TN: Chateau Figeac dinner with Mr. Eric d'Aramon

CHATEAU FIGEAC DINNER WITH MR. ERIC D’ARAMON - Ruth Chris - Washington DC (1/18/2012)

Panos once again came through and organized a nice vertical dinner. This time we were joined by Mr. Eric d’Aramon, the wine maker at Chateau Figeac. Mr. d’Aramon was a bon vivant with a wonderful sense of humor.

Mr. d’Aramon explained the properties history. The property was owned by his wife’s family since the late 19 centuries but mostly managed from Paris. It was in the 50s when his father in law moved to the property and started to make the wine. The grape composition is 1/3 of cab s, cab f and merlot.

It was interesting and quite educational to taste the vertical of Figeacs. Mr. d’Aramon’s explained his approach in making wines that are drinking well vs tasting well and food friendly. The grapes are picked a bit early accordingly. The wines clearly reflected his philosophy. Other than the 09, they all showed bright acidity, fresh fruits and noticeable tannins. Mr. d’Aramon mentioned that perhaps cabernet sauvignon was picked a bit early and you can definitely notice green/vegetal characters. Will this express in different way perhaps menthol or mint with time, I am not so sure.
Flight 1
We started with a lovely Krug NV as usual a mid 90 pointer.

  • 2006 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    A hint of green pepper, cedar, ash, earth and flower. Blue and red fruits. The overall impression is cool and no sweetness in fruit. Medium concentration showing dry tannins. It is a nose driven wine perhaps will develop like the 86,ie mostly nose driven, a bit angular with noticeable tannins. Definitely not recommend if you prefer noticeable upfront fruits in your Bordeaux. (90 pts.)
  • 2005 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    Perhaps the second biggest/ripest wine of the dinner after the 09. Ripe but fresh, licorice, blue to black fruit. All Figeacs seem to clearly display the vintage characteristics and this no exception, interesting to compare with the 09 which is a typical 09. Very young, impressive showing excellent concentration, siky mouthfeel but not much pleasure to drink at the moment as the overall impression is not too expressive. (94 pts.)

Flight 2

  • 2000 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    Starts with a hint of green but quickly becomes very vegetal. I find strong presence of pyrazine bothersome a a la 2004 burgundy. Black fruits, mineral, caramel, coffee and tobacco. The palate displays medium concentration and slightly bitter. If you like chinon from a cooler vintage, you may like this wine. If you palate agrees with Bob or love upfront plush fruits, avoid. (89 pts.)
  • 2001 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    Very Burgundian impression but distinctively Bordeaux, bright red fruits, cedar, licorice, caramel as usual for this property a hint of green which in this case quite refreshing. This medium body wine is the most approachable in this flight, soft, sweet and luscious. It is ready to go and will complement most meat dishes well. (92 pts.)
  • 2004 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    This is open for business. Crushed blueberries, baked fruits, cassis, mineral, once again a hint of green. This medium body expressive wine is the most primary and freshest of the flight. (93 pts.)

Flight 3

  • 1999 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    I initially called Brett but Ken B correctly identify as VA. Showing some ashes, charred meat, jammy sweet fruits, mushroom and wet tobacco. Slightly hollow mid-palate. (91 pts.)
  • 1998 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    The 98 is my favorite at the moment. This is a very exotic and hedonistic wine. Deeply toned red fruits, flower, cinnamon, nutmeg, chartreuse and cedar. This displays similar Burgundian aspects as the 2001. Excellent concentration, bright acidity and integrated tannins. Lovely wine. (97 pts.)
  • 1995 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    Sweet red fruits, cherries, flowers, cocoa, cedar and a hint of green. The palate displays medium concentration, bright acidity and some tannins. The wine is fully matured and drinking well but will last due to the acidity and tannins. I believe some like this a lot more than I. I preferred the 98 by a wide margin. (91 pts.)

Flight 4

  • 1990 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    Another fully matured wine, earth, truffle, caramel, coffee, anise and a hint of mint. The palate displays medium concentration, freshness, bright acidity and fully integrated tannins. As expected, I seem to prefer riper style of this property. Lovely wine. (95 pts.)
  • 1986 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    The wine that Mr. d’Aramon’s father in law made. According to Mr. d’Aramon his father in law didn’t put much emphasis on the color of the wine. Fully matured, red fruits, Barolo like sweetness and tar, anise and a hint of green. Bright acidity keeps the wine fresh but seems the lightest of all served. Mouth puckering tannins and high acidity makes the wine a bit angular. This was WOTN for some. This is a good wine but I certainly am not loving it. (92 pts.)
  • 2009 Château Figeac - France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru
    This very ripe wine is not unlike the other 09s. This may be a bit controversial but this show the similar ripe fruit characters as the 09 Pavie. A critic rated this 93-94+ vs 70-75 for Pavie. Crushed blueberries, cassis, licorice, crushed rocks and lavender. This is a big scale, voluptuous wine. The most concentrated and ripest of the night. (95 pts.)

