The best Friday the 13th in memory?
Certainly a dinner at Bouchard in Beaune, starting with a tasting of the 2008 vintage and a small vertical of the Corton Charlemagne (2007, 2005, 2002 and 2000) was “not too shabby”. Far from it : it was magnifique.
Tasting 2008
Meursault Les Clous : Very lively, vif, with Granny Smith apple flavors ; I get more “cut” from here than from the next wine.
Beaune du Chateau Blanc: More round on the nose and on the palate, although just a bit of sharpness on the finish – I prefer Les Clous.
Meursault Les Genevrieres: Freshness, minerality, nice flavor, good body, this wine is flinty with perhaps just a bit of heat on the finish.
Meursault Les Perrieres: At first it seemed to have some oak-derived notes, but only 15 percent new oak… Overall quite lovely nose and palate, very expansive.
Chevalier Montrachet: Red apple, very deep and rich. Just a lovely wax like feel on the palate if a bit sour.
Chevalier Montrachet La Cabotte: Even more punchy. Hints of orange rind. Substantial palate, rich, a rounder nose. Strawberry aspect. Very pleasant. Cool.
Montrachet: Rather intense. Heavy. Closed on the palate. Some oak-derived notes. Later, so intense, so robust. Great substance on the palate, thick and rich. Butter like, but oh so subtle. A magnificent wine.
Corton Charlemagne: More airy on the nose and on the palate – so different from the above. Lighter, more “sprightly” aspect. Seems to lack the substance of the Montrachet, but still quite impressive and interesting to be the last one to taste.
Vertical of Corton Charlemagne
2007: Citrus aspect, tight and disciplined, very nice and too young of course. No batonnage in this vintage, cellar master Philippe Prost said. But rolling of barrels at the end of July – a kind of batonnage without oxygen contact, he explained. He explained that in fact there was more acidity in 2007 than in 2008, both tartric and malic, and that the malolactic fermentation was “easier” than in 2008. In 2008, after a longer-to-occur malolactic fermentation (“we had to wait for it”), the acidity levels were lower.
2005: More confit nose, a gingerbread aspect, then hazelnut and grilled nose/flavors (“torréfié”). Some vague cinnamon as well with perhaps a hint of gun flint (I did not get the petrol which Philippe mentioned). Full-bodied, broad but also just lovely.
2002: Sweet licorice and nutmeg spice on the nose, the palate is very suave, matching richness with elegance, more subtle. Candied fruit, crystalline aspect, and a palate that shows “cut”, backbone. Very impressive. Tighter than the above, showing more aging potential.
2000: Silex, pivoine, a hint of wet dog which turns more to earthy mushroom, pleasing, but perhaps just showing some evolution (certainly on a faster track than the 2002). Improves with time in glass, showing richness and conveying pleasure. “We had not yet experienced 2003, and were shocked by the low acidity of the 2000,” recalled Philippe. Did I feel some heat on the finish? Perhaps just a bit, but overall, I could easily drink this…
Over dinner
1990 Corton Charlemagne. White pepper. The palate shows some nut notes, but so subtle and smooth. A truffle aspect as well. A fresh mineral aspect with a hint of sweetness. A Japanese journalist told me that it was not as fresh as the next wine, but a Dutch preferred the 1990 to the next wine… Go figure how palates vary, yes? A golden color, with notes of white tobacco over time in glass. Very good backbone, an affirmed presence, with “bracing acidity,” said my Michael Apstein of the wine review online, to my right. As much as I liked this wine, and I did enormously, it was – for me – overshadowed by the sheer magnificent of the next. But first, let’s talk about how well it paired with the foie gras and duck breast and fig? Even though dry, this wine had enough thickness and richness to match, just amazing.
1961 Corton Charlemagne. Brilliant freshness and zing for a wine almost 50 years old, white that is. Dry. A Camembert cheese nose, but just so subtle, combined with hazelnut, truffle. While the 1990 started to show pleasing toffee aspects, this wine over time showed off custard pie, white pepper like the 1990, but with light caramel and even more freshness, if you can believe it. But what impressed most was a sheer complexity on the nose and on the palate which never got tired over the couple of hours à table. As I write these notes the next day, I am just tasting a bit of residual wine from the bottle which I was allowed to take with me as a souvenir. You guessed it, not tired. It still smells like what it did towards the end of the meal: a finely aged, top notch Cognac, but very dry and white wine on the palate. Unbelievable how long lasting this wine is, and a real revelation, quite comparable to the feeling I had when I discovered the Chateau d’Yquem 1967. Wine of the night, easily. The food match was very good: a delicious mix of scallops with autumn vegetables and a pumpkin cream whose sweetness was perfectly matched by the wine’s richness. Lemon and ginger flavors in the food were also nicely matched by the vif in the wine, its lively qualities.
Another note: the vines of Bouchard are northeast, not the best situation. This wine must have been tight as a drum when young; it is just shining today.
1989 Le Corton. Violet aromas, primary fruit, cherry, but the palate is like a wild animal that needs to be calmed. Overall I had the impression that we were drinking this too young, but it was good, mind you, with plenty of that Burgundian earth on the palate, and I am talking smooth earth, not dirty earth by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly we have climbed down from the flavor peaks of the 1961, and I found the 1990 Corton Charlemagne also to be more complete than this red 1989, but it was very good stuff, with a lot going on – just perhaps not yet resolved. A fine match for the delicious range chicken with morilles mushrooms (a good echo for the wine) and a decadent enough – delicious – potato gratin… The sauce was savory, and I ate this quite quickly. Yum.
1959 Le Corton (from magnum). ‘Perhaps we should have decanted this,’ said Philippe. Perhaps. ‘They do not do that in Burgundy,’ Michael joked. A 50-year old Pinot Noir and it sang. I thought I was getting brett, but more experienced tasters said there was none. If there was any, it was in such small amounts that it actually felt pleasing to me, and I am not a fan of brett in wine. In any case, this wine’s nose was far more interesting than the above: Michael and I had a shared “now you’re talking” moment when we first sniffed it. Over time, a distinct dark chocolate truffle aspect, and Philippe said that comes from old Pinot Noir in a hot vintage like 1959. ‘We hope that the 2009 will become like this; we will be dead, but for a future generation,’ commented French wine expert Michel Bettane to applause. I must say that this wine grew on me more and more: I found myself drinking more and more… I later wrote: chocolate mousse with pepper and Philippe said “l’encre de Chine”… And the palate was well structured and rich. The second best wine of the night, but still overshadowed by that amazing white 1961. The cheeses served were delicious. An unctuous Brillat de Savarin which I need to eat more often (and then take more Lipitor no doubt), a savory Citeaux (Burgundy cheese) and a very good Comté.
Just an amazing night, one for a book I need to write.