TN: Tempier, Pradeaux and five other Bandol producers nipping at their heels

Inspired by a recent visit to Domaine Tempier, I hosted a tasting Tuesday of eight Bandols. The wines were uniformly good.

My introduction to Bandol was Tempier back in the 80s, when I lived in the Bay Area and Tempier was one of Kermit Lynch’s iconic imports. He sold Tempier T-shirts, Alice Water’s Chez Panisse featured the wines and Lulu Peyraud’s cooking was celebrated in a book by Richard Olney, who was an auxiliary member of the Berkeley gourmet mafia. Regrettably, I didn’t cellar any over the years.

There weren’t enough Bandols available in the market to focus on one vintage for this tasting, but that was probably just as well in the end. While Bandol has a temperate climate, being right on the Mediterranean, there did appear to be vintage characteristics, and some of us felt that we liked the cooler-weather 2012s best, even though it seemed to take a back seat in the few reviews of Bandol that I could find to the warmer 2009, 2011 and 2013 vintages.

After a couple of bad experiences with 15% Bandols ten years or so ago, and escalating prices for the best known estates, I had looked to other wines. My pilgrimage to Tempier last month, enjoyable bottles of the ’09 and ’11 Terrebrunes over the last several months, and this tasting have revived my interest. And some – particularly Le Galantin and De Frigate – are good values.

The scores were tightly bunched – both the group’s scores and individuals’ scores for particular wines. (I scored six of these between 90 and 91.) Hence the ordinal rankings weren’t very meaningful, and lots of wines received multiple top and bottom scores. So don’t give a lot of heed to the rankings.

The wines were poured into serving bottles about an hour ahead and then sampled over 90 minutes or so. Sampling refrigerated leftovers on the following two nights, the Pradeaux and the bonus wine, a 2005 Tempier, improved substantially. From which I draw another lesson: These wines benefit from some air.

Grouped by vintage:

2014 Dom. Tempier “Cuvée Classique,” $49. 75% Mourvedre, 14% Grenache, 9% Cinsault, 2% Carignan. Fully destemmed, aged 18-20 months in large wood casks. Group rank: 6/my rank: 7, at 87 points.
This showed well at the domain a month ago – fresh and juicy. It was similar here, but paled a little next to the others for me. A little less depth and less complex. Ripe black cherries on the nose. Rich, plush, a little bit soft in the mouth. Young and seems perhaps just a tad dilute. I can’t tell how much is the vintage (hail, cool) and how much is simply the fact that it’s younger by two years than anything else here. At the price, I’d pass. (I preferred the deeper but balanced ’13 at the domaine.)


2012 Dom. Terrebrune, $50. 85% Mourvedre, 10% Grenache, 5% Cinsault. Organic, indigenous yeasts, destemmed, aged 18 months in large wood casks. Another Kermit Lynch import. Group rank: 1/my rank: 1, at 91+ points.
Ripe black cherries on the nose. Rich dark fruits in the mouth. Perhaps just a wee, wee bit riper than I might prefer, but this just a beautifully rounded, integrated wine. On a par with the '11 Terrebrune I posted on a month ago.

2012 Dom. de Frigate, $32. 95% Mourvedre, 5% Grenache. I can’t find anything in English on this producer and the website isn’t very informative. Group rank: 2/my rank: 2, at 91- points.
More reddish fruit profile than most, and an earthiness on the nose. Deep, tannic, incredibly concentrated, with darker fruits in the mouth than on the nose (plums, black cherries). Along with the Pradeaux, this was the most backward, but there’s oodles of fruit behind the tannins. This is a big wine, and perhaps a bit rustic – less refined than the others.

2012 Dom. le Galantin, $24. 95% Mourvedre, 5% Grenache. Organic, 20% whole cluster, 22 months in cask.
Group rank: 3/my rank: 5, at 90 points.
Some floral notes on the nose here and a medly of berries, red and darker. Nice structure in the mouth, with more reddish fruits than most. A bit more acid and a bit less dense in the middle. (I guessed – wrongly – that it might have more grenache.) This is a stellar value, and it held up really well on days 2 and 3.

2012 Dom. du Gros ‘Noré, $33-$43. 80% Mourvedre, 15% Grenache, 5% Cinsault. Partially destemmed. Another Kermit Lynch import. Group rank: 7/my rank: 8, at 85 points.
Ripe black cherry on the nose. Somewhat alcoholic in the mouth. Less concentration in the middle. Big and a bit sweet. Hot on the finish. Still, not terrible wine. Didn’t improve the next day.


2011 Dom. Jean-Pierre Gaussen, $34. 95% Mourvedre, 5% Grenache. 100% destemmed, 18 months in casks. Group rank: 4/my rank: 3, at 91- points (revised down later).
Very dark color and very dark fruit profile on the nose. Rich black cherries in the mouth. Really intense, and I scored this up based on that. As we retasted after the rankings, I wrote “Too much of everything?” And, indeed, this seemed porty on day 2, and I realized I’d been too generous. I’d put this down around 85 now.

