To me this perfectly illustrates the “evil” of the 2004 reds…is it the wine, is it the taster, is it really not there? No one can know, except by tasting it themselves. One’s man’s trash is another’s gold…as they say.
As that great poet from NJ asked in his song about an infamous police shooting, “41 Shots”…
_Well, is it a gun, is it a knife
Is it a wallet, this is your life
It ain’t no secret (it ain’t no secret)
It ain’t no secret (it ain’t no secret)
No secret my friend
You can get killed just for living in your American skin
_
And, no one was able to figure it out…in time.
No, you didn’t do anything “wrong”. My point is that separating the taster and the wine is part of the confusion with 2004. If it’s not there for one person…will it be there for another? and, if you find it…would that other taster find it without an “unreasonable” investigation?
That’s what’s mindboggling about this vintage. Not that it’s flawed, but that opinions and perceptions of it are all over the continum from detestation to skepticism that it exists without lots of searching for it to finding it and loving it.
It is more about the taster than the wines, I think.
You seem to get the same dichotomy over here with regards to guys like Philip Togni.
Some people just seem to have that “gene” for the “green” - in a wine like Togni, they detect something “green” which they simply despise.
Or at least in a young Togni - but I have often wondered whether the chemicals which go into “green” might form the basis for some really beguiling aromatics, about 30 or 40 years down the road.
I think you often get something similar with “whole cluster” - when the wines are young, the “greens” from whole cluster can be very offensive to some folks, but there seems to be a general consensus that whole cluster makes for the better aromatics [and maybe even the better mouthfeel] over the long haul - if only you have the patience to wait it out.
PPS: There is a related question, which is whether a “super-taster” - someone who can detect flaws at an order of magnitude [or several orders of magnitude] less of the impurity [than the population at large] - has any business being a professional wine critic.
For instance, some folks have wondered whether Laube ought to be whining about TCA if he is noticing it at a level which even Parker can’t detect.
PPPS: As always, trust your own palate. If you hate “green”, then don’t drink “green” [unless maybe you’re a masochist, and you enjoy being miserable].
Serge,
your TN sounds exactly like why I dislike the 2004 vintage …
I had my fair share of “green” 04-wines … starting during barrel- tasting, following the tasting of a friend of mine (15 wines) … and my own tasting (12 wines … and some mature wines in addition) … and moreover some single bottles … all reputed producers and fine vineyards …
The least affected I had so far was JJ Confuron …
I didn´t buy a huge quantity … and will let them rest with the hope that the “greenness” will somhow integrate better … (and i won´t buy a single bottle ´04 any more …)
In my book, 85-87 would be a decent mark for a negociant Gevrey, which this is. OTOH, your description makes it sound as though maybe you really do use an inflated grading system.
Serge, considering your review, I would not say that an 85-87 rating for this wine is a good call by Tanzer.
You may still be able to use the “producer, producer, producer” rule, since this wine was from their negoce label. Curious if you would like any of their domaine bottles better.
