Kistler beats Chablis again at Ross Bott

Thursday, March 4, 2010. Second year in a row, Ross decided to conduct the same type of tasting. Premier Cru Chablis side by side with Kistler Chardonnay. Last year's exhaustive analysis inspired a follow-up battle at Green Hills country club. What would this year's inspire?

From the mailer by Ross Bott, the organizer:

---

One year and two weeks ago we had a comparative tasting of French Chablis and Kistler Chardonnays from the 2002 and 2005 vintages. Most people who attended the tasting found that, while the contrast was striking, both the Chablis and the Kistlers were outstanding in their own way. It was also a demonstration of how versatile the Chardonnay varietal is when grown in different climates. ...

Tonight, we'll repeat this tasting with mostly different Chablis and Kistlers. Both 2002 and 2005 are outstanding vintages in both Chablis and California. In 2002, the weather in Burgundy was largely warm and kind. Bernard Raveneau commented "2002 was the kind of vintage we'd love to see every year, it has excellent balance and loads of flesh". The 2005 vintage was even warmer, considered by some to be a signal of a different France with weather more akin to California. Many of the Chablis were as ripe and rich as Meursaults. In contrast, 2005 was a long, cool vintage in California, producing quite Burgundian Chardonnays.

---

These were serious wines (on paper) that drew some lurker Frenchy types back in. Surprisingly, there was about half the normal crowd. Oh well, more wine for me.


After 2 hours of tasting, for the francophile reader, the results might seem crazy. Here is the final group-rank, from top-ranked on the left.


1. 2005 Kistler "Vine Hill Vineyard", Russian River Valley
2. 2002 Kistler "Dutton Vineyard", Sonoma Valley
3. 2002 Kistler "Kistler Vineyard", Sonoma Valley
4. 2005 Kistler "Dutton Vineyard", Russian River Valley
5. 2005 Daniel Dampt "Les Lys"
6. 2005 Jean Marc Brocard Chablis Premier Cru "Montee de Tonnerre"
7. 2002 Raveneau "Montee de Tonnerre"
8. 2002 Domaine William Fevre Chablis "Fourchaume"

California above Chablis!? Fevre and Raveneau at the very bottom!? Well, let me tell you from one francophile to another - here is my ranking that night:

1. 2005 Kistler "Vine Hill Vineyard", Russian River Valley
2. 2002 Kistler "Kistler Vineyard", Sonoma Valley
3. 2002 Domaine William Fevre Chablis "Fourchaume"
4. 2005 Kistler "Dutton Vineyard", Russian River Valley
5. 2002 Kistler "Dutton Vineyard", Sonoma Valley
6. 2002 Raveneau "Montee de Tonnerre"
7. 2005 Jean Marc Brocard Chablis Premier Cru "Montee de Tonnerre"
8. 2005 Daniel Dampt "Les Lys"

Ok, so this makes a little more sense. But... some people really thought Fevre was "premoxed" (prematurely oxidized). Last year I tasted rich sour yogurt in it, loved that, and made it my #1 wine (crowd's #7). This year, I tasted the same yogurt, which is apparently to some a sign of oxidation. At least I am consistent (and so is the Bott crowd), since I rated this wine highly again against the majority consensus. I taste yogurtiness (rich creaminess) and sourness (acidity) on many top cru white Burgundies, combined with fruit. That said, the sour yogurt was so dominant in Fevre that there wasn't much else to that wine. Raveneau was a mess - grainy, bitter, grassy. Brocard was thick, metallic and bitter. Dampt was dusty honey syrup, creamy, hot, barley-like, and not tasty. The Kistlers were not good either - as Chris B. aptly put it - "lemon juice, oak + alcohol". Only Kistler "Vine Hill" 2005 was decent, IMHO - elegant cream + pineapple, slight toast + butter, a bit hot. For $100/bottle, I will pass, thank you very much.

Overall, my impression was worse this time than a year ago. I think the 2002 Chablis had gone downhill. Extremely thick and viscous for 1er Cru, disjointed and simply not tasty. If you have some, pray it's been stored impeccably and hurry to consume before they get worse. A disappointing affair. As always, I appreciated the opportunity to taste, learn, and pass my impressions on to my readers. Remember, wine is a capricious animal - for every inspired example, there are many disappointments. I cherish and remember them, for it is those disappointments that teach me to appreciate bliss that a rare bottle of great wine delivers. Till next time, the hunt goes on.

