2007 Janasse Terre d'argile Cotes du Rhones

This is from my favorite Rhone producer, Janasse, which Francie and I visited on our stay in Provence. We had a great tasting with the owners and bought a bottle of 2000 Janasse CDP that I believe we still have in the Eurocave. This bottle was $18.50 from CH Wine Co., where I'm increasingly impressed with the selection and pricing that's below many in the Triangle NC area.

The 2007 vintage in southern Rhone has generated huge praise from Parker and others as perhaps the best vintage in decades. The Cotes du Rhone are supposedly operating at perhaps 3-5 points above their norms, to use the 0-100 scale. Parker rates lots of them in the 90-93 point range whereas normally few reach 90--certainly my experience with them is they're too rustic and simple on the palate even when good on the nose. Even relatively inexpensive CDP's seem to me a lot better than most CDR's.

Initial impression: the color is a dark purple like Welch's grape juice and a nose of black cherry and grapey, almost popsicle-like with violet and blackberry overtones. Initial palate: fairly acidic though soft tannins and the fruit is OK but not terribly impressive. It needs some time to oxygenate. Five minutes later the fruit is more in balance with the acid, giving it a very long and warm-hot finish. There's some light herbal overtone, maybe some lavender rather violet.

At 15 minutes, used the Vinturi to oxygenate further. The nose now is full of vanilla custard and what i'm more sure is lavender. In this sense it's tasting more like an Australian GSM with that really big jammy character that I love. Finish is really long, carried by the warm finish with acid and fruit in decent balance, but i'd say this one will be better in a year and will drink well for 5-6 years (till around 2016).

Parker below seems to be wrong on the varietal blend as the bottle itself says it's 40% grenache, 30% syrah and mourvedre, which accords with the GSM australian blends. i think what he calls camphor/truffles/truffles i may be smelling as herbs and lavender.

24 hours later after preservation with gas: great raspberry popsicle nose now with woodsy spicey overtones. the wine remains acidic on palate at least for the first few minutes. smoother with more air and smoother still on the palate after several trips through the Vinturi.

Francie brought out a cheese board and the goat cheese really goes nicely with this, aiding the finish of cheese and fruit together while taming a bit the hotness. the dominance of grenache in the blend is important for making it less spicy/peppery/herbaceous than would be the case with more syrah and mourvedre, i think. This one is about on par with the $20-22 GSM's from australia that I like and that get 90-92 points from Parker and the Wine Spectator so it's a good one to buy @ under $20.

Parker 91-93 points:

The blockbuster 2007 Cotes du Rhone-Villages Terre d’Argile, which comes from red clay soils, is a blend of 75% Grenache and 25% Mourvedre. A deep ruby/purple color is accompanied by aromas of black raspberries, blueberries, freshly grilled mushrooms, truffles, camphor, and spice. Full-bodied, deep, silky, and layered, it is an incredible example of a Cotes du Rhone-Villages.

Mollydooker 2006 Two Left Feet

68% shiraz, plus cab sauv and merlot. Initial impression: extremely fruity blackberry/huckleberry/blueberry, vanilla, piecrust, violet and a pronounced piney/cedar/woodsy overtone on the nose. the shiraz dominates--i don't get the currant or cherry i'd expect from the cab/merlot components. very dark red/purple. pretty sharp acid on the finish. almost unnoticeable tannin though the finish does last for 30 sec and tannin comes out then. the finish is insufficiently fruity given the promise of the nose. at this point i wonder if the wine is actually past its prime in a mere 3 yrs. not that it's bad, just not as good as expected 88+ points.

However after a few more minutes...smoothing out the acid on midpalate and licorice is coming out. needs some food I think. with food and bread little better, 89.

24 hours later, having used inert gas on the open bottle, now it's Aug. 2: The nose is really strong blackberry jam and blueberry and the palate is a nice spicy impression of these fruits with a moderately long finish and lots of sediment, and decent but less obtrusive acid. The wine isn't past its prime, it's probably six months to a year from peaking and will then last a couple years more. Now I'd give it 90+.

Further note: 10 days after opening on Aug 1, on Aug 10 this was under argon in the refrig so I thought I'd try a bit. The nose was really lovely. On the palate the acid was too high but this was not undrinkable and I believe if I'd opened it say last Thursday (today being Monday) I suspect it would've been quite good. This is definitely a wine worth buying for under $20.

Below is Jay Miller from Parker's Wine Advocate with a stronger review; and Wine Spec with a similar score to my initial one. I wonder if the WS tastes so many wines they don't give it the same breathing time as Parker's staff?

Miller WA: The 2006 Shiraz (68%) – Merlot (17%) – Cabernet Sauvignon (15%) Two Left Feet is a glass-coating opaque purple color. The brooding nose reveals plummy dark fruits, blueberry, licorice, and a hint of chocolate. On the palate it is thick, layered, and voluptuous. The structure is well-concealed and the wine is seamless and very long. It will reward a few years of cellaring but delaying gratification will be difficult. It is a great value. 93 points.

