1999 Tarlant "La Vigne d'or", Champagne

Even though I have just tasted this wine, when Benoìt Tarlant was in Copenhagen - I simply needed re-taste it as a “real” tasting note to me, is when I have the pleasure of drinking and sharing the whole bottle with my wife.
Food this night was Risotto with mushrooms and that combination was spot on.

The 1999 La Vigne d’or is a debut release and it’s 100% Pinot Meunier from vines that are roughly 50 years old. Dosage is around 2-3 g/l.

The wine is exactly as I remember it, but when having the entire bottle you can’t help to analyze and reflect a bit more. It’s like you can almost divide the wine into two sections. The first “Section” you come across is a seriously concentrated nose of honey, evening perfume, mushrooms, herbs, dark bread, cornfield and a smooth waxy profile. There is also a slightly oxidation, making these components a bit deeper and “darker” scented. If, what I have just described was all the Champagne had to offer, then I guess it would have been a bit boring. But luckily there are additional spectrums and this is where its greatness comes from. Underneath the bold fruit core there are a divine note of lemon peel and a brushing firm tone of salty minerals making it stand so much taller and interesting in the glass. The taste is proof of all these components, as the voluptuous hurricane of fruits is the first wave to hit the tongue and secondly comes this almost raw and salty soil expression, cleaning the palate with great precision, high acidity and clarity. You especially notice this almost raw expression, when having it without food – but with my risotto it’s of course a bit more subtle.

A seriously great bottle of Champagne and once again an eye-opener to what quality the Pinot Meunier can obtain, when in the right hands.

Glass: Spiegelua Adina (Adina to bring out the beast) and Zalto (to make it a bit more elegant).

NV Laherte Fréres "Les Clos", Champagne

You might not be so Champagne addicted as me. Even if you are – we can agree that Champagne is a very traditional wine composed of Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Pinot Meunier or even a blend, right? But what about a Champagne with 18% Chardonnay, 14% Pinot Noir, 18% Pinot Meunier (so far so good) 8% arbanne, 15% petit meslier,17% Pinot Blanc and 10% fromenteau? Sounds like science fiction. But it’s not and the thing even have a name – “Les Clos”, produced by Laherte Fréres in Chavot.

I have written about this wine 2 times before, but this is the first time I have the whole bottle to myself….or almost…think my wife sneaked 2-3 glasses of this stuff. First time I tasted this Champagne was @ the estate with young winemaker Aurélien Laherte and I can still recall how incredible high the acidity was, even if it was from vins clairs in 2008 Vintage. I believe the Champagne in hand is a mixture of 2005/2006 Vintage and besides being a debut release, 2005 is also the starting point for this wine as it’s based on the Solera principal.

It’s important for me to highlight that the last time I had Champagne in my blood – the week before, names like, 1985 Krug Collection, 1995 Krug Clos du Mesnil, 1996 / 1982 Cristal, 1982 Billecart Salmon BdB was spinning in the glasses. So when sticking your nose into a thing like this, it’s almost like you have landed on a different planet.

This Champagne is incredible vinous and it’s exceptional fresh, to a point where it’s pure energy running through your veins. Freshness is one thing and a good thing, but the grape mixture is seriously interesting as there are so many fruit aromas colliding. How often does citrus, flowers, black tea, black cherry, limejuice, herbs, baby banana (bio trademark) and the most insane note of mint leafs appear in a single glass of Champagne? Rarely if you ask me. Everything is incredible slim – embalmed in a tight, very precise fruit core with beautiful balance and complexity. The taste has a frightful high pitched acidity and personally, being more a Riesling person, that a brought up in Chardonnay land – I love this and all the young and fresh fruit components are being crystallized on the palate making it a unique long acidity smack taste. Evolving constantly in the glass and putting on in weight. Fantastic Champagne.

Bonus: No Dosage and biodynamic made.

Glass: You have to drink it out of a white wine glass - I used Spiegelau Adina.

Bent's tasting @ Søllerød Kro

Another Søllerød Kro wine tasting report - can we take any more? Yes we can!!!!.

I can once again repeat myself, when it comes to Søllerød Kro brilliant cuisine and restaurant manager Jan Repstorff unique talent for nursing his guest. Jan you rock!!!!