Gambero Rosso Tre Bicchieri 2010

On Feb 24, one of my favorite trade tasting events of the year arrived to San Francisco. For background on Gambero Rosso and their Tre Bicchieri event, see my coverage of the last year's event. The world of Italian wine is diverse and complicated. And wonderful. Tre Bicchieri really gives you a chance to sample across the whole of Italy, and to celebrate the variety and the quality all in one place. So without further ado, I will jump straight into impressions.

1. The biggest thing that strikes you at an event like this is just how there is always a great new unfamiliar type of wine showing up. This year, I have to give it to Sparkling. The taste and quality of the Italian sparklers is astounding. And I am not talking about Prosecco (which usually leaves me cold). I am talking about Franciacorta DOCG (in the north of Italy, in Lombardy region) and Trento DOC (in the north of Italy, in Trentino - Alto Adige region). These are serious wines made in the traditional method of Champagne. Price is a big problem for these relatively obscure (in the US) appellations, and one more reason why you don't see a lot of them in this country. Are you willing to shell out $40-100 on an Italian sparker? (After having tasted them, I am!) Here are two of my faves for Trento. Trento Altemasi Graal Brut Riserva 2002 by Cavit - great nose, rich and lush apple syrup, and Trento Giulio Ferrari Riserva del Fondatore Brut 2000 by Ferrari - yeasty, bready, drier and more refined than Altemasi. I noted them last year as well, but at that time Ca'del Bosco Franciacorta (absent this year) stole my heart.


2. A strong showing for young Amarones this year. Complexity & freshness, rather than an often-seen raisiny fruit. Amarone della Valpolicella Classico Campolongo di Torbe 2004 by Masi (still a year till official release) was ripe, juicy, meaty, spicy and fresh. An honorable mention goes to Guerrieri Rizzardi's Amarone della Valpolicella Classico Villa Rizzardi 2005 - sweet, slightly herbaceous nose, bitter sweet on the palate.

3. I must say the event seemed "poorer" this year, as most of the cult names were not there. I did see Sassicaia. That's about it. The food was less too. Just cheese, crackers, and fruit. Last year, treats from local restaurants were at hand. Nor did I see the Tre Bicchieri guides or even cork-screws given away like I'd spotted a year ago.



4. Relatively thin showing by Barolo and Brunello reminded me that there are fewer celebrated wines in the most recent release (2005) than a year ago (2004). Only one Brunello stood out for me - Canalicchio di Sopra 2004 - young, fresh and tasty! There were some excellent examples of 2005 Barolo. The charming and talented Giuseppe Vaira (in the photo on the right) delivered on his Barolo Bricco delle Viole 2005 - sweet, soft-textured, intensely flavored, plum, tea, with loads of dark berries. Vietti's Barolo Lazzarito 2005 was a classic - a powerhouse Nebbiolo, full-flavored, jerky, tannin, serious, young, deep, concentrated black cherry. Several other wines were solid though not amazing - Oddero Barolo Mondoca di Bussia Soprana 2004 (blueberry/cherry tea), Elvio Cogno Barolo V. Elena 2004 (soft and charming), Bezza & Figli Barolo Sarmassa 2005 (toothpasty fresh tea), Travaglini Gattinara Riserva 2004 (meaty and gritty), Prunotto Barolo Bussia 2005 (light & tart), and finally Pio Cesare Barolo Ornato 2005 (herb, spice and blackberry with a unique personality). So long as we are on the subject of Nebbiolo, a notable mention should also go to Ca'del Baio's Barbaresco Asili 2006 - sweet and tart, slightly spicy, intense and substantive, tannic, with a touch of coffee, poured by the friendly winemaker sisters - Paola and Valentina Grasso.



