Eric Guido, whom I generally like as a reviewer, added a new and recurring phrase in his recent Oregon article, “…impossible to ignore.”
“The 2023 [Bethel Heights] Pinot Noir The Shallows is impossible to ignore…”
“The 2023 [Arterberry Maresh] Pinot Noir Maresh Vineyards is impossible to ignore…”
“The 2023 [Beaux Freres] Chardonnay Willamette Valley is impossible to ignore…”
“The 2015 [Cristom] Pinot Noir Marjorie is [you guessed it] impossible to ignore…”
The phrase wasn’t even reserved for the highest scoring wines. I was more or less reading at random (producers I was interested in), and this verbal tick was wearing on me.
Could he not just say tar rather than hot tarmac? And what is unique about bonfire ashes?
2021 A & E Verset Cornas
“Hot tarmac and bonfire ash aromas - decidedly smoky, with herbal undertones. Medium- to full-bodied, there’s no lack of ripeness, it’s concentrated too, if not massive in size, so quite a compact style of Cornas. The tannins are vibrant, intense, textural and classic for the appellation - so you’ll need to wait for them to settle. Fresh, intense, well balanced and will last.” -Matt Walls, Decanter 94
I don’t know if I would ever use it in a tasting note, but to me hot tarmac has a very different smell than tar. Tar is a natural product, hot tarmac has bitumen etc.
I don’t actually have a criticism of that tasting note, I kind of like it. It clearly evokes some memories for the critic. I like that. Now this does not seem like a wine that I would choose, sounds like a very, very ripe wine in a vintage that should not show that way.
Not trying to pick on Meadows but I felt like this note was a bit all over the place. I’m posting more for guidance and to make sure I have decent reading comprehension:
“This is aromatically similar to the Latricières but perhaps even a bit cooler and with more earth and sauvage elements. There is a really lovely purity to the sleek, dense, intense and markedly powerful large-scaled flavors that exude an almost pungent minerality on the austere, serious and wonderfully persistent and very firmly structured finale. As the Trapet Chambertin often is, this is not a monster of concentration or structure but rather one of refinement and grace.”
I feel like the last sentence completely contradicts everything else before it. Also a general question about Meadows’s notes: he loves to use the word “austere.” It is a very common descriptor for him particularly when talking about the finish. Is that referring to the tannins? I generally don’t like austere wines so I’m trying to understand what he’s getting at here. I wouldn’t choose “austere” after describing a wine as dense and intense Just curious what you all think and if you can be of help.
If one takes “firmly structured” to be not quite as structured as a monster of structure, and austere as connoting refinement and grace (which, in aesthetic terms, it can), then the sentences do not contradict each other. I would agree, though, that that is a lot of interpretation to apply to a tasting note.
That’s fair. I guess the part that was giving me problems was “refinement and grace” after using “firmly structured” and “dense, intense and markedly powerful large-scaled flavors”
Perhaps your point about “austere” is what he’s getting at. I thought it might be talking about the tannin structure but I’m not sure. I’d love to know since he uses it so frequently.
By Stephen Tanzer
January/February 2001, IWC Issue #94, (See more on Vinous…)95-98 points
(E. Guigal Cote Rotie La Landonne 1999) Brilliant full ruby. Sauvage aromas of black cherry, lead pencil, animal fur and blood sausage. Great density and texture, not to mention enormous structure. Strong peppery character. This is like a solid in the mouth. The big but lush tannins coat the entire palate. Aromas of crystallized black raspberry and leather lingered for minutes in the empty glass.
