TN: 2004 Burgs at La Mangeoire in midtown East

WINE TALK
21

The 04 taint is not simple pyrazine flavor you find in NZ SB.

22

Dale,

Thank you very much for the notes. I enjoyed many of the wines and the laffs even more.

I too found the Griotte to have burnt rubber both on the nose and finish, it was a weird bottle and maybe off, but I did not find any g-meenies.

The Lee Roy had a great crunchy red berry nose, but nothing else about it was enjoyable, a cloudy mess.

I thought the CdB was a little thin for its pedigree, and completely agree with your notes on the Ponsot, the Lambrays and the Potel.

I didn’t notice any green in the Meo, but I did find a bit of a sour cherry hard candy in the Meo core which I love in his wines, it was evident it was not a ripe vintage. The Fourrier Morey showed best when first popped, it was more lush and lost a lot of that as we circled back to it an hour+ later. I found nothing green or herbal about it.

I have trouble picking the Barthod as WOTN as I brought it, but I liked it very much. Popped when we first arrived, it was on the thin side (completely the opposite of the Morey I brought), with a slightly tart acidic finish… it really fleshed out over the next hour and became what I like about Chambolle.

The Fourrier CSJ was very good, I’d love to drink it again in a few years, and am happy to have a few. It did not seem to show its age.

There were few wines which I would be able to peg as 04 , which was surprising to me as I was expecting more green vegi notes.

I really liked the Rose Champers… very nice.

23

So sorry I kept Stuart in the mix in this conversation…

24

Thanks, Jerry…censorship is always best.

In music and in opinion.

By the way, where are your notes from the 2004 gala tasting? You’ve never posted them…if you even take notes?

25

This is the issue with the 04 taint. “Burnt rubber” sounds like the 04 taint. I bet the finish really clipped due to “burnt rubber”. Once again GM may be misleadin as the 04 taint is really not a straight pyrazine note.

26

Jerry was not regretting not censoring you. He was (understandably) regretting engaging you. The two are different. I don’t understand what place Jerry’s profession - music - has in the discussion, other than some misguided attempt to disparage him. Finally, whether Jerry took notes or not, he tasted the wines and, thus, has a basis for opinion. You, on the other hand, without tasting the wines in question, go on and on and on with your opinions about them.

27

Thanks for translating, Marty.

28

You’re welcome.

29

nice disparaging of many experienced and fine palates in one sentence by a non-attendee. I was at the “lavish” event, sitting next to Jerry, as a matter of fact. I enjoyed greatly many of the wines–none of which were the same as at the event occasioning this thread.

30

Alan…I have not “disparaged” or even questioned any of the “experienced and fine palates” in attendance at either the gala in LA or this tasting. In fact, no one except Don and one other person whose notes were linked to Don’s thread even exposed themselves to any potential evaluation by posting any tasting notes. Only a couple have on this thread. I understand the reticence (though I wonder if those who haven’t posted their notes even bother to take them!)

What I have disparaged…and really my only point on Don’s and this thread is leaping to extrapolations about this weird vintage, especially since I think everyone realizes that the plague of it is in the variability (possibly genetically) of each taster’s tastebuds from one such banquet and less about the wines themselves …and where many variables, including the amount of wines, food, and the micro-limited array of wines could have affected the supposed results. (And, I say “supposed” since Don reported a possible “sea change” with the wines…and the other notes contradict his basis…and…the anecdotes about their conclusions are seemingly mixed on the issue of the state of 2004.) Don’s words about the 2004 vintage…or at least the 28 wines “tasted” , FWIW:

As for the widespread reports about some of these wines being horribly flawed and undrinkable, it appeared to us, on this night with this level of wines at least, to be a complete myth.

So…if criticism is apt (and it might be! I try to be blunt in what I say, as nuance gets lost on a bulletin board.)…at least understand my point and my words, please. (My words here have really to do with people saying I should be ignored. To me ignoring anything/anyone, though flattering is a form of censorship.) “Myth” is a pretty strong descriptor in the context of the 2004’s obvious flaws, IMO.

As I said well earlier on this thread:

I have no doubt that the people there were “pleased” with what they experienced. I’ve never questioned that and would not. I take issue with Don’s proclamation of a sea change in the character of the wines, as drawn from that tasting.

Given the setting, the luxurious foods, the too-many wines for a human to appreciate at one event, the “dissenting” notes; that the wines ranged from the “top of the top to the bottom of the top of the top”…and the variations we have all seen with this issue…i only questioned making any pronouncements about the evolution of the problem as Don did.

I would never question what people thought they tasted…or tasted. That would be beyond silly.

Either you hadn’t read this…or don’t believe me???

