Le Grand Tasting 2007
Thierry Desseauve and Michel Bettane are two of the most respected wine critics in France. They used to publish Le Classement for the highly respected Revue du vin de France but have struck out on their own, publishing Le Grande Guide des Vins de France 2008.
The guide has been very well received and it seems to me that many wine lovers have followed Bettane and Desseauve on their new venture. The guide itself is worthy of a quick review. It covers all major regions of France, with maps and background information on each. Regions are introduced with a question and answer section which attempts to inform the novice and amateur alike.
The selection of producers listed is very interesting. Some are those which are undeniably great and listing in this guide is simply one of many honors they have received. Examples would be Domaine Rousseau, Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, Domaine Leroy, Bollinger, Krug, Latour, Mouton, etc.
Other producers listed provide good quality wine but in a commercial style or in a style suited more for everyday consumption. These constitute the vast majority of listings and the authors have tried to pick out something unique about such producers which make them worth seeking out, even though their wine does not reach great heights.
Then there are producers which the authors have included because of their envious holdings or great history, but which have now fallen on hard times. They encourage these producers to find a new direction and produce the best wine they can, always try to find potential in their wines even if ultimately they do not recommend them to their readers.
The book has a very French sensibility to it. It mostly shows the rich variety of French wine and just how many producers of renown there are. It also shows the love the authors — and the French — have for wine. The authors resist the temptation of comparing on producer to another, understanding that each will have its lovers. Wines are rated out of 20 and the authors do not hesitate using a large range of that scale.
Based on the success of the book, the authors invited those in the book to show their wines to readers at the Carrousel du Louvre. Around 100 producers obliged and we were able to taste in the beautiful setting of the Carrousel, located under the Louvre and Jardins des Tuileries, with the exposed façade of the ancient Louvre structure to gaze upon.
There were simply too many wines to look but here are some that may be of interest.
Maison Olivier Leflaive
Olivier Leflaive.
I really enjoy this house’s wine and these wines were no different. The Chablis “deux rives” 2005 had the classic restrained nose of Chablis. It was well structured, handling the ripeness of 2005 well. The Rully Rabourcé 2006 showed how talented wine makers can do great things in the Côte Chalonnaise. This was a rich and generous wine with delicious Chardonnay character. The palate was well structured, making it suitable as an aperitif and table wine. The Puligny-Montrachet 2005 was superb, excellent complexity for a “mere” village wine, with a green apple like crunch of acidity and spicy lemon accented notes. The Santenay 2004 showed good ripeness for the vintage (and especially for a Puligny producer, the village favouring rather green reds). A wine for drinking and not studying too closely.
William Fevre
Since Bouchard took over, this produce does not put a foot wrong. The Chablis AC 2006 showed a sophistication and purity rarely seen at this level. I’d been trying to decide whether to buy this wine in the wine store, it being double the price of every other AC Chablis… but one taste sealed it. A superb wine. The Chablis Bougros Grand Cru 2005 was rich, tight, with potential. It is light on its feet but there’s a lot of what I would call nervous energy there. It feels like a spring about to explode.
Bouchard Père et Fils
Bouchard is the parent company of William Fevre. Bouchard itself saw an amazing transformation in the late 1990s after Henriot took over. The wines are incomparably better and tasting these just reconfirmed it for me. I’d tasted most of the wines before so just looked at those I hadn’t gotten around to yet.
The Beaune du Chateau 2004 left me a little cold, wanting as it did for a better structure to accompany the surprisingly ripe fruit. The Meursault Genevrières 1er Cru 2003 was similar, but that was the no fault of anyone’s, it being made in the hottest vintage on record. Personally, this was not to my taste but I think they did a very good job restraining the wine and ensuring there was still a purity of fruit to it.
Charles Heidsieck
This producer seems to always make reliably good wine and this was no exception. Although the Brut Reserve was commercial in style, it did everything it should have. The Blancs de Blancs 1995 was a complete departure though, beautifully rich, classic 1995 so suited to Chardonnay. A excellent wine worth seeking out. The Millésime 2000 showed good acidity but didn’t have enough interesting fruit for me. The Rosé 1999 was acceptable, with a dosage I’d call cunning, because it made it so supple in the mouth.
