped themselves around some nice minerals on the nose of this one. In the mouth, it was medium-weighted, with some spicy notes to it and a relatively short finish. I think we all voted CA.
2003 Marcassin Estate

-#17
Very similar aspects to the previous wine, with similarly ripe and honeyed lemons and spices, though the palate was a tad fresher and had better lift from some more acidity and more minerality. I voted white Burg.
2003 Coche Dury Meursault Caillerets

-#18 (not blind) 1979 Chateau Latour
Yep, a red, and a Bordeaux at that, generously offered by a friend of Bob's. Popped and poured, this really should have been decanted a bit, but it was rather nice and reminded me why I used to like Bordeaux so much. Notes of band-aid, funk, dark plums/cherries and soft wood aspects held your attention. The palate was light, with some sweet red fruit still fighting for survival (storage might have been an issue, we weren't sure), herbs, and a nice, balanced finish. Not bad, and a welcome reprieve from all the whites.

POST-DINNER DRINKS
Because 17 bottles of white and 1 bottle of red weren't enough, a few friends joined me for a stumble through the East Village to one of my favorite haunts, Pata Negra. Since we apparently hadn't eaten enough, either, we ordered a plate of the legendary Pata Negra ham, and while that melted on our tongues, we drank a Rose Txakoli.

 

-2008 Rose Txakoli (name forgotten in the mists of hangover)
Gorgeous color, with flower red berry notes, and just a hint of spritz to tickle your nose. Very light-bodied, this perked up the palate with lively acidity and fresh berries and flowers on the tongue. A great way to end the night, I might add, as the fruit was just ever-so-slightly sweet.

Conclusions: We thought it would be easier to pick out the New World from the Old World, but it turned out to be harder than anticipated. I might add, however, that while we did have most of the best of the best of CA, we didn't really have the best of the best of Burgundy. No Montrachet, only one Chevalier, and the Batards were undrinkably oxydized. WOTN for most was the Aubert, followed closely by the Ramonet Chevy.

Still, it was a fun evening, and a big thanks to all who made it and donated so generously from their cellars.
Cheers!

Judging vs Tasting

This past weekend I was invited to be a judge at the Concours des Vignerons Independants, the Independant Winemakers' Competition, in Paris. As you can imagine, I was very honored. But then again, I'll take any excuse to go to Paris. Even for just 4 days.

Some of the most distinctive wines are being made by these small, often family-run wineries. Most of them are really representative of their terroirs and true to the art of wine making. But, there is still an unacceptable amount of crap being produced, and this weekend I saw the good, the bad and the (really) ugly.

I also got to thinking about the difference between judging a wine and tasting a wine. While it may not seem like there are any, I found there were some subtle differences in the way I looked at the glasses before me.

 

The format was blind tasting, with two tastings in the morning and two in the afternoon. We were told what regions we'd be examining (in my case, 2007 Chablis 1er Cru followed by 2007-08 Brouilly/Chiroubles, then 2007-08 Saumur whites and 2006-07 Anjou reds on Day 1, then on Day 2 2007 Cotes du Rhones all morning followed by 2007 Petit Chablis and 2007-08 Beaujolais Village/Brouilly in the afternoon) but the bottles were hidden in sleeves. We had to give our impressions of the color, the nose and the taste of the wine, with a final comment and grade (based on 20, using the French system and not the 100 point ratings preferred in the US). Lastly, we had a maximum number of wines that we could recommend for a medal (gold, silver or bronze to be determined at a later competition).

 

Everyone there was in the wine business in France, whether as active members of professional tasting clubs (of which there are surprisingly many, and which are amazingly well-organized, in contrast to those I frequent in NY) or as members of the wine trade (making, distributing or selling it). And I was happy to see that my palate was quite similar to my table-mates (in general), though there were some times where we had divergent views, as would be expected. It was at this point that I began to see the differences inherent in a judging as opposed to a tasting.

 

A judging, as the name implies, looks for the qualities in a wine. But drinking wine is, after all, a subjective experience. What I might consider a "good" wine might be considered "bad" by someone else. So it's not as easy as it sounds. I had to fall back onto my own personal standards of what makes a good wine, which I enumerated a long time ago here. Luckily, most of the other judges tended to agree with my scoring, though they did think that I was a harsher grader than they were (if a wine was undrinkable, it got a 0/20, no matter how great it looked).