2011 Dom. Pradeaux, $45. 75% Mourvedre, 25% Other Grapes. No destemming, mostly organic.
Group rank: 5/my rank: 6, at 89 points (revised up on day 2).
Trace of kirsch on the nose and generally less forthcoming. In the mouth, more red fruit than most. Lighter in body and concentration than most (or perhaps just very tight not), but with good balance and substantial tannin. Seems to tighten up with air on the first night. But the finish is long and tannic. A trace of heat at the end. On day 2, this had really opened up, the fruit fleshed out and it came into alignment. This is a serious wine that I underestimated at first. This is the only one that’s not destemmed, and perhaps that was a factor. I should have given it something north of 91.

2009 Dom. Terrebrune, $33-$40. (Details above.) Group rank: 8 (surprising to me)/my rank: 4, at 90+ points.
I got some poopiness here on the nose, though others didn’t seem to pick that up. (Dirty glass?) Chewy, nice fruit with softer tannins. Nice creamy finish. In this group, this showed a little less well than when I’d had a bottle on its own a couple of months ago. This is a bit riper and a little less focused than some of the others.

To finish off the evening, we had a 2005 Tempier “Cuvée Classique,” which sang. The leftovers were even better the next two nights. It opened into a caressing, warm wine that seemed like a breath of Southern French summer. I just savored it without scoring it.

John,

Sounds like an awesome tasting indeed! Are the prices you’ve quoted current pricing, and if so, where did you source them?

I agree that these are all wines that probably need a few more years under their belts to truly ‘strut their stuff’, but that’s the challenge we all face when tasting - assessing wines as they are now, not what they may (or may not) become.

I’ll be doing a comprehensive Mourvedre tasting coming up in the next few weeks and may have to source one or two of these.

Cheers!

I used to be a big fan of Tempier. Back in the '90s they were easily sourced in Florida, then they weren’t. As much as I like Mourvedre, I should continue to track them down. Thanks for the detail here, John.

As a side note, your brown bag tasting group, and the time you spend detailing the tastings, from background to individual wine reviews, adds such wonderful value to this community. Thank you for that, I love seeing your posts.

thanks for the notes.
had from Tempier only 2008 Tourtine,young but really impressive wine with many character.

I went through a case or more of the '13 last year and restocked with 6 of the '14 when i had a choice of both without trying it, and was fairly disappointed. The '13 had the restrained, herbal-garrigue-with-character thing going that I like about this wine in just about every vintage, but the '14 seemed overripe and simple, more like Cotes du Rhone. First time I haven’t enjoyed a Tempier rouge classique so much.

No Pibarnon? Seems remiss leave them out of any picture of Bandol…

They were all purchased in the NYC area in the last month – some as recently as last week. We pulled it together very quickly, so these may not be the best prices out there.

2014 Dom. Tempier “Cuvée Classique,” $48.99 Flatiron.
2012 Dom. du Gros ‘Noré, $42.99 Flatiron (on sale two weeks ago for $32.99 at Union Square Wines)
2012 Dom. Terrebrune, $49.99 Zachys (This is the only thing pops up anyplace in the US on the free version of Wine Searcher, but this seems high. I see that Kermit Lynch’s store has the '11 for $40, which ought to be full retail.)
2012 Dom. de Fregate, $31.99 Some Good Wine (relatively new NYC store)
2012 Dom. le Galantin, $24.00 Astor Wines
2011 Dom. Jean-Pierre Gaussen, $34.00 Astor Wines
2011 Dom. Pradeaux, $44.99 Some Good Wine
2009 Dom. Terrebrune, $32.99 Zachys (on sale; Flatiron used to have it at $40)

These are all drinkable now, but the 2009 and 2005 point the way to what they will become. Certainly the Pradeaux needs some serious aging.

Yes, it would have been nice to include it. As I said, we were scrambling to pull this together and none of the five retailer we went to carries it. And, as it turned out, we did well with other less well-known producers.

[Incidently, as I suspected, I see that you import Pibarnon.]

Thanks for the thorough notes, John!!

If I have not made it apparent, I am a huge fan of Mourvedre, and have only tasted a few Bandol wines. The Pibarnon is probably my favorite, though I obviously am missing some of the other top wines from the area!

An interesting example of where a TN is well-written, that you may find a lower ranked wine sounds more interesting/appealing than a higher ranked wine. Your 2nd, 5th and 6th rated wines sound most appealing to me. Vive la difference, and TNs that don’t ‘lead the witness’. Bravo John.

Terrebrune tends tio fly under the radar, but the family makes awesome wines. Love their rose as well!

Just tasted back through the '12 and '09 Terrebrune, the '11 Pradeaux and the '12 Frigate with dinner. A few additional thoughts:

1. I should have said at the outset that these wines all seem genuine. Some might be a tad ripe for some palates, but there are no signs of spoofification – no reliance on new oak, for instance – and they’re all balanced, though some are better than others.