The line-up was sent to us before the tasting so no blind tasting....well almost... Jan teased a couple of times with some blind entries.

I didn't write any notes, so everything is from memory.....writing notes, taking pictures and making conversation....forget it.

Taking pictures @ Søllerød Kro without any flash with this soft dimmed light is a nightmare. My camera can handle pretty high ISO numbers, but the soft dimmed yellow light is killing the details. So I have only uploaded a few.

Let's begin:

Welcome with snacks

1985 Krug Collection

I actually didn't have that high expectations towards this Champagne, as some critics think that Krug didn't manage to get their 1985 Vintage totally perfect. The Champagne is indeed charming and very open to drink. Classic, deep nutty flavors (primarily walnuts), honey and even a bit of lemon peel as the perfect balance component. Problem here is - that it's just too pretty / innocent and the Krug-nerve and majestic feeling is missing. For sure - we are talking really great stuff here, but when in the Krug category and this price level - I am expected to have my dancing shoes on. This was not the case. A Champagne for laid back drinking and very approachable at this stage.

Søllerød's classic Caviar dish with king crab

1996 Cristal

1996 Clos des Goisses

A step up in quality compared to Krug....(rarely happens does it?)....anyway, these 2 Champagnes are incredible tasty and both have that 1996 vitality. Compared with my recent tasting experience with these two, I would have expected the Cristal to be the more nuanced and elegant bottle and the Clos des Goisses to be the more muscular Champagne with signs of oxidation and dark bread. This was however not the case - well some of it wasn't. Cristal was the more light weighted of the two and in general has a broader flowery spectrum to offer. The Clos de Goisses was indeed tighter and showed very little sings of oxidation, compared to my previous bottle. It's almost about to burst out of the glass with a forceful concentration and a most impressive structure on the tongue. The taste is seriously long and really impressive overload of fruit, stunning balance and firm vibrant '96-acidity. For sure the notes are somewhat darker pitched than Cristal - but not as much as one should think. Both bottles showed themselves young with healthy fruit and firm acidity. They should age really well.

Scallops, Jerusalem artichoke, pear and hazelnuts

1982 Cristal

1982 Billecart-Salmon Blanc de Blancs

I have to mention the food here, as it was an incredible match to these two Champagnes - simply perfection.

1982 Cristal is to die for and a bottle in perfect shape. The evolved sweetness goes right into the sweet scallops and the hazelnuts, takes it even to higher ground. Richard Juhlin takes notice of its fairly high dosage, which I can confirm - but with this food it's just pure magic. This exotic and incredible sexy Champagne constantly evolved and put on complex layers in the glass with vanilla, fudge, apricot, truffles and even some chocolate aromas.

Billecart-Salmon is also pretty good - if to state it mildly ;-). Its' not as deep exotic as Cristal - but still it's has some overripe notes of peach and vanilla, but the difference is a really tallness of acidity and in general a better sparkle from the glass. If to say who's best?? - Cristal certainly benefits from this awesome food match and deeper layers - but this Champagne is not far behind.

Turbot with celery, lemon and browned butter

1995 Krug Clos du Mesnil

1990 Billecart-Salon Grande Cuvée

The hardest part of this flight was the shift from the former flight. The 82' Champagnes were so expressive and it was like they still lured in my nostrils, when having the first sniff with the next two.

Clos du Mesnil is very hard to approach. I found it shy and really a crime to open it at this stage. 1995 should on paper be a more open vintage and surely you can sense apple sensations and some nutty flavors, but it never really did anything than give hints more than a great tasting experience. It should be noted, that the last drops showed gradual improvement and my judgment could very well have been different if I had the chance to follow it over an entire evening.

My fellow tasters found the 1990 Billecart-Salom Grande Cuvée really awesome. I have to say that it didn't do that much to me. It's classic Champagne in the sense of flowers, citrus, vanilla and as our host pointed out, even gooseberries. But I found it lacked in definition - or was it the 82' flight the real reason why this just slipped into the land of indifference?