Wine Spec 88 points. Crisp in texture and a bit tannic, with ripe black fruits and smoky oak making for an intense combination of flavors, finishing rich and slightly herbal. Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. Best from 2010 through 2015. 9,053 cases made.

A disappointing Chateau Valrose 2000

This wine was acquired from a defunct wine store that often had great deals, but sometimes had over-hyped non-deals. This is one of them. I believe it had a 90 point or more rating from somebody (see below) but it's another low 80 pointer. it's better than Ch. des Cedres 2005 (previous entry) but not by much--give Valrose 83 points. The nose was quite nice, blackberry, tobacco, flowers. but the palate was dominated by acid. it already tastes over the hill. not much tannin but the fruit just couldn't compete with the acid. this wine has been well-stored since i got it so assuming it was properly stored by the vendor (which may in fact not be true for all I know), i don't know how it got such a high score from some expert. I now note that Parker didn't rate this, which is perhaps a clue--only Wine Spectator, which I find considerably less reliable. One thing I suggest is keeping track of my taste as opposed to Parker and Wine Spec and over the long run see if there's any pattern, e.g. that WS over-rates lots of Bordeaux but not so much Rhones etc. Both WS and now even Parker have multiple reviewers so as with movies there might well be important intra-publication variations. I should add however that as I say above, so says the WS: blackberry and flowers feature in the review below too.

So here's WIne Spectator, 92 points!

Super well-done. Bright and floral, with lovely raspberries and blackberries on the nose. Full-bodied, with fabulous, silky tannins and a solid core of fruit. Very, very long. The wines from this château get better and better. Best after 2008. 2,220 cases made.

Chateau des Cedres 2005 Bordeaux

This wine retails for about $9. Had it for $18 on half-price wine night at Carrboro restaurant. It's perhaps worth $9, not $18 (let alone the price on 6 nights a week of $36). Presumably restaurant owners buy such bottles because they assume most people at most know something like "Bordeaux are good wines so I'll get one that's fairly expensive relative to the rest of the wines on the list." A shame because at $9 I'd take the Penfolds Koonunga Cab or Cab/Shiraz any day. Not to mention for $18 you could get a really good Australian red, a Cotes du Rhone or a Spanish grenache, charge $36 and get the standard 100% markup. So the owner here assumes his clientele doesn't know enough about wine to realize what a dumb rip-off this is. Maybe he suspects they do know enough to have heard 2005 is a great vintage and indeed this Chat. des Cedres is probably as good as this chateau can ever get.

The wine was drinkable. I'd give it 82 points. It certainly is at its peak now. No bouquet to speak of but simple light fruit and acid and very light tannins. 80% merlot shows in the cherry strawberry finish. I doubt this wine will be drinkable after 2010. For now though it probably serves the owner's needs by flattering his poorly informed clientele.

2005 La Vieille Cure (Fronsac) outside Pomerol

Got a fantastic deal from CH Wine Co on this one for just $16/bottle, about half price, by the case. Apparently the distributor needed to raise some cash fast and god bless him for that. A 93 Point Parker 2005 bordeaux for this price is pretty much unheard of. This is the first of 12 entries, perhaps I'll try one per year through 2020. As always I have not read Parker's notes so I can give my own impression. The wine was shipped to the store only 2 weeks ago so it isn't exactly settled down yet.

The nose is very deep and somewhat unyielding. Color deep purple almost to the rim. I'm getting black cherry and a very pleasant woodsy aroma, not vegetal and not floral but like spring leaves. A hint of toasty oak. On the palate this is just massive. Big tannins, plenty of acid and gobs of fruit, medium to full body. It really tastes and smells undeveloped but with great promise. The finish is very, very long, and warm without being overly hot/alcoholic. This is the most tannic wine I've drunk since beginning the blog in June, really mouth coating and not as soft and integrated as in several other young wines I've had recently. Some licorice and cocoa on the finish. I'd say this one needs about 5 years, ie shouldn't really be drunk till 2015 or so. I'd think it'll be drinking well till 2025 or even 2030 as the fruit seems ripe enough to remain while the tannins soften and the acid will be just about right to sustain the wine without overwhelming the fruit. When it all comes together and has the bottle age it should taste like a very nice Pomerol, somewhat reminiscent of Vieux Chateau Certan 1986 that we had at Charlie Trotter's in May 2009. With more air a raspberry perfume appeared. The wine is about 75% merlot, 22% Cab Franc and just 3% cab sauvignon.

I think from the high tannin I awoke Friday morning with a huge headache. Earlier notes on Le Bon Pasteur 2005 suggested more promise and current pleasure (and it's a Parker 94 point wine, from Pomerol itself, and cost much more $, so it goes).