5. Bordeaux varietals and super-tuscans (or Toscana) were all the rage. A lot of good quality Cabs, Merlots, and Bordeaux blends some enhanced with Sangiovese, reminiscent of Bordeaux but with zingier acidity that I so love in Italian wine. The 2006 Bolgheri Sassicaia by Tenuta San Guido was expectedly outstanding (97pts Antonio Galloni, $150 retail) - dusty plum, nice tannins, a slight green component that added to the complexity, very good! The first vintage (2006) of Coevo by Cecchi was excellent too - flavor taking me to the right-bank of Bordeaux, great balance and complexity, 50% Sangio / 10% Cab / 20% Merlot / 20% Petit Verdot, dry blackberries, jerky. Galatrona 2007 (98pts Wine Spectator) from Petrolo, made from 100% Merlot, was a powerhouse gorgeous beast of a wine - veggie and spice, fresh, super-concentrated thick dark berry fruit. If Sassicaia were Pierce Brosnan, the Galatrona was Arnold Schwarzenegger.

6. Tre Bicchieri wines (at least all the ones I was drawn to taste) are expensive. Definitely if you want the good stuff, brace yourself -- you will pay just as much as for high-end French. I don't see any obvious "value" categories at the Tre Bicchieri level.

7. Recioto di Soave was a revelation. La Perlara 2007 by Ca'Rugate - a sweet wine of considerable complexity was perhaps the 2nd best Italian sweet white I'd ever had, bested only by the Vin Santo di Montepulciano Avignonesi 1996 from last year's event. Being more familiar with Recioto di Valpolicella (a sweet red wine), I learned that "recioto" style of winemaking (where grapes are dried on mats for months, vinified somewhere along the way to raisinhood) is also applied to white wine made in Soave from the Garganega grape (in Veneto, in the northeast of Italy, neighboring with Valpolicella).

8. Some outstanding wines are not imported to California (or the US altogether). The Recioto di Soave above was one of them. Several more that stood out for me were:

a) Franciacorta Saten 2006 sparkler by Il Mosnel - 100% chardonnay, fresh rich lemon custard. Shown in the photo with Italian distributor Lucia Barzano.

b) Barbera d'Asti Superiore Nizza 2006 by Tenuta Olim Bauda - rich, fresh, balanced, a fairly substantial Barbera.

c) Chianti Classico Tenuta di Capraia Riserva 2006 - good balance, fruit, great acid, nice soft texture/tannin.

After 5 tooth-staining hours of pacing myself through the aisles, I was exhausted. The wines I commented on here, I re-tasted 2-3 times throughout the evening, doing my part in delivering diligent assessment to you, my readers. I know, I know - it's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it!

The $200+ question

To spend or not to spend? That is the question!

Last week I drank Grand Cru white Burgundy - Corton Charlemagne, Bienvenues-Bâtard-Montrachet, Bâtard-Montrachet, and Chevalier-Montrachet. A couple of great vineyards were missing from this exalted line-up, but believe me - it was exalted alright!

We (as in "wino crowd") all know that 3 things matter - vineyard, vintage, producer.
You leave out one of them, and you are as good as a sitting duck.

2006 - a vintage for white Burgundy that had received mixed comments from the aristocrati, though personally I found many brilliant wines. For the tasting lineup organized by a local wine shop, they picked the absolute top examples from the extensive portfolios by Girardin, Pernot, B. Morey, Boillot and Bouchard, ranging from $78/bottle to $235/bottle (and those were bargains at a 40% discount!)

For reference, here are the wines I enjoyed:
1. 2006 Corton-Charlemagne (Vincent Girardin) $78
2. 2006 Bienvenue-Bâtard-Montrachet (Paul Pernot) $99
3. 2006 Bâtard-Montrachet (Jean-Marc Boillot) $135
4. 2006 Bâtard-Montrachet (Bernard Morey) $135
5. 2006 Corton-Charlemagne “Quintessence” (Vincent Girardin) $144
6. 2006 Chevalier-Montrachet (Vincent Girardin) $204
7. 2006 Chevalier-Montrachet (Bouchard) $235

As I was tasting these 2006's, it was obvious they were extra-ordinary wines. Rich, fragrant, intense yet elegant, serious yet approachable. For all the talk I hear these days about regular folks not comprehending how someone should spend more than $20-30 on a bottle of wine, 7 answers were staring me right in the face and flowing down my palate. I suppose "to each their own", but really the basic question is:

Would you rather have 10 drinkable bottles or 1 great one?

I realize that this is a deeply personal question. Is a great bottle worth 5 good ones? Is a divine bottle that is slightly "better" that a great bottle worth twice the price? For that is almost the ratio of a the Bouchard Pere et Fils' magnificent Chevalier-Montrachet ($235) to Bernard Morey's superlative Bâtard-Montrachet ($135). I've thought about it so many times, and still cannot find a good answer, except that I want both!