Perrin et fils
Makes of the prestigious Chateau de Beaucastel, the Perrin family also has a more commercial arm. I started with the Perrin Côtes du Rhône Blanc 2006 which had a beautiful nose of ripe tropical fruit, particularly mandarin and pineapple. The palate, however, was hard going, lacking structure and cloying on the finish. It is a style I cannot enjoy. Like wise, I found the Perrin Côtes du Rhône Rouge 2006 a bit extracted and lacking in structure. It’s likely that the warm conditions where the stall was situated made these wines hard going. the Perrin Vinsorbe 2006 was an interesting wine, made from vineyards north of Rasteau, it was very New World with rich plummy characters and huge amounts of fruit sweetness on the palate. The Coudoulet de Beaucastel rouge 2005 was more restrained and complex, tight, inky, in need of aging. The tannins on the palate will ensure it can age a very long time. The Beaucastel 2004 was very closed but had a structure for aging.
The Perrin brothers and their wines.
Mumm
In the past, I mean at the beginning of the 20th Century, Mumm was world famous and highly sort after. It seemed to suffer progressively over the years and I disregarded it for a long time. The first sip of the Blancs de Blancs Cordon Rouge 1999 showed that good things are going on here. The nose was rich, the palate delicious, an impressive effort for 1999. The Mumm de Cremant Blancs de Blancs Grand Cru was a revelation, amazingly rich and yet pure, mouth watering acidity, well worth aging. In just a short time, this producer has gone from one of the most frowned upon to one of the best. Extraordinary.
Chablisienne
The main cooperative in Chablis. I found the wines hopelessly reductive. I’ve enjoyed these wines in the past and can only assume that something was wrong here. Maybe it was me?
Bollinger
I haven’t drunk much Bollinger recently, after having over done it with their NV a few years ago. The first sip of the Bollinger N.V. was immediately familiar, with that big yeasty hit, the oxidative worked style but the structure was excellent and the quality very good for N.V. Champagne. The Grande Année 1999 was amazing, very rich, worked, complex, oaky, mealy. A huge wine, impressive now but it will benefit from 5 years cellaring I think. This is probably the best 1999 Champagne I’ve had!
Jacquesson
After Bollinger, I found these wines a little disappointing. The Cuvée 732 was quite funky, perhaps a little reductive. There were meaty aromas I just don’t see in Champagne. I also found the Avize Grand Cru Blanc de Blancs 1997 quite strange as well, with rich aromas of marmalade, a really oxidative character. A style that will divide people: you’ll find it compelling or awful. The Brut 1996 was very yeasty, really needing more time in bottle to harmonise. I quite liked the dryness to the finish — a characteristic I enjoyed on other Champagnes at the tasting.
Philipponnat
I was perplexed by these wines. I just… didn’t like them. The Sublime Reserve was acceptable but the Blanc de Blancs 2000 was terribly reductive. The Reserve 2000 seemed a little botrytised and kind of strange. The Clos des Goisses 1999 was rich, meaty, very funky, not at all what I would have excepted. It seems that I do not enjoy Philipponnat’s style at all.
Gosset
I think I do prefer the refinement of this producer, even if their wine is a little more mainstream. The Grande Reserve is an excellent N.V. champagne, with the sophistication and character of a wine that belongs to a high level than mere sans millésime. The powerful and fine mousse explodes in the mouth. The only disappointment was the residual sweetness from the dosage which I wished was a little lower. The Grand Millésime 1999 was rich and nutty with lots of yeasty character, similar to the wines of Bollinger. This was not as worked or oxidative though and left me asking for more. Lucky, the next wine was poured, the superb Celebris 1998 Extra Brut. This wine possessed a beguiling nose of honey, nuts and sherbet which reminded me of the 1998 Dom Pérignon. The finish on this wine was superb, without the dosage one sees the full wine, in it’s true form I feel — or at least that was the case here. Maybe the best wine of the tasting, for me.
Joseph Drouhin
I found the Domaine de Vaudon Chablis 2006 a very strange wine, more sauvignon blanc than Chardonnay. The Saint-Romain 2005 was full of delicious nut/nougat aromas, with a good structure. The Chablis Les Clos Grand Cru 2005 was quite closed but showed a simmering power that will be released with time. The Chorey-Les-Beaune 2005 was ripe and full of raspberries. At this level, one should not really expect more but 2005 has spoiled me and I was left wanting some more complexity. Strangely, I found the Beaune Clos des Mouches 2005 also left me cold. The Beaune-Grèves 2001 seemed to suffer a little at the hands of that difficult vintage and wasn’t as good as wines from the same vineyard of different vintages. The Charmes-Chambertin Grand Cru 2000 showed the typical Drouhin character, a wine not as extracted as other negociants would have made it, fine and pure but still youthful.
Frédéric Magnien
I’ve tried this producer’s wines from time to time but I’ve never had a really good look. This was my opportunity. The Morey-Saint-Denis Ruchots 2001 was rich and savoury with a little earth/wild/brett character to it. The Morey-Saint-Denis 2004 had the very grippy tannins of that year but a delightfully enticing nose, ripe and sophisticated. The Morey-Saint-Denis 2005 had the kind of rich pure fruit which suggests whole cluster fermentation, the fruit really exploded out of the glass. The tannins were kind of chewy and surprising but this is a good wine nonetheless.
