TNS: Boston Champagne and WA State wine tasting

WINE TALK
1

2002 Marc Hebrart Special Club
Intense, deep nose of chalk, stone fruits/pits and pear skin, with small, soft bubbles displaying intensity again in the mouth and on the finish. Just as Terry Thiese describes, this will be even better in time. Second favorite of the bubbles.

2002 Dhondt
Have had better bottles of this, felt tired/flat. Still displayed nice mineral and yellow orchard fruits, with some ginger and graham cracker crust thrown in, but much less intense than previous bottles. When it’s on, it’s as good as the Hebrart.

NV Thierry Massin
Came off as a little angular, but a very bright nose chock full of minerality.

NV Camille Saves
Very nice for a NV, with cinnamon and a floral note. Nice saline component with zesty apple skin tang on the finish. Great stuff.

1985 Laurent Perrier Grand Siecle
Star of the champagnes, as any older, well-made wine would have been amongst the babies. Rich butter, toffee, caramel and orange cream just glide across the palate. So rich and buttery, but not heavy in any way. Intense, palate sticking finish.

1992 Leonetti Merlot
Offputting nose of mustard seed, mahogany and green herbs. Better on the palate, but not a fan.

2004 Leonetti Merlot
Passed b/c more than 1 person said it was a new world fruit bomb. No thanks.

2001 Januik Cabernet
Again getting mustard - what’s with the mustard?? Pretty basic red cherry liqueur in the mouth.

1996 Woodward Canyon Artist Series
My favorite of the reds, and still very young. Tar and blackberry are backed by loamy earth and mouthfeel similar to Rutherford Dust. Spicy and grippy, love this. Did I mention this was young?

1997 Woodward Canyon Artist Series
Very young, with pretty spearmint and cinnamon accents. Sweet red fruit isnt over the top and is again very tarry, Piedmonte-esque. Lots of minerals on the finish here, love it.

1998 Woodward Canyon Artist Series
Another young winner. Smoky campfire nose, tar and some maple. Again, grippy and earth/mineral laden, intense finish.

1998 Woodward Canyon Dedication Series
Somehow I didnt take notes on this, but I recall enjoying it.

1987 Woodward Canyon Charbonneau
Very Gruaud-Larose like, with some funk, cedar, herbs and sweet red currant fruit. Seems to be past peak, I’d drink up. Good stuff though.

2002 Andrew Will Sorella
Wow is this a fruit/oak/spicefest after the preceding bubbles and graceful reds. Couldnt stomach more than a sip or two. Might turn into something special in time.

2003 Andrew Will Sorella
Wow is this a fruit/oak/spicefest after the preceding bubbles and graceful reds. Couldnt stomach more than a sip or two. Might turn into something special in time. Enjoyed this so much more when previously drunk alongside a Mondavi Reserve Cabernet and steaks.

2

So the 2002 and 2003 Sorella…was it the same wine! hahah [cheers.gif]

3

Ha - no!

They were both just so huge after the elegant bubbles and aged-WA reds, overwhelmed my palate.

Would have fared much better alongside a bunch of younger wines or with tons of red meat.

4

Where the hell is the Cayuse?

5

[shrug.gif]

6

My views, as always, are perhaps a bit more nuanced than Peter’s. [whistle2.gif]

We are in agreement on the Champagnes. I was really really impressed with the Camille Saves in particular and will surely seek that one out.

We are in violent disagreement on the Leonettis, which I loved. I mean I dug them both a lot, though I agree with the mustard seed comment on the '92 (didn’t bother me at all). The 2004 delivered the goods for 2 more nights after the tasting, too. Not Peter’s style, so good that he left a lot for the rest of us–much appreciated!

The Charbonneau was in no way over the hill for my tastes. That is a great aged Bordeaux ringer. One of my favorites of the whole night.

It was hard to choose from the great trio of '96, '97 and '98 Artist Series for me. The '96 delivers tons of flavor with fine layering and integration, but also plenty of life ahead. The '97 is sexier on the nose, but a bit drier around the edges of the palate. The '98 was the chewiest, but also the deepest and most mysterious. All of them can age effortlessly for at least another 3-5 years, it would seem.

Yes, the Andrew Will wines suffered terribly from their placement at the end of the tasting, and one cannot deny that they are way too young. My preference was for 2003–as it came off as a bit fresher.

The ‘76 Moulin Touchais at the very end was just freakin’ delightful. A pristine bottle. What a great bottle of Chenin. I think I had like 4 glasses of it before Ed kicked me and Tyler out!

Well, having said all that, I gotta get my notes up. I’ve got like 5 events before this one I have to write up, so I guess I better get to work.