Time for reds:

It's always difficult to turn from Champagne to reds. I actually find it much harder than just turning from white to reds....hmmmm. Anyway - when the reds are Pinot Noir and especially from Burgundy the shift seems more subtle for the sensitive taste buds.

Mushrooms, stock and brioche - awesome food...once again.

1999 Grivot Richebourg

1996 Grivot Richebourg

1996 Clos du Tart

I think I was the only one at the table cheering for the 1999 Richebourg from Grivot. But as it evolves in the glass it simply fell apart and I had to realize that my first impression was not right. I simply fell in love with a distinctive sweetness, which after 10-15 minutes takes a bizarre shape of varnish and overall alcoholic notes. Taste is a fraction better - so maybe it's all about cellaring. But at the moment it's weird and disappointing.

1996 Richebourg is fairly rustic - but together with the food it gives meaning as the dried fruit and forest notes was a really nice match. However - it still leans to the rustic side on the palate and I missed some fruit and especially that charming expressive Pinot Noir appeal if to win my heart. But as said - worked with the food.

1996 Clos du Tart was a panel splitter. Some took notice of notes of tomato - personally I couldn't recognize this. But I can agree that it's once again a rather rustic wine. It's not so much dried fruit's as with Grivot - but more notes of soya and smoke. But I liked this one best, as you had some of the lovely raspberry notes, even if they are far from perfection. The taste is also superior to the other wines in the flight, with far better concentration and balance.

A blind wine was served and generously donated by Jan Repstorff:

2006 Sylvia Cathiard Vosne Romanée

Opened without decanting it oozed of medicine and gauze bandage, but slowly it found itself in better harmony. A real red berry perfume comes from the glass - tight as hell, almost like red paint from a new car. So why the hell did we guess 1999, 2000 and 2002, when all the components were so tight?? Well the wine is indeed interesting and a fresh breeze to this flight, which certainly had its ups and downs.

Thymus,onions and gravy.

2002 A. Gros Richebourg

2002 DRC Grand Echezeaux

I don't think I have ever had a 2002 red Burgundy that I didn't like. The vintage has a very distinctive profile with the most sensual red berry perfume, which I tend to find pretty tasty. This flight didn't disappoint me, even if these wines were rather different. Normally I tend to find the wines from DRC meatier - but given the different appellation here - this was actually different. DRC has more of these red berries, where the Richebourg has more fleshy notes to offer. DRC also has a great coolness, with higher levels of minerals, which brings the linearity forward and makes it stand taller in the glass. The Richebourg has darker berries of cherries and seems in comparison a bit more backward. I preferred the DRC - simply because the drinking pleasure and clarity was higher - but both wines were great.

Fallow with truffle and chestnut

1982 Cheval Blanc

1982 Pichon Lalande Comtesse

I will start by praising these wines for their stunning level of freshness at the age of 27 years - simply incredible. One could ask the question if these wines will ever die.

They are certainly different, both in quality and profile. The 1982 Cheval Blanc has a great inner coolness, which has to come from the Cabernet Franc. It runs through the wine like a cool river and gives linearity and nerve. However - the wine is struggling to present clarity, which a dark fruit pattern with mainly plum is ruining. It's a solid good wine, with impressive powers at this age, but never did it impress me.

I have had the pleasure to taste the 1982 Pichon Lalande Comtesse 3 times now. It's a seriously nice wine and this bottle was singing. It's a far better wine than Cheval Blanc in my opinion with the most sensual smell of sweet tobacco and cedar wood. The complexity and sensual healing it offer to its audience is something else. Having said that, I never really feel moved by the wines from Bordeaux - they are almost too technical perfect with very little of that magic dust, which makes me jump up and down. But from an objective scope it's a stunning wine.

Selection of Cheeses.

1998 Les Cailloux Chateauneuf du Pape Cuvee Centenaire

2000 Domaine de la Vieille Julienne Chateauneuf du Pape Vieilles Vignes Les Cailoux

15 years ago my wine club always ended with the most concentrated wines, as we didn't want to kill off the elegant wines this late, as the taste buds reach their limit. Today we work with the similar schematics, even if we have discarded the most extreme blockbuster wines. Most of the time this form works. But in this line-up it was like the gap from the elegant wines, we had already had, was too big for the next two wines. My judgment is certainly biased by this.