I think it's a philosophical question that applies to everything in life, not just wine. Is one great programmer worth 10 mediocre ones? Well, opinions differ, but even in the age of Google and Apple, their wunderkinds don't get paid even twice of what an average programmer gets paid elsewhere.

But back to wine, the quality/price scale is anything but linear. More like exponential. A fractional improvement in quality will double the price. Seems like it shouldn't be worth it, right? But then why is that Chevalier-Montrachet haunting me?

A couple of words on the difference between the two neighboring vineyards. First off, before anyone goes defending modern California wines and dissing French, you owe it to yourself to taste a good Bâtard or Chevalier at least once. Assuming your palate has even the roughest ability to differentiate tastes, I think that once and for all, you will stop defying the truth about who makes the best dry white wine in the world! Second, it is a fascinating study of grape to think that two vineyards located on the same hillside, growing the same exact grapes, vinified in generally the same method will produce wines that taste so different. It's called terroir, baby - we all say it, but a tasting like this really makes you feel it. Grape seems to be an amazing conduit of the nutrients in the soil underneath, fueled by the energy of the sun above. And that is the difference between Chevalier-Montrachet (top of the hill) and Bâtard-Montrachet (bottom). Both wines are gorgeous. Both make heads turn when they enter the room. But if I may offer a visual comparison, they are Mr. and Mrs. Smith! Chevalier - muscular, reserved and classy. Bâtard - more flowery and fruity, voluptuous, round and feminine. Which one do you want?

Douce France

Hidden away in the Town & Country Plaza at the entrance to Stanford University in Palo Alto is a little gem of a cafe called Douce France. The type of place which to me embodies everything best about Palo Alto - quality without pretense, sophistication so subtle that you'll never see it, yet it's in the relaxed air all around you. At first, it may look like any other cafe, until you sit down, relax, watch and listen. You start hearing French, Italian, Spanish... you are in Europe. A perfect savory crepe arrives, and a panini, and a latte so good you've never had it this good within 6000 miles of here. Chef Donato stops here every morning on his way to Donato Enoteca for that perfect cup of espresso. From behind the counter comes Victor, his pale face tired of sleepless nights - he just had a baby. A face of an immigrant who escaped, a face of an angel who has seen hell, and is here now to give the rest of the world a little piece of the sunshine emanating from his soul through his dark, deep eyes.



My wine tennis posse stop here almost every Saturday after tennis to wind down and reflect on the week gone by. Oh yes, my tennis posse - a tennis group I run where only wine friends are allowed, most of us techies too! I created my own little nexus of food, wine, tennis, and tech utopia - however unlikely a combo, it is in fact yet another reason why I so love Palo Alto. Hours go by leisurely, life slows down, Victor keeps our plates full, stories flow, fantasies about things we'll never really have the gumption to do, and we savor our blessings.

1998 vs 2007 - greatest Chateauneuf-du-Pape face-off ever?

One of the most reputable wine writers of our time Eric Asimov aptly noted in New York Times in 2007:

A good Châteauneuf-du-Pape is first and foremost a wine-lover's wine. Other wines can give you gloss and symmetry, the sort of good looks that are obvious even if you aren't much of a wine drinker. But Châteauneuf does not lend itself to smoothness and polish. It is earthy and sometimes fierce, the proverbial "brooding" wine. Yet as difficult as it can initially be to embrace, the ornery character of Châteauneuf makes it all the more rewarding when the lights finally go on. That aha! moment is like suddenly recognizing the beauty in one of Picasso's women, and realizing that conventional notions can take you only so far. A classic Châteauneuf can offer the fruit flavors that most wine drinkers love so well, ranging from cherry and blueberry to deep, rich raspberry. It can also have intense aromas of violets and other flowers, woven through with whiffs of earth and Provençal herbs, spices and a little of what is politely termed barnyard. This is all in one big package that is rarely neat. Few wines offer as visually clear a sense of place as a good Châteauneuf. When you stick your nose in a glass and breathe in, you can actually feel transported to Provence, to perpetually windy slopes and rocky terrain redolent of garlic, lavender and thyme.