-Michael

7

Nuanced is one way to describe your notes [drinkers.gif]!

Too funny that Ed had to give you the boot, he looked like he was ready to pass out around the time we left. That’s the beauty of hosting, no need to stay sober to drive!

8

[gen_fro.gif] It was a great night and a good back to back tasting week!

9

No doubt!

10

Too bad you had to drink all that WA stuff after all that terrific Champagne. That’s going backwards! [diablo.gif]

2002 Dhondt was really tight last I had it. Leaving that alone for a while, read few years.

11

The Champagne was just the carrot I had to use to lure these people over to the dark side… [berserker.gif]

12

Nice thread…

I knew WA state made wine, but I didn’t know Boston made champagne [dance2.gif]

PS. I fully take credit for the mustard seed descriptor!! Fun tasting, we need to do it again sometime soon. I would have taken notes, but I was completely burnt out on notes from the been in billerica dinner.

T

13

You didn’t stand a chance at enjoying the A. Will offerings. Chris makes those to be had “later” as in much later.

And, depending on your food choice you could have compounded your error.

I’m not the least surprised by the results on the Woodward Canyon. They have been, and did make, great wines.

To Leonetti - I like the wine - but require it to be very very young or very old.
I think Chris is a better winemaker than his dad and I’ve been on the list for 3 years now so I’m accumulating a nice stash (30 bottles a year) to be had later on.

14

Ok, so I finally had a chance to type up some more formal notes from this tasting.

The Champagnes:

NV Camille Saves Champagne Brut Carte Blanche. I was not previously familiar with this producer, but this non-vintage wine was right in my pleasure zone. The nose is light and airy, but with lots of interesting and appealing aromatic notes like apple skins, chalk dust, sugar/cinnamon mix, flaky croissant and fresh-cut ginger. This is just what I like on the palate—solid body, plenty of fleshed out apple and citrus fruit, a creamy but very classy texture and an easy sense of drive, depth and cut. Fine spices and fresh acids give the finish a tingly feel that is bright and refreshing. This is the sort of wine I could drink way too much of without even thinking—it is that easy-drinking and inviting.

NV Thierry Massin Champagne Brut Selection. This is totally on the soft side, with a super-foamy mousse that is just too foamy and at least for me distracts from anything else the wine might offer. The nose features creamy notes of vanilla bean, cream corn, bread dough, baking spices and faint minerals. The frothy palate reveals some soft apple fruit and some sweet candied notes, but the whole thing dissipates far too quickly and has little sense of length or persistence.

2002 Jose Dhondt Champagne Brut Blanc de Blancs Vielles Vignes Grand Cru. There’s lots of crisp minerality on the nose here, with graphite, quartz and also some more fleshy notes of pear fruit. In the mouth, it is very intense—with sharp focus and plenty of generosity to the blood orange and grapefruit flavors. There is a lot of power here, but it is showing fine restraint. The acidity and spices are really vibrant, but the texture is creamy and smooth. It is a wake-up wine that really makes your palate perk up and pay attention. This is pretty exciting stuff to me.

2002 Marc Hebrart Champagne Special Club 1er Cru. This is a bit quiet on the nose–showing some faint notes of citrus skin, mica and tree fruits. It is fleshy and frothy in the mouth, with decent body and persistence. The fruit is up front and young-seeming—a bit monolithic at this point. It turns more taut and tart on the finish, which features a streak of bittersweet grapefruit. A few fellow tasters have told me they think I got this wine and the Jose Dhondt reversed, but I’ll stick by my original notes.

1985 Laurent Perrier Champagne Brut Grand Siecle. This Champagne features a rich and delightfully complex bouquet of nutmeg, pickled ginger, fine sherry, liquid caramel, honey and meringue pie topping. It also shows its age in the flavor profile, with fine notes of warm baked apples, baking spices and pastry dough. It is seamless across the palate and drinks perhaps more like an aged white Burg at times. The acidity is gentle, but the structure here is solid and the whole thing drinks real easy right now. This is a very nice treat.

The Washington State Reds:

1992 Leonetti Merlot Washington State. Ed pulled this bottle out from his cellar when he saw me walk in with the 2004. I’m really glad he did. The color shows a hint of browning, but the wine is totally sound, as evidenced by the really lovely bouquet that wafts up out of the glass. It leads out with very pretty aromas of dried cedar planking, cranberry bread, frozen persimmon, dried red berries and a sort of spicy leather. Later, it grows even more complex, folding in aromas of gentle jalapeno pepper, forest greens and mustard seed. In the mouth, it is really smooth and flows beautifully across the palate. There is an aged balsamic edge to the wine, but it also has some soft acids that keep it feeling well-balanced. Indeed, it comes across as sweet and gentle, but persistent and engaging. This could perhaps go a little while longer, but I’d really recommend drinking it now.

