Friday, June 13, 2008

Sometimes, it's just eh...

You know how sometimes you have those nights where none of the wines really get you interested? Well, this was one of those nights. Although none of these were burdened with the tag of greatness (maybe I’ll write about that sometime), some of these wines had the obligation to be more interesting than they were, but just didn’t come through. Sometimes wines surprise, sometimes they disappoint. The food was pretty mediocre as well, but I’m used to that in Orange County (CA). Oh well.

1998 Jean Milan Brut Cuvée Symphorine

I found this too sweat for me. I’ve like the Terres de Noel in the past, but Champagne doesn’t really get me all excited. Cellaring won’t help either, unless you want the bubbles to go away. As an aside, really old Champagne is a farce, readers of the VLM-TR should not get sucked in to the current hype.

1985 Prince Florent de Merode Corton-Clos du Roi

This bottle was in pretty rough shape, however, it ended up being a decent enough drop, even if was more mature wine than really screaming Burgundy. Pristine bottles may offer more interest.

1985 Domaine de Montille Volnay 1er

This bottle wasn’t pristine either and it started out so funky that you would subsidize Hubert to get rid of those old stanky barrels. Sometimes air will help a wine get out of that stage, and for a fleeting moment, it looked to have turned a corner. That was a mirage. The bottom basically fell out and there was nothing to enjoy.

2002 Sylvie Esmonin Gevrey 1er Clos St. Jacques

I don’t know about 2002 Burgundy. I’m just not all that interested. There was plenty of big fruit here, but where is the Clos St. Jacques? The structure and complexity of this great vineyard never really came to the table.


andrew said...

I agree that the jury is still out on 2002 Red Burgundy. Some writers dismiss the vintage as too much fruit and too little terroir, while others suggest that the Cote de Beaune did very well indeed while the wines from the Cote de Nuits are good but not great. I still hold out hope for the vintage. But Sylvie Esmonin's wines are usually overblown, and the characteristics of the vintage didn't help.

I used to own the 1985 Prince de Merode wines which I bought mostly on the strength of a glowing write up in FWR. But I sold them long ago; I did not think they were all that well constructed and wouldn't last.

Nancy Deprez said...

How diapponting!

Where in OC did you eat?

Lyle Fass said...

update fucko!

Iuli said...

Hmmmmm, Champagne doesn't age? Please clarify. I've had dozens of Champagnes that improved over the course of their life.

To say that '96 Dom Perignon is not better today than say, 5 years ago, is an utter Sham!!!

I've Tasted 5 decades worth of Salon. I don't buy the wine anymore because it ages at the pace of say, 'Monfortino',. By the time its ready, i'll either have no liver or be suffering from dementia.

Here's the real kicker, I age both Jean Milan's 'Carte Blanche' and Drappier's 'Zero Dosage' for 1 year before I drink them. Yes, softer bubbles. . .but oh so tasty!

Most ironic, I found you linked from Besotted Ramblings and other Drivel. . .a champagne blog.

Blog on Brother!

Lyle Fass said...

This blog eats dicks.

thomas said...

Well, my Very Lewd Monkey, we hear thst you sre moving eastward, exactly where?, so we can pre(pare) the populace?

KevinO said...

The opaqueness of this report of late is distressing. Like Dave Chappelle, the monkey, upon staring success in the eye, has run. Come back my monkey!

Lyle Fass said...

It is time for me to hack and delete this piece of shit blog..can we call it a blog if it never gets a bag of dicks!

the vlm said...


I had a 2005 Esmonin CSJ that was quite good. I'm a bit on the fence with the producer myself, but the 2005 was certainly very good and not a bit overblown, despite 100% new oak (from Laurent super barrels).


I have no doubt that many Champagnes can age, just like sherry, and maybe show the same amount of terroir. I grew up in a household where my dad aged his NVs for a few years in the English way (although we're totally 'mericun) and I think that is a good idea. I just really don't get this "it needs 40 years" bullshit. I've had old ass Champagne too, and surviving is not the same as thriving.

I'm sure 1996 Dom is better now than 5 years ago, but it'll be better in 10 more than it will be in 50.

Peter is a friend of mine for whom I have great respect. We have discussed terroir and Champagne at some length, but I'm not a true believer.