2. They hold up remarkably well on day 3 (refrigerated). No signs of oxidation in the four I retasted tonight.

3. I take back what I said about '12 perhaps being better than the riper years. The sample size just isn’t big enough to draw any conclusions and, looking back, the '12 Gros Nore was at the bottom of the rankings and the '12 Frigate is a question mark.

A couple of follow-up notes.

A. Jud, you’re right. Both the '12 and the '09 Terrebrune shone tonight. The '09 is quite ripe, but it rose a bit in my estimation tonight. I bought some to lay away a couple of months ago after tasting it, but felt on Tuesday that perhaps I would have been better to invest my money after the tasting. After retasting it tonight, no more regrets about buying it. And the '12 is showing beautifully three days after being opened – full of fruit, good structure, all in balance.

B. The Frigate may be a little coarse. I might have overestimated it. Not a bad wine, but less balanced than the others on day 3. I’d knock it down to 87 now from 91, which would have put it in a tie for 6/7.

Ha! I’m afraid the '12 Terrebrune (number 1 for me and the group) is (a) young, and so hasn’t had time to show a lot of complexity, and (b) was so clean and well-balanced that I had fewer descriptors. It’s sort of like an actor or actress who seems perhaps too perfect in youth: You don’t know if they’ll end up like Tom Cruise (no change, no character) or Isabelle Huppert or Al Pacino (aging with grace, gaining depth). After retasting, I’m hopeful this will be an Huppert.

Great notes, thanks for sharing. I saw the NYT story and posted that on another board, since I’ve always thought people who like BDX should enjoy the occasional Bandol too.

Older ones have seem to have been discovered; I find the bids so shocking.

Good to hear about that 2005 Tempier John,

I must have been a bit flush around the time of the '05 release as I have a bit of the Cuvee Classique, Migoua, Tourtine and Cabassou all ageing in the cellar along with some 2001 and 1999 Cuvee Classique. I’ve always liked these wines with at least 10-12 years age so they should be approaching a nice drinking window. Pibarnon no longer available in my country sadly , but I managed to get some from the UK which I am happy to tuck away for a while.

I wouldn’t rush on your 2005s. The Cuvee Classique needed a lot of decanting, and has many years ahead of it. I would guess that the single vineyard bottles are even more immature.

John,

Loving the following up notes - and this is something that is certainly lacking much of the time with young wines. We all know that they are young and probably opened too early, and we can all ‘assess’ them on a pop and pour or decant on Day 1.

To me, though, thereally is so much to be learned from letting these sites in a glass for 3 hours and following their development, or better yet, looking in on them on Day 2 and/or 3.

This is something Frank Murray seems to do with so many of his tasting notes, and someshing Jeb Dunnuck used to do much more often (not sure if he still does, but with the volume of wines he tastes, my guess is no).

I of course will be guilty I’m not doing this in a few weeks when I taste through a bunch of mourvedres. There will be enough of us there when I’m sure all the bottles will be finishedthat night. And the table will probably be too cramped for me to have ten or so glasses out all night That said, I will try.

Thanks again for sharing.

Glad you appreciate the follow-ups, Larry. I’ve been teased in the group for using the day 2 and day 3 samplings to vindicate my initial rankings when they vary from the group’s.

Prompted by Robert’s post, I picked up a 2011 Dom. Pibarnon and served it blindly to a group of mine tonight. Three others there had also been at the Bandol tasting earlier in the month, and we agreed this was a cut below most of those in the earlier tasting.

Decanted about an hour and a three-quarters ahead and kept at a decent cellar temperature, but from the outset this showed alcohol on the nose and that carried over into the palate. On the nose there were also very ripe black cherries, and that same very ripe fruit carried over to the mouth. There’s a fair deal of tannin lurking behind the fruit and sufficient acid, but I found the wine a tad diffuse – not entirely focused. Hot on the finish, with lots of dark fruit and tannin. The finish was long but hot.

This had a very New World quality (and not in a good way). The group was stumped and several people who had been at the earlier tasting said it was clearly not Bandol. Guesses ran all over the place from Chateauneuf to California syrah. Marked as 14% but seemed higher.

I know Pibarnon used to be ranked among the top producers in Bandol, but based on this and a similarly alcoholic Pibarnon I had 10 years or so ago, I wouldn’t put it at the top of my list. $40 discounted. I scored it 82 points.

We had the 12 Pibarnon as part of a tasting last night that included a 93 Tempier, an 05 Hommage a Jacques Perrin, an 03 Tablas Creek and an 04 Hewitson, and the 12 showed very nicely, albeit young. It had some nice structure and gave a hint aromatically where it may go. Not the standout for sure, but not bad at all . . .

Cheers.

That’s good to hear, as they’ve been a strong producer historically.

While the summer of '12 was hot, there were rains in August and September, so the '11s came out riper overall from what I could tell. Note that our group’s first, second and third-place wines were all '12s.