 

I found myself doing the same things I'd do at a tasting, but it was all very scientific and cold and less, dare I say, soulful. At a tasting, I'm judging the wine, yes, but I'm also looking for those qualities of wine which make it enjoyable, pleasurable, as well. At a tasting, I can go back to a wine and watch it evolve, but at a judging, it's one after another and God forbid if the wine needs more time to breathe. In fact, there were times when we'd go back to a wine only to find it had changed dramatically, for better or for worse. At a judging, time is a factor, but usually tastings are during dinners so the only constraint is how much liquid remains in the bottle. In addition, I'm comparing the intrinsic value of each wine to see which is "better" and more deserving of both a better grade and a possible recommendation for a medal. So, there are some mental gymnastics going on as well, not something I'm very good at, admittedly.

See, I told you this wasn't as easy as it sounded.

And the results, you ask? Well, the 2007 Chablis 1er Crus were delicious if young, as you'd imagine, and the 2007 Cotes du Rhone were just glorious. The Brouilly and Chiroubles were OK, the Petit Chablis nice but lived up to their names (Little Chablis), the less said about the Anjou reds the better, the Saumurs were quite nice if young (tons of acidity in the 2008s), and the Beaujolais Villages/Brouilly were awful, awful, awful. I don't know who the producers of any of these were, but the medals will be handed out in Colmar, Alsace, at the end of the month. Perhaps one of the wines I recommended will be there, who knows?

In any case, it was an interesting weekend, I met many wine people, ate some great meals, drank some lovely wines, and enjoyed Paris as it's meant to be enjoyed.
Cheers!

Blind Bubbly Tasting

I am a big fan of blind tasting. It's humbling, but also very educational. Your mind races as the different flavors flow over your palate, trying to catch ephemeral hints of this and that, trying to figure out exactly what it is you're tasting. It's certainly not as easy as it looks, as the brain has a tendency to project expectations when the eye catches a label, and without this visual confirmation you are left with nothing but your nose and your tongue to figure things out.

That said, blind tasting is fun when it's with friends, but nerve-wracking when you're judging or in a competition. Luckily, this past Friday the blind tasting was with friends, and just as luckily, it was a Champagne tasting.

The theme was Blind Bubblies Under $80, the rationale being that even with a recession most folks would be splurging slightly to celebrate the holidays and the New Year (and for some, the new President). I decided to organize this as a cocktail party, since this is the format in which most people would be drinking these wines at this time of year. All the bottles were wrapped in aluminum foil, and each one was numbered as it arrived.


I won't bore you with detailed descriptors of every single wine, as there were fifteen bottles of bubbly (count 'em, 15!). Even I, a lover of the bubbly, was out-bubbled by the end, and savored the splashes of still red and white wine that were offered by generous friends who had brought extra bottles along for the ride. Apparently, there really can be too much of a good thing. Who knew?


In any case, my favorite of the evening was a 1999 Champagne Vilmart Cuvée Rubis (90% Pinot Noir, 10% Chardonnay), a lovely salmon-colored Champagne that was full of sweet berries and balancing acidity. I think the only flaw, and I am being really anal here, was that it was a tad sweet. I still loved it, as did everyone else. Another favorite was the NV Pierre Moncuit Cuvée Delos, a lovely yeasty wine with nice balance, which to me offered one of the best quality-to-price ratios of the night (approximately $30 in NYC).


Other delicious wines included the 1992 Champagne Dom Perignon, which I am happy to say I nailed blind (well, not the year, but I did say it was a DP). It was quite yummy, still fresh with only some hints of ageing. The 1985 Veuve Clicquot Rosé tasted younger than it actually was, with fresh fruit and baked notes and just hints of the oxydation age gives Champagne.


The NV Champagne Henriot Souverain showed well too, but sadly the 1990 Philiponnat had seen better days. Also good were the NV Champagne Chartogne-Taillet Cuvée Saint Anne, another great QPR wine I used to have as my house Champagne. My least favorites were the 2002 Huet Pétillant, a bubbly from the Loire that was too young and really angry at being poured, and the 2003 Giacosa Spumante Extra Brut, which I didn't care for at all.

