Last night, in the middle of a blind Bordeaux tasting, there was a bottle of 2003 Clos des Papes. Nobody thought it was some overripe, overextracted monster. In fact the comments around the table were about “hipster wine”, bright acidity, Trousseau/Cab Franc blend (that was me) and how it showed spritz/acidity. Two people at the table (including me) really liked the wine, and its fresh, red fruit and overall elegance of expression. Some were put off by the acidity. When the wine was revealed we were all completely shocked. I’m not at all sure what this showing says about the wine, but I want to open one of my 2 bottles sometime soon to see if I get a similar showing. Bizarre!
Rieslingfan, I don’t drink the wine that shocked people but your post reminds me once again of the humility and clarity that comes through a blind format. Each time I participate in one (more it seems this is our local format), I learn something new and am equally humbled!
Blind tasting is the ultimate field leveler isn’t it? Doing blind Syrahs from around the world next month. Should be revealing.
Oh we had an even bigger shocker last night - a 1959 Rheingau State Domaine Riesling Cabinet that had me convinced it was premoxed Huet!
I’ve served that wine blind many times and it sucked the same as when I served it non-blind!
It may be that the wine company that it’s blind-tasted against that makes a difference.
This bottle was brought blind amidst other non-blind CdPs, during a dinner just about a month ago (TN: Riesling and Chateauneuf with Filipino Food in NYC - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers) and as far as I can tell from comments by everybody in my local mostly-Bordeaux drinking group, the wine was overripe, jammy and not at par with the other CdPs that we were enjoying. As bad a guesser that I am, I even recall guessing that the blind wine was from the 2003 vintage.
edited: I was typing as Paul was posting his comment. My reference above was a blind bottle brought by Paul.
Funny enough, the Clos des Papes was served alongside a 2002 Leoville Barton, and after 2 other pairs of Bordeaux. It stuck out like asore thumb, but not as overripe. Just plain weird.
2003 Mordoree Reine des Bois tasted very fresh last winter, but a 2003 Pegau exhibited a noticeably roasted character.
David, how was the Leo Barton?
Really good, but still really young. We also had 2001 and 2002 Leoville Poyferre, and both of those were excellent. The 2001 was friendlier and more “ready to drink” but not at peak IMO. The 2002, like the Barton, still needs time. Both 2002s showed a more acidic profile than 2001s.
Thanks. That’s what I assumed. I only have 2 2002s, so they will stay where they are for a while.
LOVE the 01 Poyferre though.
That was my wine of the night.
Interesting indeed . . .
Yep, blind tasting certainly can ‘level the playing field’ and removes so many darned biases that exist, even when we don’t realize it.
But as others point out, I do believe that blind tasting results are affected by the other wines involved in the tasting, by other tasters, etc.
I’ll be curious to hear your take on this wine when you have it non-blind - that should be interesting 
Cheers!
Given the numerous reports of wild bottle variation in the 2003 Clos des Papes, I have my doubts that any tasting note is representative.
For my wife, every wine is tasted blind. She has a great palate, but has no interest at all in learning names/vintages/pecking orders. So even if she sees the bottle, with few exceptions, the label means absolutely nothing to her. It results in lots of interesting comments and value-blind assessments. She isn’t afraid to say “this is a really weak effort” because she doesn’t know we paid big money for it (or the reverse). Quite liberating.
Neal,
That is quite interesting - and damn rare if you ask me. I don’t know of many others out there who, when seeing a bottle or label, don’t have some pre-conceived notion about the producer, the variety, etc . . .
Cheers.
In my one experience with this wine, the “wild variation” related to the tasters not the bottle. For same bottle, those of us who were more sensitive to alcohol heat found it way too hot and roasted. Those less sensitive to alcohol heat enjoyed the richness. YMMV. It wasn’t about who was right or wrong.
This was soon after release so I can’t speak to whether it has evolved gracefully for this taster. I wasn’t bullish a few years ago.
IMO we overestimate the “bad bottle” and “bottle variation” explanation, at least for wines without much age, and underestimate taster variation. Blind tasting can eliminate bias, but not physiology and tasting preferences.
Regards,
Peter
Bingo. I remember trying that wine at least half a dozen times, from different retailers, importers, even different parts of the country. It was always a bit different, but never matched up to Parker’s description - and never very enjoyable. Here’s my note from a half bottle in 2005:
On opening and first pour a kind of dry sawdust odor, fades with a few minutes of air. First sip is noticeable heat, very briary, savory, woody fruit, moderate/short finish, moderate/medium tannins. Doesn’t taste or smell particularly overripe. After about 30 minutes, it’s opening up a bit, becoming a bit fuller and rounder. nose: cherries, licorice, a little smoke; After 2 hours: tart red cherry, raspberry, rhubarb
stoppered and refrigerated overnight. next night poured remainder, and allowed to warm for about an hour,
nose is modest overripe berries, but faint. hasn’t changed much from night one, maybe filled out slightly, still ripe red fruits with shades of some blackberry, not quite as lean and tart, finish is a bit longer, but still some sour cherry/rhubarb, savory woodiness 86/100
Peter,
This one was not the tasters. We all agreed it was bright, acidic and very red fruited. Weird, weird bottle.
Wait, David drinks non-rieslings?? - by choice??