Light bodied, refreshing, zingy acidity, beautiful start, I think this might be Oriole’s house champs which is a good thing.
2000 Cristal:
Color wasn’t much darker than the 09, tasted young and was a little reticent upon opening but was beautiful after 10-15 min in glass. Stunning champagne with lovely aromatics, well integrated palate with great depth, long finish. Candidate for WOTY, unfortunately only had one.
1997 Chave Hermitage
Ready to drink. Olive tapenade and garrique on the nose. Well integrated, elegant, soft tannins. Certainly Syrah, but not necessarily northern Rhône feeling. Slightly glossy and polished. Gained in power over an hour in glass. I liked this a lot but didn’t love it. Intellectually a beautiful, well made wine, but no visceral reaction to it.
To me “glossy” has a fairly specific connotation, especially in the northern Rhône, which tends to mean less interesting wine, typically with more oak. Here I’m thinking of Voge, older Ogier, Chapoutier, Guigal, etc. Chave is more elegant to me than most other producers (pre 2000), but that makes it elegant, not glossy. I realize I’m making a fine distinction, but I find it meaningful.
Elegant is fine; it was Syrah, and clearly very good cool climate Syrah, but not clearly hermitage or northern Rhône, at least to me. I thought it was a very good wine and it was one of the best possible wines to pair with the menu, but wasn’t a standout.
I’m fine with it; I didn’t necessarily want something to distract from the food and it was great with it.
I feel like my MO for tasting menus tends to be a champagne and lighter bodied red with some age Next time I go, though, I may bring a younger higher potential champagne like 08 cristal and a slightly younger grand cru burg like 07-08 drouhin Beze or Lambrays.
I’ve had a couple bottles of the '97 Chave Hermitage, and can’t specifically recall whether one should argue if it is ‘glossy’ or ‘elegant’ or if those two are even that different from one another. In fact, I’ve read through this thread a number of times, wondering why there is argument over what ‘glossy’ means and if it is bad or good, or applicable…so confused!
Chave has always been elegant with regards to Syrah - that is one of its most magical qualities. An incredible combination of rusticness and elegance, found in very few Syrah bottlings/producers
I don’t get that at all. I’ve been drinking the 1997 Chave with decent frequency since release and I think it is very typical Hermitage (although, it’s an interesting question about what typical Hermitage is since Chave has been so far above everyone else) or at least very recognizable as Chave Hermitage (pre-1999 division). The 1997 has never been a blockbuster.
Given that Chave is head and shoulders above every other Hermitage producer prior to 99/2000 (I see you Jay!), I don’t know what “typical Hermitage” is, really. However, that said, I have no problem placing 97 Chave as northern Rhone. It definitely has that typicity to me, in a way a bottle of 15 Jaboulet Crozes-Hermitage didn’t last week. That wine to me was polished, while the Chave is elegant.
I definitely use gloss with negative connotations. To me it indicates a smoothness and lack of complexity on the palate that often comes with more modern and especially (though not necessarily) “oakier” wine making. With Syrah it tends to denote the relative absence of the charactristics of the grape and the region. For example, I love Gerard’s 15 LaLa, but find his 15 base a bit glossy on the finish (though the nose is wonderful). I had an 05 Guigal Turque a few months ago, and that was all gloss (we had it blind and none of us guessed northern rhone, even when told it was a blend of two grapes).
Chave will never have the rusticity of Clape or the explosive white pepper nose of Jamet’s Cote Brune , but to me the 97 bottling speaks of northern Rhone while being very elegant.
That doesn’t mean Michael is wrong, that’s just my personal opinion.
First: the 1997 Chave H. ist my favorite for drinking now after 1991 and 1994 (except 1990 and older of course).
I´m not totally sure what “glossy” exactly means for you, for me it´s more an optical thing.
The 97 is very charming for me, with great balance and elegance only matched by the 1991 (down to 1bt. unfortunately).
1994 is more powerful and a bit more rustic, but 1997 has such a typical terroir note (black olives with wet underwood) and at the same time a warmth and succulent sweetness highly enjoyable - and still enough structure to feel very lively.
1995/96/98/99 are “bigger”, more powerful, but it will take a good 5-10 years until they are so enjoyable …
Greg- guess you’ve never tasted good bottles of 90,78,61,59,45 or 29 La Chapelle.All legendary wines and although I love Chave and JL/Erin , old La Chapelle in good condition are very hard to beat ( IMHO )
Enjoyed the notes. It’s always very intriguing when a famous producer/wine shows a bit differently or underwhelming than we’d hope, as is the ensuing curiosity/difficulty of describing said struggles. Certainly that was part of my experience with an '89 Grange last week.
I’ve never had a great Jaboulet, no, and I’ve had the 90. Calling the 61 La Chapelle a great Hermitage is a controversial statement given where JLL claims the grapes actually came from.
If you want to share a 78 sometime, I’m down
![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