So here's what Parker says, pretty close to me. I think the wine must have become more tannic since he tasted the bottle in 2008. He calls spring flowers what I called spring leaves...:

La Vieille Cure’s amazing 2005 is even better than their terrific 2003 and 2000. The 2005 boasts an inky/ruby color as well as a gorgeously sweet perfume of charcoal, black cherries, black currants, and spring flowers as well as an underlying mineral component. Superb concentration, full-bodied power, wonderful symmetry, purity, and texture, and a multidimensional mouthfeel are all found in this fabulous sleeper of the vintage. Anticipated maturity: 2010-2020+

Tignanello 2004 Super Tuscan IGT

Had July 20 evening at Tom and Deborah's (with Gabriel, Clay, Inge), purchased from area, good wine store for about $80 (average price on Winesearcher is around $120). This wine is actually #4 wine of the year by Wine Spectator in 2007!

Clearly it's too young; it's deep but pretty closed in the nose and needed 30-45minutes to open up a bit. With air we get tarry Sangiovese dark red spicy fruit, perhaps a bit of cherry, a bit of violet, blueberry and currant. This took 45-60 min. to open and probably the wine should have been decanted. With air too the finish became wonderfully long and complex, pleasantly vanilla notes, with caramelized plummy quality (called raisin below) aided by the Belgian cheeses and prosciutto that went beautifully with the wine. THere's plenty of fruit, acid and tannin, but the latter two need integration.

Drinkability would be best 2012-2025 (which more or less matches the professionals below). I would not give it 95 points, more like 92+, but this may be due to the greater ability to judge future potential among the professional wine critics.

Wine spectator 95 points

Offers aromas of blackberry, with hints of raisin and lots of spices. Full and velvety, with wonderful concentration and a long, rich finish. Very stylish and exciting. Sangiovese, Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Franc. Best after 2012. 26,665 cases made. –JS

3 notes from Parker

The estate’s 2004 Tignanello is a modern-day classic. Suggestions of macerated cherries, menthol, sweet spices, licorice and French oak meld seamlessly into a perfumed silky-textured core of ripe fruit. The tannins remain incredibly fine throughout. The wine’s vibrant color and fresh flavors suggest it will age gracefully over the next decade. This is a remarkably refined Tignanello. Anticipated maturity: 2009-2019. 95 pts

Pale+ ruby colour. Subtle, slightly closed aromas of red cherry, raspberry, violets, mocha and cinnamon on the nose. The medium+ bodied palate provides a great intensity of cherry, spice and tea flavours balanced by crisp acidity. Medium to firm, grainy, very fine tannins and a long, long finish. Young. Drink 2010 – 2020+. Tasted November 2008. 95 pts

The 2004 Tignanello (85% Sangiovese, 10% Cabernet Sauvignon and 5% Cabernet Franc) presents a livelier shade of ruby along with fresher aromatics and flavors. Deeply expressive, it reveals black cherries, licorice, tar and sweet toasted oak on a linear, silky-textured frame of great class and elegance, showing outstanding presence on the palate and fine tannins to round out the finish. Anticipated maturity: 2009-2019. 93 points

2004 Rocca di Montegrossi Toscana Geremia

At restaurant in Pigneto near Tom and Deborah's. 35 Euros. Drunk after sending back a bad Chianti much to consternation of wait staff. But it was a good idea as this was a nice IGT with 60% merlot and 40% Cabernet Sauv. It came feeling warm and I was worried it hadn't been stored properly (as was the bottle we sent back).

Anyhow, it was a bit rustic though integrated a bit better with time in glass. Black cherry plum, with time got more pleasing cherry vanilla--presumably the merlot dominance coming out and no doubt there is some oak aging in there. this wine needs time for tannin and acid to integrate with the fruit. This one did not have smooth tannins. It will never be profound and complex but will be more pleasant with another year in bottle. I'd say drink 2010-16 and give it 88 points. If it were available in the US for under $15 I'd say it's worth it; otherwise I'd go for an Aussie Cab Merlot blend==i'd get much more pleasure from a Mollydooker or DeLisio in this price range.

Now if you look below at Parker's rave review the only thing I can think is that poor storage is the culprit, as always raising the acid levels beyond the fruit and foreshortening its aging potential and current drinkability. On the other hand, Wine Spectator is closer to my own rating.

Parker 93 points:

The 2004 Geremia is equally commanding in its stature and potential. This blend of 60% Merlot and 40% Cabernet Sauvignon spent 18 months in Allier oak barrels. It reveals awesome richness and depth with a level of juiciness and mid-palate generosity that the San Marcellino doesn’t quite have. The wine remains extremely fresh and primary in its expression of dark macerated cherries, minerals, spices and sweet toasted oak. Despite its lushness, the wine also possesses considerable structure that begs for extended bottle aging, yet readers who are fortunate enough to own this wine will have a hard time being patient. This is a thrill to taste. Even better, it offers phenomenal quality for the money. Anticipated maturity: 2010-2024

Wine Spectator 88 points

Stylish aromas of mineral and blackberry follow through to a medium-to-full body, with fine tannins and a fruity finish. A little simple, but clean and well-crafted. Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon. Best after 2008.