Since the great vintage of 1998, with the exception of 2002, Châteauneuf has been on a roll. The pinnacle - 2007 - was heralded by Robert Parker as the vintage of the century.

What else are faithful wine geeks to do but to set up the greatest CdP face-off of our times - 1998 vs 2007, top producers, top of the line wines (prized bottles from hallow cellars of Chris B and Carlos G). Iron Chevsky was there to partake, learn, and document!




Roster
1998 Beaucastel ($150-200, 96RP, 95WS) & 2007 Beaucastel ($75-90, 96RP, 96WS)
1998 Chateau Rayas ($300-500, 94RP, 94WS)
1998 Janasse VV ($140, 95+RP) & 2007 Janasse VV ($250, 100RP, 96WS)
1998 Vieux Donjon ($100-170, 95RP) & 2007 Vieux Donjon ($60, 95+RP, 94WS)
1998 Les Cailloux "Cuvee Le Centenaire" ($250-600)
2007 Vieux Telegraphe "La Crau" ($55-70, 96+RP, 95WS)
2007 Saint Prefert "Collection Charles Giraud" ($250, 100RP, 98WS)

An esteemed line-up tasted by an esteemed panel. Below are the wines in the order of the group-rank, left-to-right from top-ranked. Take a close look.

Wines 1 through 5:


Wines 6 through 10:


Combining my own impressions with those around the table, here are the take-aways:

1. Good CdP is much better aged than young, as can be seen from the top 3 wines being all 1998.

2. Young CdP is big, fruity (even jammy), spicy and brooding. The same wines, when mature, mellow out, with some herbal / vegetable notes emerging - think "bloody mary".

3. There was not a bad wine in the line-up, with the exception of perhaps 2007 Beaucastel which at this stage is just too jammy for me. That said, with the right food, personally, I would have enjoyed any one of them, without the distraction of the others. But life is tough - for you, my readers, I had to sacrifice myself and go through all of them!

4. Price seemed to be a non-factor, as the most favored wine - 1998 Vieux Donjon - was amongst the least expensive in the lineup. The 2007 bottling is still somewhat affordable.

5. These are relatively low-acid, wild-tasting wines, even in their elder years. No wonder Laurence Feraud of Domaine du Pegau once told me, having just returned from Burgundy back to her domain in Cheateauneuf-du-Pape: "My wines are so WILD and SPICY". That they are. Makes one wonder what barbarically wild mood one must be in to shell out upwards of $100 (and far more, in some cases).

6. The tasting took place at Donato Enoteca. A fabulous multi-course Italian dinner followed. I must say, however, that CdP's go with Italian food about as well as flip-flops with an Armani suit. If you are going to have Italian food, drink Italian wine. With Chateauneuf, stick with Provençal cuisine.

7. The '98 Donjon was ranked the best wine, with '98 Rayas - the second. Once the blinders went off and dinner went on, the crowd thought that 1998 Rayas was by far the best wine. I suppose Rayas' reputation as being Southern Rhone's classiest export had nothing to do with that :)!

8. I have to give it to Beaucastel. The 1998 did not taste old, and the medium body of the wine made it infinitely more attractive to me when the food arrived.

---

Well, all that is fine and dandy. I felt special. Intellectually, I enjoyed. But truth be told, I find Chateauneuf-du-Pape to be in the same bucket as Bordeaux - wines of limited applicability - good with robust meat dishes. But with Burgundy and Barolo being in the same $$ range - with their more etherial textures and classier flavors - it's a tough sell for the very expensive CdP's. Yet when American consumers are exposed to French wine, I know Chateauneuf-du-Pape's are often the most popular of all French regions (granted - most consumers cannot afford the astronomically priced top-of-the-line wines we tasted that day). Why are they popular? In my humble opinion, these are transitional wines for new world wine lovers looking for the next step up - big, fruity, but with more character than Cali and Aussie fruit bombs. The wines we tasted are certainly fine examples of their terroir. There is a place and time for everything, and if it's roasted lamb with rosemary that I am in the mood for, perhaps a Beaucastel would be just what the doctor ordered. But that right place and right time are increasingly rarer at my table. As much as I cherished the opportunity to experience these wines, when the food came, I reached out for a Barbaresco (Produttori del Barbaresco's Moccagatta 2004) - bright, juicy, medium-bodied, high-acidity joy of a wine.