Sunday, March 8, 2009

2004 David Léclapart, L’Alchimiste Rosé, Champagne

(Glasses; Spiegelau Adina White wine and Zalto Champagne)

This is not your everyday tutti frutti Rosé style Champagne. In some aspects this Rosé Champagne is off the charts, and not all of it is good. Let’s take a closer look. The colour is really deep red with a fascinating glowing appearance. Already here you begin suspect that we have left the normal boring bonanza category. The nose is seriously intense with raspberry skin, iron, dried apricot, white pepper and it’s completely bone dry. Now on paper this sound really nice, and it is – but there is a slightly oxidation giving it an almost sherry character, which I am not particular fond of. Take one step further and then you get the next dilemma – the taste. The Champagne has tannins, seriously. I was warned about this, by a very skilled Danish sommelier and I have to confess that I didn’t take my precautions when matching it with proper food. Ah well, I made a seafood pasta dish, with mainly crayfish tails and flavour wise it did well, but the taste was simply too strong (my mistake). So I rested it for a while and had 1/3 of the bottle without food. Hmmmm, for sure fascinating stuff with immensely concentrating, but I prefer when a Rosé shows fragile red perfumes and I really missed the Leclapart elegance here.

It’s really hard to come to a conclusion here. I love to taste it with proper food. The importer suggested a poultry dish with a mustard and estragon sauce (make perfect sense). But again – how will this oxidation/sherry note evolve? Can finesse come out?
Tasted 7/3-2009


ned said...

Thanks for your post. I'm curious to try Léclapart's wines but so far in the past few months of trying,
have not had any luck here in the US.
Have you ever tried the rose of Leclerc Briant?
It too is in a similar style.

Thomas said...

Hi Ned,

Yes do try to find the wines of Léclapart - they are amazing.

Unfortunately I haven’t had the Rosé from Leclerc Briant. The only wines I have tasted from this producer were the 2002 Divine – which I was not particular fond of.



Anonymous said...

Hej Thomas

Jeg har smagt 1996 & 1999 Deutz CWD Rose de sidste par dage. 1996 var ligesom sidste gang, altså ret god. Elegant, delikat & intens med en lang eftersmag. 1999 var overraskende god. Mere åben, rund og indsmigrende. Måske lidt mindre intens med en snert mere sødme end 1996. Begge to virkede ganske unge og bliver helt sikkkert bedre om 3-5 år. Min kæreste (med den gode næse) sagde at 1996 duftede af nektarin og 1999 af fersken :-) Håber du hygger dig på arbejde...


Thomas said...

Nyder du ferien – din gris ;-).

Er 1996 CWDR ved at være klar? Og 1999 lyder da ret interessant – måske man skulle prøve en snart.

Er fuldt i gang med at arrangere Champagne turen – glæder mig allerede som et lille barn.


Anonymous said...

Hej Thomas

1996 er stadig noget fra at være moden og helt drikkeklar men derfor kan den nu godt drikkes med stor fornøjelse :-) 1999 overraskede positivt. De TN som jeg har læst på 1999 har været lidt svingende men den her flaske var en god oplevelse.

Unknown said...

Hej Thomas.

Har du smagt '05


Thomas said...

Hej Casper,

Ja - 2 gange.

Den ene gang hos David selv i Champagne og til en større smagning hos Skål.

.."2005 Alchimiste - not a complete transformation from the 2004 vintage - but a different wine. Like most of the 2005's I have tasted its rounder and in this case it feel more right, as the aggressive '04 cranberry notes, takes a step back. For sure it looses some of the 2004's linearity, but it's actually a plus as it's simply a friendlier wine now. The 2005 still feels rather rustic, but having tasted so many Rosé Champagnes I have to say that it's not that "scary" anymore. Maybe I am getting used to it..."

Jeg er ikke fan af denne vin...og dog...lagring gør underværker for den, tager noget af det aggressive ud af den...den meget svære årgang 2001 var med til denne smagning og var yderst interessant.

Bedste hilsner,