It's rare that I will actually write a tasting note, where the wines were barely drinkable. But these two wines were utterly revolting (sorry for the language). Maybe they are made to show their greatness in 25 years time, but my God they where like floating lava. I can't even give you a detailed tasting note, as I only had one sip of each. Nor can I tell one from another - as they both were terrible. They are seriously alcoholic, massive overripe blackberries / blackcurrant, vinegar, peppery, totally out of balance and without any drinking pleasure whatsoever. With my limited ability to master the English language, I can't find any appropriate label other than, "yikes"!!!!!

I think restaurant manager Jan Repstorff was aware that some of us were about to die at the table and like an angle sent from heaven he brought us a glass of chilled and very drinkable white wine. The wine in hand was the 2004 Domaine Leflaive Puligny Montrachet les Combottes. Light weighted stuff with adorable smell of popcorn, flowers and pear. Maybe not so deep layered in complexity, but certainly with great purity and drinking pleasure. My kind of wine and I was alive again.

Apples, salted caramel and cranberries.

1998 Billecart-Salmon Cuveé Elizabeth Rosé.

Fourth time I taste this and I am not particular impressed with it. For sure it has the elegant side of Billecart-Salmon, but it's just too Rosé pretty with sweet apricot and raspberry skin. It feels way too sweet on the palate, and the acidity is not perfect either, which is making it a bit too flabby for my palate. I have this bottle in my cellar and will try to give it some more time, even if I doubt it will ever become great

Bent if you are reading this - thank you for spoiling us.

Is it my turn next time - or Svenne?

Summer wines 2009 - the rest

(This picture is pure luck - simply fantastic sudden light - 2 minutes later is was gone)

Here is a small run-down of the wines that didn’t make into a single TN.

I have reached a point of fatigue on taking pictures of wine labels – so you will get some of the other stuff I also use my camera for.

Italian wines

Around mid-summer (and 3 times since) I had the Sangiovese based wine from Bolgheri producer Michele Satta “Cavaliere” from the 2001 vintage. Bolgheri is not known for harvesting Sangiovese, but tend to focus more on the international styles and varieties like; Cabernet, Merlot and even some Syrah wines are found here. For sure the wine is warm-blooded, and not so clinic pure and red berry perfumed, but really nice in fact. Black cherries, dark chocolate mixed with sweet expressive notes, which might be related to oak perfumes, but making fairly good balance. With my last bottle experience here in September, I even sensed emerging notes of new saddle leather. On the palate it still burns some tar elements off, but no way near as much as it did a year ago. I would suspect it enters a really good drinking window in 2 years time. Overall - a good solid wine for basic high-end daily drinking.

At mid-summer, with some friends, I brought the 2001 Camartina from Querciabella (70% Cabernet, 30% Sangiovese). Last time I tasted this wine was in Nov-2008 and the wine has changed to the better side. More defined now – very precise wine in fact, with an utterly slim tongue curl. The nose has the great cool tempered Tuscan herbs, with leather and even black-cherries. On paper I find these Italian IGT blend rather boring and it’s especially the Cabernet doing damage to the Sangiovese grape, but here – even if the Cabernet is primary grape, it’s still rather Sangiovese cut, even if it’s more to the bold side of black cherry notes. But it overall prevails from being rather linear, which I really like. Great wine – which can slowly be enjoyed now, but in 2 years time it should be even better.

(The last light of the day)

Barolo and summer is a song, which I rarely play, but I have had some good memories with the promising winemaker Andrea Oberto. His 2001 Rocche have been rather shy since release, but maybe it was time to take a small sample test. Nice – really, and with 4 hours of decanting it really opened the wine up. It swings between being rather classic cut, with violets, small dozes of menthol and black cherries - but also it’s rather smooth and elegant, making it really pleasurable to drink. I would like the fruit aromas go gain the lovely Barolo dried elements to be perfect – but it require natural cellaring. I think we can be talking 3-4 years here, for that to happen.