The Gevrey-Chambertin Cazetiers 1er Cru 2005 had a very closed nose, common for this vineyard, but the palate showed the power of a wine which will come around with time. The Clos de Bèze 2005 seemed quite familiar, very relaxed and comfortably, knowing. The tannins were very fine and supple. The finish long. Will be a good wine. The Clos Saint Denis 2005 was more impressive with an explosive aroma of cassis, rich and unctuous, which seems to be a characteristic of this vineyard. At this point, it’s hard to see what heights this wine will rich and when but I’d say it has a very long life ahead.
Despite these being good wines, I think Magnien could be making much better wines with the amazing vineyard holdings he has.
Chateau de la Tour
This is a very famous producer in France, one of the main land owners around Vougeot. They were presenting the Beaune 2006 which had “only just been bottled” and… showed all the worse for it. What were they thinking? The main business is the Clos Vougeot and I was very happy when the Clos Vougeot 2003 was poured. The wine showed all the character of that year, incredibly ripe fruit more in the plum and raisin spectrum than one expects from pinot. The palate was full of incredibly drying tannin, I wonder if it was added because it seemed finer than oak tannin. The Clos Vougeot 2001 was very traditional and austere, with lots of drying tannin and wild, earthy Vougeot character. It is a produce of the lighter year but nonetheless interesting.
Prieuré de St-Jean de Bébian
I fell in love with this wine when I first drank the fantastic 1998. It hails from the Coteaux du Languedoc, with old Syrah, Grenache (planted 1925) and Mouvédre vines. I like the Coteaux du Languedoc for its ability to do Rhône wines often better than Rhône producers and this producer has been a shining example.
The heat in the tasting room did not suit, I think, the bigger style of these wines. Not temperature, however, was going to make the Chapelle de Bébian Rouge 2004 any better. It was terribly reduced and I don’t understand it being presented here. The Bébian 2004 was quite closed and unapproachable now. It had a good structure for aging. The Bébian 2003 showed a little brett and skillful restraint in the year renown for scorching this part of the world. The palate is rich with lots of tannin. Needs five years. The Bébian 2002 showed considerably skill, it being made in a year the exact opposite of 2003: torrential rains plagued the region during harvest. The thing that struck me about this wine was that it had a definite character of white wine to it, like white stone fruit and grass! The Bébian 2001 showed this wine with a little age, beginning to open up and show some complexity. Again, quite tannic and worth aging a lot longer.
Chateau d’Arlay
This producer, situated in Jura, produces the unique wines of that region. The Vin Jaune 2000 was typical of the style (made similar to fino sherry) with rich almond, flor and oxidative notes. These age, literally, for ever and put on complexity year after year. The Vin de Paille 2003, made by allowing the grapes to dry on straw mats (paille) unless much of the water content is lost. This wine was yeasty, like baking bread and, fittingly, backed by a strong aroma of straw. The palate was unctuous, well balanced and long. A rare treat, as these wines are made in tiny quantities.
Sauternes
The Sauternes were extremely popular and they performed extremely well. The Raymond-Lafon 2001 displayed the greatness of that year with rich, complex aromas of botrytise, pineapple, grapefruit and spice. Very elegant and so well balanced it is suited for main course service. The Raymond-Lafon 2003 also spoke of that year, much richer and sweeter, less acid but still delicious. A wine for sweet wine lovers.
The Coutet 2002 was very botrytised and rich, with a superb structure and length. A powerful wine needing considerable aging. The Climens 2004 seemed to lack harmony suggesting it needs time. The palate is drier, a lighter year, and could transform into one of those great Sauternes which taste almost dry with age.
The Castelnau de Suduiraut 2001 was elegant and classic for this year, a wine lovers Sauternes. The Suduiraut 1999 is looking to be a fantastic wine of that vintage with amazing complexity and structure.
I found the Myrat 2003 a little reduced but happily sipped at my glass just to watch the antics of the cheeky, elderly representative of the firm flirt openly with 16 year old girls. The Doisy-Védrines 2003 showed considerably new oak and complexity to age. A very different style for me.
The Chateau Guiraud 1998 was quite peculiar, very vinous — by which I mean, very much like a dry white wine — minerally and intriguing. The Chateau Les Justices 2004, made by the same producer as Chateau Gilette, was quite dry and oaky. Still needs time to integrate.
Hundreds of other wines were on display but crowds, heat and the usual mayhem of wine tastings just made it too hard.