All in all, it was an interesting tasting, many of the bubblies were well-made, some were more interesting than others, but almost all offered something for someone. Best of all, we had a great time and laughed until late in the evening. Then again, isn't that what wine is for?
Cheers!

Humbling Moments

Blind Justice
It's taken me a while to write up my notes on a fabulous dinner I had a few weeks ago in Dallas. This fantastic meal was organized at one of that city's best restaurants, Lola, led by local wine collector and nice guy Howard Marc Spector. The food was delicious, service good, and if you are looking for a great wine list at gentle prices, this is the place. I would go back in a heartbeat.

True, I've been busy travelling around (I'll write up my travel notes soon enough), but I hesitated to write about this for a simple reason: this dinner was a "blind tasting" meal, wherein all the participants brought the wines wrapped in various coverings to hide their identities. All we knew going in was that they were all supposed to be "old", and by "old" it was understood that they would be from before 1990. Many humbling moments were to ensue...

A blind tasting is, in my opinion, one of the best ways to learn about wine. It is also one of the most humbling moments any wine lover can have. To shout with absolute certainty that what you have in your glass is a great Bordeaux when it's actually a Beaujolais Nouveau, well, "red-faced" doesn't begin to describe what you might feel. Still, without the influence of a label, the mind is free to examine the wine from all aspects, looking for markers that remind one of what it has tasted previously. But it ain't easy. Fun, yes, easy, no.

That said, with experience (ie lots and lots of tasting) comes wisdom. Or so you'd think.

On this night, palates and guesses were all over the place. We started with a bottle I bought in Dallas, a 1988 Pommery Cuvee Louise Champagne, beautifully crisp and young with just the beginnings of that lovely caramelization that older bubblies get. Most folks knew right away it was Champagne, but after that most of the guesses were shots in the dark. Next up was an older Riesling, smelling strongly of petrol (typical of older Rieslings), with some nutty accents backed up by surviving fruity notes. I guessed old Riesling, but as for the year or source, I was stumped. Granted, my knowledge of Riesling is sorely lacking, but all I could venture was a mid-1970s German. OK, half-right. It was the 1964 Kunstler Spatslese. Interesting, good but on the way down.

Now we moved on to the reds. The wine before me was beefy and cedary, making me think Bordeaux, but with some stony smells that made me think perhaps California. No, this was the 1964 Gruaud Larose. The next bottle was mine, an old Italian that was redolent of dark, muddy earth churned up with red berries. Most diners had no idea what this was, though a few came very close. I proudly removed the cover to reveal the 1985 Emidio Pepe Montepulciano D'Abruzzo. After this came a wine that was thick with dark, syrupy fruits, a heavy mouthfeel, and some wooden notes. We all guessed Bordeaux, and whoops, this was the 1984 Jordan Cabernet Sauvignon, a CA wine! It exhibited none or almost none of the dusty smells I usually get from older CA, but left me red-faced nonetheless. Another cedary wine was poured with just enough fruit to make us think CA, yet this time it was the 1989 Mouton Rothschild! The last wine was full of cedar and dark fruits, and we all voted that it was Bordeaux: indeed, this was the 1982 Chateau Montrose.

With the end of dinner, we looked forward to some blind dessert wine but were stumped when the bottle, a 1983 Cockburn, ended up being corked and undrinkable. D'oh!

Howard showed his generosity by grabbing the list and ordering a 1985 Fonseca. This wine was full-bodied and full of red and black fruits, chocolate and wood, a lovely and velvety Port that slid far too easily down the throat.

Once dinner was done, we surveyed the wreckage. None of us had really guessed anything right, and a few of us walked away red-faced from horrible guesses (myself included). But, whether we knew it or not, our minds had subconsciously recorded markers in each wine and assigned them to that specific bottle, making us better tasters. Of course, the subject of blind tasting is a controversial one among wine tasters, as most folks don't like to be humiliated or humbled. But to me this is a wonderful way to learn about wine and appreciate it even more.

And, more importantly, it's a great way to have a wonderful time.

For more thoughts on blind tasting, Eric Asimov's article on his blog, The Pour, is a great read.

Cheers!