2004 Leonetti Merlot Columbia Valley. The 2004 version of this wine is a whole different animal. And if anyone were to ask me, that animal would be a sex kitten. First off, the nose shows off the exotic side of merlot to full effect–with tons of melted railroad tie creosote and sweet incense aromas allied to plush mixed fruit compote and then further seasoned with peppermint and balsa wood. It has a bit of a wild streak, too, and I make no apologies for enjoying its riches. In the mouth, it continues merrily on its sexy fruit bomb way. It is luscious, layered and very velvety-textured—but with a cool fruit profile that provides an interesting contrast to the other elements. It leads with flavors of black raspberries, melted licorice and baked earth but eventually allows some bitter-edged toasted oak flavor to begin to poke out toward the finish. It is rich, full and hedonistic and purrs right along without a whole lot of tannin interference, but it could stand to lose some of that oak on the tail end. On day 2, it holds up quite nicely and does integrate the oak a bit—so I think one could easily enjoy now or give it a few years.

1996 Woodward Canyon Cabernet Sauvignon Artist Series Canoe Ridge Vineyard Washington. This 3-bottle vertical was compliments of Adam and offered a great opportunity to get a feel for the Woodward Canyon Artist Series style. This one is still a very dark, opaque color. It features cool, refined black fruit on the nose, with some sultry smoke and grilled green pepper adding some complexity. In the mouth, it approaches full body, with a slightly chewy edge at times. It delivers tons of rich flavor intensity, and the plum fruit and dark chocolate flavors still feel pretty youthful. For all that, the tannins feel well-resolved–and that lends the wine an appealing drinkability despite some of the denser chunky elements.

1997 Woodward Canyon Cabernet Sauvignon Artist Series Washington. This wine has a far sexier nose than the ’96—with aromas of creosote, graphite, black raspberry compote and spicy jalapeno. There is a similar profile on the palate, with oily smoke notes married to sweet blackberry and currant jam. It shows more glycerin feel than the ’96, but manages to feel dry-edged due to the serious, crisp-toned tannins. There are times it shows its age, but for the most part it still feels youthful and vigorous. This was my favorite of the three.

1998 Woodward Canyon Cabernet Sauvignon Artist Series Washington. This wine takes a while to open up aromatically, but once it finds its footing, it really delivers lovely notes of deep incense, hickory smoke, creosote, tomato plant and cassis. It is the chewiest of the three wines in the mouth and definitely the most tannic. The red fruit profile is warmer all around, with an enveloping feel accented by a fine spiciness. Of the three, this one needs the most time in the cellar.

1998 Woodward Canyon Cabernet Sauvignon Dedication Series Walla Walla Valley. Again, this Woodward Canyon has a lot going on aromatically—though this one tends to show more earth and forest greenery notes to go with molten chocolate, mocha paste and tar scents. It may be a bit less ripe all around than any of the Artist Series wines, but is undeniably nice in its own right. In the mouth, it is a bit finer, silkier and lighter-bodied than the Artist Series wines, but manages to show seamlessly on an open-knit framework featuring flavors of melted caramel and mixed fruit. It seems to me to be the most immediately approachable of the four wines, with a sense of being light on its feet and finely delineated.

1987 Woodward Canyon Charbonneau Walla Walla County. This is a blend of 53% Cabernet Sauvignon and 47% Merlot. This is showing a bit of browning at the rim and is generally a smoky garnet color. My first thought upon bringing the wine up to my nose was how much this immediately reminded me of an aged, complex bottle of classified Bordeaux—with aromas of dirt, gorgeously sweet lambic notes, persimmon, bridle leather, and rawhide shoestrings. In the mouth, it is finely balanced across the soft acids, fruit and structure—managing to hold its line through the entire voyage across the palate. It is not the deepest or even the most fanned-out of wines, but it shows no let up in terms of its purity, drive or delineation. The flavors are very pretty, with a sweet edge to the framboise and melted caramel notes. It begins to dry out a bit as the evening wears on, but overall the wine is drinking beautifully. This was my WOTN.

2001 Januik Cabernet Sauvignon Columbia Valley. The nose here is dark, cool and fairly reserved relative to many of the wines this night—with notes of dark earth, dusty chalk, balsa wood and a faint whiff of white pepper. In the mouth, it hangs together nicely from entry to finish—with flavors of black cherry and chewy chocolate paste. It has a velvety edge and is more warmly engaging than on the nose. A structured backbone still shows through and makes the wine feel like it would be better with a bit more short-term cellaring. On the whole, I was hoping for a bit more, but there is nothing wrong with the wine—it just isn’t showing as much as I was hoping for at this stage.