I had another Barolo @ Restaurant The Paul in Tivoli, the 2001 “La Serra” from Roberto Voerzio. I have to say, that I was a little surprised to see that the rim of the wine was already starting to show a slightly brownish color – not that it in any way is a minus with Nebbiolo, but I wouldn’t have expected that with Voerzio in the glass. Anyway – the wine is delicious, incredible charming with dried fruits and classic camphor notes. Here are also black fruits of cherries and chocolate flavors. Brilliant stuff.

This wine was however rather disappointing; The 2001 “La Ricolma “ (100% Merlot) from San Guisto a Rentennano. June 2008 (TN in Danish) I last had this wine and it was singing with sweet expressive fruit. Here – almost unrecognizable it has an herbal overcoat which never unfolded. Hard to drink this day and not particular interesting. Strange.

I had another San Guisto a Rentennano wine; 1990 Percarlo in July. I have to say that I had pretty high expectations. I find Percarlo to be a terrific wine and the vintage was not exactly bad either. For sure it was a mistake of mine, not to decant, as it gained strength and gradually improved all the time with air. The fruit is however a bit annoying, even if the intensity was constantly was on the rise. However I adore the red fruit of Sangiovese and here it’s more black cherries and this rather typical Tuscan dusty, herbal side which dominated. It drags the wine down IMHO, as it’s almost too dry and in need of some sort of sweetness. The taste has fairly good strength and Sangiovese curl, but then again – rock hard and the fruit is never really embracing like I wanted it to be. Overall – rather disappointing stuff, almost a dull experience. But as said – I should have decanted it.

Tasted the 2001 Montevetrano again. Performed great once again – my TN from Jan-2009 can be found here

(The very last light - under exposed picture)

German Riesling

My white wine for the mid-summer get-together was the 2007 “Von der Fels” from Keller. It’s outstanding value from one of Germans best dry Riesling wine makers. There is absolutely no fuss here – the wine is cut with great precision and clarity. I can’t find anything negative to say about this wine, other than I only have a few bottles left.

Also had the 2008 “Von der Fels” – enjoyed under very relaxed circumstances as I brought it too a party with some neighbors. A totally different wine compared to the 2007 vintage and in fact far more approachable. 2007 is very linear and tight, but 2008 is incredible lush, rich, mouth coating and has an incredible elastic fruit core. Drinking pleasure is instant, giving and very memorable. For German Riesling lovers, this is a must and its QPR is very hard to beat. It should be noted, that this wine was drunk from a red wine glass, the Riedel Carbernet/Merlot glass and this might have made this more open, rich and approachable feeling. (Thank you for the bottle, Martin)

One evening, home alone and writing about the 2001 Aalto PS and editing the picture, I suddenly felt thirsty. So without decanting, which under normal circumstances is an absolute “no no no” among the most geeky German Riesling drinkers, I poured myself a glass of the 2005 Müller-Catoir, GG “Breumel in den Mauern” (what a title). The last memory I had about this wine goes back to Sep-2007, where it performed rather strangely. Here it was lined up side by side with the monster good 2004 G-Max from Keller and oozed with a bizarre note of shampoo. But now – uh la la, what a transformation and what a wine. Totally divine, incredible slim, precise, but still with enormous depth and concentration. Hard to leave such stuff for day 2 – where it still was brilliant, even if loosing a bit of nerve. One remark though – with warmth in the glass it takes on some boldness, which is almost on the verge of falling out of balance – so drink slightly chilled I would say.

(A corn field not far from my home - take with very low aperture)

Champagne…most of the notes have been uploaded already…but..

You might remember I started uploading a picture of the 2005 “l’Amateur” from David Léclapart, but had a very strange encounter with, what seemed to be a flawed bottle. At first sniff with this new bottle I immediately concluded that the former bottle was indeed off. I want to do a small study of the 2005 Vintage vs 2004 amateur. The 2005 vintage once again confirms that it’s a rounder vintage. I prefer 2004’s – as they are more linear (I have repeated that over and over again). 2005 Amateur still posses a lot of the wines trade mark, such as, a very mineral, slate, salty, and this slim, almost frozen seawater expression. It’s just minor thing that split the two vintages. 2004 seems incredible drinkable and charming and somewhat easier to understand. 2005 holds slight back, caused by this rounder style, but it also holds shyness, even mysteriousness, and this could very well prove to evolve over the years. 2004 seems almost to reveal everything at this stage, which is not a bad thing from a life enjoying perspective. One thing I have learned about the wine from David Léclapart is that – one should really care on predicting and playing Mr. Wise guy, as the wines will go through many phases and transformations…who said authentic wines? If holding this wine – I could be tempted to cellar a bit more, if I was Mr. wise guy ;-).