Although we all agreed that most wines showed well, the opinions varied regarding the preferences. There were those who preferred most structured and nose driven 2001, 1995 and 1986 and others like me who like the riper style of 2009, 2005, 1998 and 1990. It was a wonderful evening with roomful of Figeacs. Thank you Mr. d’Aramon for generously donating the wines and personally attending the event and Panos for being the master organizer and instigator.
Posted from CellarTracker

Great notes Kevin and I agree with your summary. I was in the 86-fan camp (great note on the Barolo-esque tar) but am also a big fan of the 98, so I think there is room for both styles to be adored. I think it is the modern day 82. I didn’t find the 98 overwhelmingly more agreeable than the 95 for current consumption. I think the 95 is at a peak of maturity albeit with far less stuffing than the 98. The 09 was surely the outlier of the group, showing so primordial and dense; more barrel sample than bottled wine. I suspect many of the 09s will be similar. I was not a fan of the 04 personally but could see how the fruit aspect could appeal to many a taster.

Until the next one.

I am the unproud owner of three bottles of the 2000 vintage.

Thanks Kevin for taking the initiative to start the thread!

I am just on my way out, about to catch a flight to Frankfurt and then a train to Strasbourg. I will post detailed notes, but over the weekend. Let me just stress that I think there was something for everyone at this dinner tasting. I agree that the 2009 was quite rich, showing more the oak component at this stage and quite, er, “2009.” Will get into more detail about Mr d’Aramon’s logic for using 100% new oak in my subsequent post, but suffice it to say, that the 2009 needs major time. I suspect that the 2005 may end up being slightly fresher in style, more my style of wine. I would have to try Figeac and Pavie 2009 side by side to compare, but I recall that the Figeac in 2009 was fresher from barrel… but that is also just my personal taste, too.

As for the 1986, I just loved it. It had this subtle mineral depth and long finish that impressed me as WOTN. The 1998 was close but of a different style, more sumptuous. Alas at least two of the three 1990s were over dusty, not quite the best examples of this fine vintage. Not corked, I do not think that was the case, but not fresh. All ex-chateau, so go figure.

It was indeed interesting to hear from Mr. D’Aramon his feeling that he may have picked the 2000 to early, given his concern not to make overripe wine. He does not like big styled Bordeaux and he may have erred going too far in the other direction! Interesting. We shall see how the 2000 develops. The 2001 was more balanced and more a pleasure than the 2000.

Thanks to you and Faryan for posting. Looking forward to hearing from more of the participants on this excellent forum. I should have a video coming next week.

Cheers,
Panos

Victor,

A 2000 we had a year (almost to the day) prior showed remarkably better (also ex-chateau). I think it is a wine that has a long life ahead of it and some of its “unripe” qualities may very well integrate into upside complexity over time. I’d wait a few years though

Thanks. At this stage, few TN’s have enticed me to crack a bottle soon.

That is correct Faryan, I was there! The thing is, I had organized a vertical for Figeac in Germany back in 2005 and the 2000 was tasting better back then. Interestingly the 1995 a couple of years ago, when tasted with Ben Giliberti over dinner at Dinos in Washington DC was a bit more green in expression and I was very impressed with how it had improved this past Wednesday evening. The two 95s I donated for the dinner, and the third one I had with Ben also came from my collection, so the evolution was interesting. I am rather inclined to think that the 2000 will also develop nicely over time, but it needs time, and it will be more Old School Bordeaux. Like some of those surprisingly good 70s we have tried, perhaps, in recent years. Just some thoughts as I sip some whites at Vino Volo at Dulles International Airport… including a very grassy New Zealand Torrent Bay 2009, not bad but a bit too green for me; an alcoholic and rather uninteresting Cantina La Vis Pinot Grigio from Italy and a more concentrated California Chardonnay with the provocative name She Flirts. Funny thing is that there is a cute girl sitting next to me and she is not flirting. So I suppose the wine makes up for this? Not really because it is a bit too hot, in terms of a wine being too warm is what I mean, ha ha ha…

Lovely notes, Kevin. Thanks for the reference points. My recent experience with the 1990 Figeac was very similar to your’s.