2002 Andrew Will Sorella Columbia Valley. The bouquet of this wine shows aromas of cool graphite powder, blackberry, boysenberry, plum sauce, mace, volcanic earth and cloth band-aid. In the mouth, this is fairly big and rich, with a lot of crushed velvet tannin. For the first time tonight, the inside of my mouth and teeth feel coated with tannin and a sense of dry extract. Flavors of black raspberry, black cherry and chocolate paste are creamy, but I can’t get past the feeling of extract and fudgy tannin. The wine just feels ponderous and heavy to me right now–needing a good long rest in the cellar.

2003 Andrew Will Sorella Columbia Valley. This wine is a really inky purple color, but manages a relatively crisp aromatic profile of spiced plums, Christmas candles, dusty rubber, cool mint leaves and blackcurrants. In the mouth, this is decidedly fresher and much more lively all around than the 2002—with more lift and a crunchier acid profile to offset the voluptuous black and purple fruits. The wine shows no signs of heat and isn’t even particularly tannic—it is just young and energetic. It was definitely my favorite of the two Sorella vintages.

2005 Andrew Will Champoux Horse Heaven Hills. Aromatically, this is densely-layered with notes of black raspberry, iodine, fern, smoke, vinyl, tar, flower petal and black licorice extract popping out here and there. The wine is far too young at this point to enjoy drinking—showing a huge amount of chalky tannin right from the start and then just getting more and more tannic. There are some appealing hints of layers of blue fruit and spice, but this needs a whole lot more time.

The sweet wines:

2002 Lillypilly Noble Blend Riverina. Served from 375 ml. Notes of crunchy crème brulee topping, lemon custard, lime juice and raw brown sugar are found on the nose of this Aussie sticky. It has an easy sweetness to it in the mouth that for me grows a bit too sugary, but is fun and bright otherwise. Some tropical sweetness lends an interesting twist.

1983 Robert Mondavi Winery Sauvignon Blanc Botrytis Napa Valley. The color of this wine is a sort of cross between faded orange and toffee brown. Aromatically, it features scents of crunchy-hard caramel, dark toffee and citrus-kissed honey. It is like pure liquid caramel in the mouth, with added notes of brown sugar and lime pith. It is very sweet, but manages to balance that with tingly acidity. There is a density and limpid weight that piles onto the heavy sweetness, but overall this has a feeling of liveliness to it that belies the age of the wine.

1976 Moulin Touchais Anjou. At this point of the evening, Ed was thankfully drunk enough that with some egging on by Tyler and me he was sufficiently eager to raid his cellar—emerging with this gem. I’ve owned one bottle of this and enjoyed it immensely a few years back at a Clos Rougeard tasting. That bottle had some oxidation and a big hit of VA that never really went away but otherwise managed to be ethereally complex and delicious. I adored it, but didn’t really expect to come across another bottle. Lo and behold, Ed has like 4 of these. First off, this is a pristine bottle. It shows absolutely none of the flaws of that previous bottle and has a fantastic sense of freshness and youth to it. It has a fluorescent gold and green pea color to it that is really unique. The nose changes and evolves for some time before settling into notes of wooly lanolin, lemon rind, beeswax, cut flower stems and warm stone. In the mouth, it features flavors of hardened caramel, sugar cane and all kinds of waxy yellow fruits. It displays fantastic balance and a real feel of restraint on the sweetness levels. Over the few hours we had with the wine, it never tailed off—indeed it grew and grew in confidence and stature—fleshing out and gaining depth all the while. It is medium-bodied, fleshy and at times a bit sticky—though again never overly-sweet. The previous bottle that was much more advanced than this might have showed more overall complexity, but this clearly much better bottle illustrates that well-stored bottles of this are probably just starting to come into their own.

It was pretty late when I finally headed out the door. Ed was as always a great and gracious host and the wines everyone brought were great. I discovered a newfound respect for these Washington wineries and will be seeking out a few of these producers to cellar.

-Michael

15

Stick to notes on reds [dance.gif] [rofl.gif] !

16

Oh dear, I dream of the day I can live up to Peter’s lofty expectations on the fizzy stuff. I’ll re-double my efforts, dammit! I’ll make him proud some day, if it is the last thing I do! [shock.gif]

17

I’m just playin’ M-Squared.

18

[dance2.gif]