I have tasted the 2005 Ulysse Colin 2 times during the summer. It’s still great and maturing a bit faster that I would have expected. No need to panic, but it will not be a long distant runner, me think.

Also had the 2006 Infloscence from Cédric Bouchard once again – this time @ restaurant The Paul and served in the Spiegelau Authentis Champagne glass. No way as giving as when served in a White wine glass. Still an utterly beautiful and pure Champagne.

Had the NV Laherte Brut Nature also – in August I believe – tasted over 2 days. It’s holding really well on day 2 – it’s a simple, refreshing and brilliant aperitif Champagne. Don’t expect layers of complexity here – but admire it for its simplicity and drinking pleasure.

Probably had more wines – but this is what I can remember. Bye bye to the summer of 2009…..autumn is next and then the dark horrible winter in Denmark….I hate it…..dreaming of spring already.

Small pause

Need a break - next post 24th of September (summer wines)

Take care....drink good wines and enjoy life.

Best,

/Thomas

1996 Deutz, Cuvée William Deutz Rosé, Champagne

After the rather disappointing “Cicala” experience, I played a safe card – a Rosé Champagne and one of my absolutely favorites.

It has been almost a year since I tasted this brilliant Rosé. I was rather curious to taste it, as I remember having a ridiculous good bottle about 20 months ago, but also had 2-3 rather reserved bottles right after. Also, to my own curiosity; – I have tasted a lot of different rosé’s since and sometimes the whole Rosé thing puzzles me, as some are just red Tutti Frutti stuff and other are aggressive macerated things (if to rudely generalize). This is in short a fantastic Rosé, which really benefits from the unheard high 1996 acidity. It cuts through the wine like a samurai sword and gives a unique balance. The fruit is so creamy, red-berry scented and with the acidity playing along it takes the elegance and nerve almost to perfection. It’s still young and I can easily see it gain more complexity over the years, as fruit, concentration and acidity are of highest quality. Every single glass was pure pleasure and not only does it give credit to this wine, but also once again marks Champagne (for me) as being the worlds best drink.

If to drop one drop of skepticism in the glass, it would be the level dosage (even if I am speculating). The last glass demonstrates that it’s rather sweet or is it? Certainly, that’s how if felt like. Maybe it’s just a mind game for me, as it certainly sweeter than I am used to. I could be wrong and it being just perfect ripe fruit. So if anyone out there knows how much dosage this Champagne has seen, I would be very interested to know.

All in all – a stunning Champagne.

Glasses: Juhlin, Adina, Zalto – everything worked.

2001 Aldo Conterno, Barolo "Cicala", Piemonte, Italy

2001 "Cicala" from Aldo Conterno has been a hurricane since its release. I have had the pleasure of tasting it 4-5 times maybe and it has always been a favorite of mine. It might not be old-school Barolo enough for some with its incredible silky and fruits bomb, sweet cherry awarding appeal, but personally I have found it utterly irresistible. When I opened this bottle and decanted it in the big Riedel Ultra decanter I sensed some of the same young vibrant fruit and was already smiling. But at the table - in the glasses, it was a different wine. It's fairly alright on the nose - for sure it's settling down and going to a new phase (that would be expected) and the cherry notes is starting to become darker and the sweetness is in the background, but also at times almost absent. There is even the lovely violet smell, which I like a lot. The depth and complexity of the nose is however, not impressive - even if it's friendly. But man - I had a hard time with the taste. Painful structure and tannins - lots of bitterness, alcohol burning - not particular pleasing and simply killing the drinking pleasure. Closed - I could suspect so, but I am also concerned, that my palate is starting to suffer from all that bubbly stuff. My wife hated it btw - so the next day we had a Rosé Champagne - now that was a different story.

Glasses: Various