I’m still interested in seeing yours/Jerry’s any notes from the LA tasting. If they have been posted, please link me to them…or any others.

31

ignoring is not censoring. that you conflate the two indicates how personally you take this issue.

you have the right to write whatever you want. but people with actual experience tasting these wines should ignore you because you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about because your experience is extremely limited and demonstrably outdated.

the above facts are then combined with the reasonable opinion that you have a personal agenda against the 2004 red burgundies (this opinion is based on your behavior on threads discussing 2004 red burgundy).

therefore, what you write on the matter isn’t relevant to anyone that is interested in knowing more about these wines, and should be ignored.

but you should continue writing about it!

32

Things are getting interesting… [cheers.gif]

33

I do find it interesting that considering the amount of tasters present, there is such a paucity of notes… [scratch.gif]

TTT

34

Not everyone likes taking notes. Not sure why that’s so complicated to understand. I’d say only 2-3 people out of every dinner I go to take notes. It’s time consuming. Most of the time I’d rather just enjoy the wine and dinner

35

i haven’t taken notes at a dinner since maybe 2004.

36

+1. I just went to have fun and hang with Jerry, expecting wines to suck, and not caring to save notes since I wasn’t going to search for these wines–I was shocked at how good H-N, DRC, and La Romanee were, but didn’t record my impressions. I spit all the wines, probably swallowed less than two ounces, so my palate wasn’t whacked by intoxication.

Stuart, I appreciate your statement that you weren’t disparaging the tasters, but to me, and I bet to many others, it reads differently. But thanks for clarifying.

37

That’s my whole issue, I usually have an ounce or two of each given wine poured into my glass, at most. Say we have 14 btls so I have 14-28(almost never this much) oz at 13% alcohol, that doesn’t include the times where I dump or spit. Then you combine it with typically carb heavy, rich meals. The idea that one would be so intoxicated they can’t remember what they are drinking shows a disconnect in understanding how these events are conducted. In fact on any given Happy hour Friday after work I probably drink 2-3 12oz beers at 7-9% alcohol! which is about as much alcohol as I would consume at a wine dinner.

38

Not sure if the alcohol issue started with my comments, but…that’s a separate issue from my objection to “tastings” that are larger than say ten wines: there are too many wines then for any taster I’ve ever encountered to do them justice. A matter of ability to concentrate for most humans. The gala in LA had 28.

I think I now understand the real issue here…and why none of the “wine dinner guests” except Don and one or two others posted notes: no one else took them. So…we are left with impressions, IMO, of a “wine dinner”. To me, such “impressions” , esp. if the number of wines is large and the food is competing for attention…are almost worthless. An event to “Have fun and hang”, for sure; good drinking, I’d agree. But…unfortunately, just some fuzzy impressions of the event is what’s left. Hardly worth arguing with. (And, I stopped going to any such events 15 years ago, as a result. I was invited to one last weekend, in fact.)

I think I owe Don Cornwell an apology when he said that after this tasting, the 2004 plague is a “myth”. What seems to have happened is that Don tasted, took notes on all 28 wines somehow…and saw no other notes if anyone even took them. He probably got no meaningful comments about specific wines, especially where people found the 2004 character…and, so…made his pronouncement.

I thought people since were just being arrogant about not posting their notes, which I’d love to see. Now, I realize that at most of these events (ie, large numbers of trophy wines, good food) it seems that nobody even bothers to even take notes. They “want to have fun and hang”…and it’s too “time consuming” and thwarts enjoying “the wine and dinner”. Who can argue with that. But, who wants to…as how can anyone remember enough specifics to even offer a meaningful opinion the next day…or weeks. Yet, people (often condescending jaak-ovs) offer opinions as if they can…and counter that “you weren’t there” when pressed for substance. (Of course, I am never “there”.)

I have to say…I never expected this to be the case, until reading the last few comments here. It is eye-opening. A parallel universe in some ways. Every wine event I can remember going to , people were religious about taking notes…albeit sometimes 2-3 words…but…So, It never crossed my mind that I’m questioning “impressions”, something that really doesn’t interest me.

39

Impressions are worthless? The fact that it isn’t a detailed note doesn’t mean it’s worthless. It may have less information, but doesn’t mean it’s worthless. You can still offer a meaningful opinion.

Did you take notes about the movie you just watched? The weather last week? The food you ate at restaurant x a month ago? Probably not. Doesn’t mean your opinions are worthless.

40

This is what I said, Charlie: jeez…To me, such “impressions” , esp. if the number of wines is large and the food is competing for attention…are almost worthless. And, some things, like those on your list are better as “impressions”, IMO. Specific facts are not that important “data points” for such things.