WTN: 1 white, 1 red Burgundy

So Betsy had an early evening rehearsal with a tamboura, I was in charge of dinner. Braised pork chops with mushrooms, sunchokes, braised leeks, and Christmas limas (Betsy gave me some Rancho Gordo beans for Christmas). My cooking (as in used for cooking, and sipped while cooking) wine was the 2007 Brocard “Vaillons” Chablis 1er. Great acidity, lemony citrus fruit with just a little Granny Smith, nice chalky edge to the finish. Nice balance, this could age, but really lovely at moment. A-/B+

Dinner wine was the 2002 Jean Garaudet "Les Noizons" Pommard. I had liked the 99 of this, and think this was very reasonable. Betsy liked it, and I did too, but confess to a little disappointment. Nice raspberry meets flowers nose, ripe firm black cherry fruit on palate, balanced acidity, some light tannins. This issue for me is this is nice Pinot Noir, but for some reason doesn't say Pommard or even especially Burgundy to me. Nice dinner wine, but I wouldn't buy more. B

Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.  

[David M. Bueker]

2007 Brocard “Vaillons” Chablis 1er. ...this could age, but really lovely at moment.
  

Given the lack of evidence that the beast of premox is under control that would be the signal to drink up while it is so lovely.

You use a decent 1er cru Chablis as a cooking wine? I've usually enjoyed Brocard and find them to be fairly priced for Chablis. Oh, the '96 Garaudet Noizons was a solid wine the did well to evoke Pommard (slightly earthy and ferric) for me.

Is Jean Garaudet related to Paul Garaudet?

-Paul W.

You use a decent 1er cru Chablis as a cooking wine? I've usually enjoyed Brocard and find them to be fairly priced for Chablis. Oh, the '96 Garaudet Noizons was a solid wine the did well to evoke Pommard (slightly earthy and ferric) for me.

Joe,
I generally cook with open wines or $5-10 wines I keep for that use. But in this case I just used a couple of ounces in each of two dishes, the chops and the leeks- both were braised mostly in stock, with a dollop of wine for acidity. These were $18 each, so sacrificing maybe a 1/5 of a bottle seemed reasonable.

Paul, I think Jean and Paul are son/father, same estate (but I can't swear to it)

As an aside, John Gilman rode with Betsy and I to city yesterday, then John and I took subway and PATH to Jersey. On the way we talked a bit about 2002. He has a strong opinion that while '02 is a good vintage, it's not very terroir driven. I'll disagree in general, but have to say this wine was a good argument for his viewpoint.

John Gilman rode with Betsy and I to city yesterday, then John and I took subway and PATH to Jersey. On the way we talked a bit about 2002. He has a strong opinion that while '02 is a good vintage, it's not very terroir driven. I'll disagree in general, but have to say this wine was a good argument for his viewpoint.

Of course I don't have anywhere near the experience of John so I am wondering about the logic behind the claim? It must involve more than just ripeness because I'm assuming he finds 99 and 05 more terroir driven? So is it a certain kind of ripeness that makes it less terroir driven? Something with yields?

[David M. Bueker]

Must...not...post...what...I...am...thinking...

Must...not...post...what...I...am...thinking...

Why not?

Must...not...post...what...I...am...thinking...

Why not?

It's one of his buttons!

[David M. Bueker]

Must...not...post...what...I...am...thinking...

Why not?

It's one of his buttons! [/quote

Of which I have many!

Of course I don't have anywhere near the experience of John so I am wondering about the logic behind the claim? It must involve more than just ripeness because I'm assuming he finds 99 and 05 more terroir driven? So is it a certain kind of ripeness that makes it less terroir driven? Something with yields?

I'll try to leave David's buttons alone as much as possible, but try and answer from my scant knowledge.
We didn't actually discuss causes this time, just debated a little about whether it was true. But having been in same discussion before, I'm pretty sure that John (and others with that opinion) focus on the timing of the maturation. Apparently it was mostly a cool/cloudy season to start, but then with a super-sunny (but not torrid) September. Which saved the vintage, and it ended up with very good ripeness and acids. But the argument is that the "catch up" ripening didn't allow as much soil character. I think that's fairly accurate synopsis of their argument. These are generally real Burgundy freaks, and no one says it's not a good vintage. To me it's a great vintage, but I'm less in tune with the individual terroirs of vineyards that John or some others. I believe even Meadows, a big 2002 proponent, has said 2002 was more a Pinot Noir vintage than a classic terroir driven vintage like 93 or 01

This writeup of a seminar by Richard Jennings was what I remembered about Meadows having a somewhat similar viewpoint:
http://www.cellartracker.com/event.asp?iEvent=8036

I think I can get a sense of terroir from most 2002s, but in my case it's more (a) this is Burgundy and then maybe(b) this is Gevrey, I don't really have enough experience to say this is Combottes, Clos St Jacques, Fontenys, etc. If I had a better sense of what vineyards should show, maybe I'd see the blurring.

But the argument is that the "catch up" ripening didn't allow as much soil character. I think that's fairly accurate synopsis of their argument.

Ok. I don't know all the chemistry behind it but it sounds good. Especially because everyone always talks about long, even ripening seasons as the ideal.