That makes sense about comparing apples to apples. I’m with you on being willing to wade through a few misses for wines that really are holding onto making what the terroir gives them. 76% is still a good hit rate.
That sounds like a perfect situation. I’ll check in when I know the game that I am heading down for.
1 Like
That was my exact thought when I read the initial post. All the “hole in the middle” remarks made me think that this is just BAMA, not picked ripe, using little to no oak (and what oak there is is very old), so of course it doesn’t have the thickness in the middle like wines made in recent decades.
But then, @Phil_T_r_o_t_t_e_r has had a lot of BAMA before and liked other ones, so I’m not sure how much it’s bottle variation and how much maybe that throwback style just didn’t appeal to palates on a given night. I guess more likely the former?
I feel compelled to swoop in and defend this venerable estate and malign Phil’s yak palate, but as to the latter, the yak is all mine.
Popped the 2009 tonight. Now mind you, I am not a fan of this vintage and own very little of it. I’m not sure what possessed me to buy this 2009 of BAMA, probably just curiosity. I have not tried it before.
Now that said, I like this 2009. In fact, it doesn’t even drink like a 2009. It is predominantly red-fruit driven, dry earth/sous bois, and shows quite lovely blood orange notes and acids. This is a Chinon lover’s wine, lots of green stuff here as well. I don’t think this is watered down, I think it is midweight at best. I like that. It has paired nicely with lamb chops and ratatouille. Totally complementary to the lamb rather than overpowering it. The nose is still muted while the palate shows some evolution. I don’t feel that this will evolve and improve to the level of the wines from this estate, that I really cherish, such as 2010, 2000, 1998 and 1995. But it is a very nice wine. (90-91 pts.)
3 Likes