I would also like to thank Panos for putting together a really nice event. The wines were excellent and the company was outstanding. Really a neat mix of attendees that included wine professionals like John Gilman, a whole bunch of people I regularly taste wine with and, of great interest, a nice group of younger people. I wish some of them would post their thoughts on these wines. We do have Faryan posting above, but I know that there are some others of this group that are lurkers here, right Ian? I would love to see their views.

One thing of interest was a comment by one of the younger attendees (may actually have been Faryan) seeming to indicate the belief that the more restrained style of Figeac is a “new” style of Bordeaux that is quite different from the traditional overoaked overprocessed style that is too prevalent these days. For anyone who believes this, go back and taste Bordeaux from the 70s and even the 1980s. I particularly note this article from Panos Bordeaux 1982 horizontal: blast from the past in Washington D.C. (tasted December 2005) – Connections to Wine about the alcohol levels in 1982 Bordeaux, which was considered and still is considered a poster child for rich, ripe Bordeaux to see how far things have come.

Enough on my soapbox. As to the wines, I did not really see the distinction in preferences among wines lining up the way Kevin suggested in the people I spoke with. “There were those who preferred most structured and nose driven 2001, 1995 and 1986 and others like me who like the riper style of 2009, 2005, 1998 and 1990.” I certainly liked wines in both groups and, other than obviously Kevin, so did the people I spoke with. My favorites were in order the 1998 and the 1986. I also liked the 2001 and the 1995 a lot. In fact, I liked most of the wines. The 1990 was interesting as Panos suggested. I think there was some bottle variation, but also the wine seemed to improve as the evening went along. We tasted some from the third (musty) bottle after the tasting was done and it was starting to get quite good.

The other wine I really liked was the 2004. It really had perfect balance. Certainly it was not as showy as some of the wines, but it was quite elegant and I think it will mature into a really nice wine that is somewhat similar in style to some of the more successful 1979s, of which there are a bunch.

I was not wild about the 1999 and the 2000. The 1999 just seemed to be a weaker vintage. The 2000 seemed to have issues. I am hoping that it is just a stage and that the wine will get better (as I have some of this) but I must agree with others that I am concerned.

I am not sure how I feel about the 2005, 2006 and the 2009. These wines were so primary that it is hard to judge where they are going to go. I do wonder though if the traditional standards for what are the top vintages are continuing to hold into the future. Traditionally, the riper vintages were the great ones. However, in the 2000s, with global warming and better farming practices, is this still the case. The 2001 and the 2004 clearly showed better than the 2000. I am not sure whether the 2005 or the 2009 will become more enjoyable than the 2001 and the 2004. I am not convinced at this point that the bigger 2005 will be better than the 2006, although as I said, this is an issue that will have to be revisited.

Howard,

If I had said that Figeac was “new” Bordeaux during my silly diatribe, I apologize as that isn’t what I meant at all (may we all pray that someone “accidentally” erases Panos video capture, lest we be embarrassed in future generations by our rousing rhetoric…); quite the opposite.

What I mean is that relatively new drinkers such as myself, who cut their BDX teeth on vintages post 2000, were initiated into a stylistic trend that was largely unidirectional due to the changes occuring in BDX from the financial reality of points and their affect on eP sales. Reading the expert notes and spending time on the Parker bulletin board (at least for me) created a feedback loop, constantly reinforcing what the experts projected as “great Bordeaux.” It’s a deeply problematic situation which marginalized stylistic individuality and a diversity of philosophical approaches towards winemaking, which are now the core problems that Bordeaux is dealing with as a result of their “fat” decade.

All the meanwhile, chateau such as Figeac were marginalized. While Figeac drew under-performing reviews compared to its historical peers in St Emillion, those of us who were sick of the groupthink view found Figeac as something of a contrarian and I found its purity and expression both unique and refreshing. Mssr. d’Aramon’s stepfather did not want to play the points game and stuck to his principles and views on what makes Figeac special. As such, Figeac acted as an important primer for my expanded view on what type of styles BDX can express.

Far from silly Faryan, what you said was very interesting and further explained above, thanks for sharing. Putting together a short video… will post later.

Faryan, I am not sure that what you said is much different from what I remembered. I was not criticizing you; quite the contrary. When I react to certain styles of Bordeaux, I have the advantage of many years of tasting traditional wines. You apparently are getting to a similar place without the benefit of that history, which is much harder.

I posted this on this and two other Boards and the responses vary from agreeing with me to my ratings being too high to too low. IMHO, some folks have a preconceived notion as how the wines should taste. The 98 Figeac is not thin and acidic and the 09 an excellent example of the vintage, but it is hard to deny that some of the wines show green. Whether you like it is a matter of preference. I have rated most of the wines in the 90s, I obviously like all the wines.

