My wife and I were pleased to join another couple recently at their home for a delicious lamb dinner and some lovely wines.
We started out with some cheeses, nuts, fruit and hot artichoke dip in the living room:
1990 Bollinger Champagne R.D. Extra Brut. This bottle was disgorged in September of 2002. A bottle we had two and a half years ago that was disgorged in July of 2005 did not seem ready to drink, but this one seems to show plenty of aged character and far greater complexity. First off, it is a bit golden copper-colored and similar to the last bottle has very little mousse to it, really. At first, it offers up rich and deep aromas of dark ginger, black bread, mushrooms and caramel with a nutty sherry edge. Slowly, though, it begins to unfold some crisper notes of lime peel, gunpowder, river rocks and a sort of honeysuckle lightness riding above everything. In the mouth, it again opens somewhat dark and serious with little in the way of inner mouth mousse–with dark bread, ginger, nuts and caramel flavors leading the way. I don’t especially love that flavor profile, but what really impresses me is the awe-inspiring streak of vivid acidity running down the spine of this wine. That gives the wine a liveliness that rides atop those darker richer elements and carries it along to the very persistent, prickly finish. Coming back to this for second and third glasses after a while, the flavors seem better integrated and more appealing, while the wine has lost none of the acidic cut or depth. Overall, I’m not sure it is my favorite style, but it sure is an interesting and complex wine to ponder and slowly savor over time.
2002 Peter Michael Chardonnay La Carriere Knights Valley. I’ve had the 2003 twice in the past year, but have not tried the 2002 since two rather impressive showings back in June and November of 2007. As before, the wine has an unfiltered cloudy appearance, with some pea green tints to its yellow color. The nose is very complex and layered, with aromas of stony minerality, smoke, white peach and wet lumber, but also some crazy Bohemian-styled notes of dried white flowers, musky tropical fruits, paraffin, lemon pepper spice and meringue. It has a lot going and seems to morph and re-invent itself many times over during the course of the early evening. In the mouth, it is succulent, sweet and enveloping, with a very nice leesy quality now becoming apparent. It is very creamy and shows no hard edges whatsoever, though it continues to show hints of vanilla and fine barrel spices to go with the full fruit spectrum of pear, peach and tropical yellow fruit flavors. It is again decidedly layered and complex, but also classy, creamy and artfully woven. It seems to downplay the crunchy minerality this vineyard typically shows, which I’d prefer to see come through more directly, but otherwise the wine is long, luscious and giving.
2005 Peter Michael Chardonnay Belle Cote Knights Valley. The nose here is much more tightly-coiled, but it does slowly unwind over time and begin to pick up ever-greater complexity as it goes along. Aromas of white flowers, herbs de Provence, vanilla, soft oak and waxy tropical fruits all take their turn, followed later by more graphite and mineral bits finding their way into the mix. It is mouth-coating and dense on the palate, with a languid open-textured feel as it rolls across the tongue. It has tasty rich flavors, but the vanilla, oak and barrel spices are rather strong, especially on the finish. The fruit has great persistence and length and overall is a pleasure to drink—the wine just needs 3 or 4 more years in the cellar to integrate a bit better.
With the salad course and the main meal, we focused on California Cabernets:
1988 Château Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon The Montelena Estate Napa Valley. The cork on this particular bottle is as clean as a whistle, with nary a millimeter of color showing above the disk. The wine has a wonderfully dark and feral nose of sweaty horse, bridle leather, hung meat, iron filings, iodine, tomato leaf, dark earth, persimmon, black currants and classy spices. It has an impressive lingering feel to it and never lets up during the entire course of the evening (and into the following evening, as well). In the mouth, it is smooth and integrated with a lean wiry feel to it, but plenty of black raspberry, sour cherry and mixed currant fruit flowing nicely over a medium-weight frame. It has an edgy, tangy acidity running through it that gives it a zingy bite and there is a good crunch of structure throughout to make it feel lively and tautly toned. It turns a touch drier on the fine finish, where some soft chalky tannins still coat the teeth a bit. A second glass later in the evening is even more fully-realized and delineated—with absolutely no sense of diminishment over time. Indeed, the next night this continues to deliver the goods and plenty of pleasure. While this vintage is not generally considered to be among the great Montelena Estates, you would have a hard time convincing me of that based on this bottle on this night. My WOTN.
1997 Château Montelena Cabernet Sauvignon The Montelena Estate Napa Valley. Aromas of black licorice, camphor, lava, leather, dusty barn, liquid graphite, cool black currant, blackberry, brownies and mint leaf provide a lot of dark classy character to the bouquet of this wine. And while it is quite expressive, it seems to clearly be holding something in reserve, as well. On the palate, it is silky-textured and beautifully smooth, with a finer texture and more expansiveness than its older flight-mate. It is definitely softer in acidity and higher in sweetness, with a much warmer feel to the fruit. It isn’t showing the levels of complexity yet that the ’88 clearly is and the finish is a touch chewy. So, while this is really classy and tasty right now, the best seems yet to come.
1997 Pahlmeyer Proprietary Red Napa Valley. The nose here is redolent of raspberries, sweet incense, creosote, clove, pepper and a strong lactic mocha paste character. It is deep, fleshy and exotic, yet hardly over the top or anything. In the mouth, it is absolutely seamless and rich–full of warm dark fruit and molten chocolate flavors. There are notes of dark toast and fine brown spices throughout and the finish still sports a bit of wood. However, there is so much fruit here that the oak doesn’t seem to interfere much. It has a nice even-toned finish of moderate length. It drinks beautifully now but will likely be better in another 3 to 5 years.
1997 Peju Province Winery Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley. The Peju is more high-toned all around than the other wines, with perhaps some volatile acid-aided aromas of rich crème de cassis and tomato paste that seem perhaps a bit stewed. Some of that blows off, but the wine never really expands much beyond its core profile. In the mouth, it is considerably better. It may not have the pedigreed texture or density of the previous wines, but it has a certain uniqueness of flavor that appeals to me. It is richly-fruited with fine chocolate and leafy notes and some tingly smoke elements, as well. The whole thing ends rather even-keeled, balanced and correct. The wine doesn’t thrill the same way some of the other wines did this night, but I think it just needs some time to gain more nuance and complexity.
Finally, with some sticky Greek dessert pastries from Athan’s Bakery we delved into something equally sticky:
N.V. Chambers Rosewood Muscat Rare Rutherglen. This was served from a 375 ml bottle purchased around 2001 or 2002. It pours out looking a bit like brown motor oil. It is wide open on the nose, with strong notes of hazelnut liqueur, molasses, raisins, Turkish coffee and gingerbread. In the mouth, it is exceptionally rich and viscous. It is super-sweet, with flavors of warm molasses, dried dates, toasted walnuts, gingerbread and thick caramel. It hangs together beautifully without being blowsy or chewy, performing an unlikely balancing act all the way. It doesn’t go for nuance, so I could see it not being a style for everyone, but it sure has its place, especially paired with sweet pastries like these.
-Michael