Figeac has long been a favorite; but it’s an incredibly difficult wine to judge accurately when it’s young. That is why I suspect, they have using more new oak to make the wines more accessible during Primeur week. It’s interesting, that Cheval Blanc (which used to be part of Figeac) also has the same problem of being scored accurately.

I have had a few of the wines lately. Interesting to compare.

The 2009 was one of my favorite 2009s. It certainly was approachable, but showed real depth and character.

The 2005 is still a baby, but is beautifully balanced. It will be a long term wine, and will I suspect, will eventually be in its own way, one of the greatest Figeacs ever made.

The 2000 definitely has the green tinge, and I don’t think it is going away (the 1979 which I drank in 1987 had the same asparagus overlay, and I am afraid it is still there.)

The 1998 is NOT an 89 point wine; I scored it in the mid nineties last year, and was so impressed, I ended up buying a case of it. Wonderful wine for the medium term.

I think we did an offline at the Kittle House a year or so ago, and I managed to bring the 1990 by mistake. It showed very well there; and will drink well for some years, but probably won’t be as long term as some of the other wines.

The 1982 is a favorite. Ageless and lovely

Where did 89 points come from? Kevin scored it 97 and Panos 95?

Parker gave it 90 and Neal Martin scored it 88/89

You’re kidding!!!

Thanks for your comments Howard and Mark. What I found particularly revealing about this tasting is the notion of what makes a worthy wine. Kevin likes Figeac, for example, in spite of some green notes he detects. I think there was a general comprehension at this dinner that great wine is not just about ripe or especially ultra ripe fruit… that can also get boring rather fast. I like the anti-flavor elite message, in this context. No, I do not mean to sound like the Pleasure Police. But rather simply state that there is something that is more subtle about great wine, to me at least. Minerality and precision, palate feel and texture, intensity and length. I got a lot of these for example from the 1986. But also in a more opulent fashion from the 1998.

Mark makes an interesting point about new oak being used so that Figeac can be more flattering en primeur, but Eric d’Aramon said at the dinner that they have used 100% new oak since the mid 1970s… Perhaps they have been aging it longer in new oak more often. D’Aramon said, for example, that the 1997 was aged 12 months in new oak, while the 2009 18 months. The 2009 to me was a touch impenetrable, if impressive, but had NONE of the drying tannin that I got from some of the richer, ultra ripe fruit driven Merlot based wines from St Emilion also aged in 100% new oak, or nearly so. Such high alcohol wines tend to glean more tannin from the new oak, and end up having a dry alcoholic finish.

Bottom line is that we enjoyed a wine with an greater accent on freshness in an era where 14 and 15% alcohol is getting to be a norm on the Right Bank. I love wines from all over Bordeaux, and can enjoy the riper styles, too. But I am glad Figeac fills an important niche, a niche that is much needed for my palate. [soap.gif]

Panos,

I was amazed when I saw your list of alcohol levels on 82 Bordeaux from a couple of years back. Bordeaux 1982 horizontal: blast from the past in Washington D.C. (tasted December 2005) – Connections to Wine I guess I never have looked at my bottles. And that is not a shy, understated vintage.

Out of curiousity, what are the alcohol levels in the Figeacs we had.

For someone who is trying to turn back the clock on alcohol levels and making great wine, see http://blog.maison-ilan.com/ (see the 2011s). I for one cannot wait to taste them.

Hi Howard! I should be sleeping but jet lag keeping me up! The Leoville Barton probably had the lowest alcohol among the 82s we had enjoyed. It was between 11.5 and 12, according to Anthony Barton. Many 82s have between 12 and 12.5. Yields were much higher then, second wines - if they existed - were hardly that important and did not lead to a large, concentrated piece of the vineyard pyramide going into the first wine… A different era. I am not against higher alcohol levels per se. The trend is normal in terms of later picking to be riper, climate change, and limiting yields (more exacting pruning, choosier selections, etc). But in my opinion, alcohol levels have gotten out of hand on the Right Bank and even some vignerons have spoken about less de-leafing, using slower maturing clones, or simply picking earlier. The advantage of Cabernet in this era is telling: it does not ripen as fast as Merlot and can maintain more freshness. The 2009 Figeac, according to d’Aramon was 13.5% alcohol. I am not sure how much alcohol was in the 1998 or the 1986, but no where near 14%, that seems quite sure :slight_smile:. I will ask him next time I get a chance, or perhaps Faryan can, as he is going to New York to taste the 2009s tomorrow.