WTN: Beaucastel Vertical

Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape 2003
Darker, murkier colour trending lighter at the edges. Nose of stewed fruit and muted savoury tones. The palate continues with fruit richness, in a jammy, cooked sort of way and lacking freshness and delineation. Some complexity from the farm, but you kinda have to look for it. Little in the way of cut or structure. This is not what I look for in Beaucastel at all, and I doubt it will hold up for many more years. 8

Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape 2004
Much brighter ruby colour. The aromas are adorable – fresh, and high-toned in the manner of a good Burgundy. Elegant mouthfeel with penetrative flavours. Fruit and leather are there, but the florals really make this special. Grip and acid just right. This is very elegant for CNdP, but no lightweight. While not a “great” vintage I think it really offers something special. 12+

Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape 2005
Deeper colour than the ’04, and that extra density is clear on the nose. Rich dark fruit and earth, well funnelled. Full-flavoured, kept together with just the right structure. Small crushed berries, barnyard, great depth as well as breadth. This could well go a long, long way. Really, really good CNdP! 15+

Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape 1998
More purple than the ’05, same intensity to the edges. Heady aromas with bacon, fruit, and a summer’s day out at the farm. And it gets even better to drink than to smell – good intensity, sweet ripe fruit contrasting but not clashing with more salty savoury flavours. This is well developed now, though will likely hold it together for quite a while yet. For me, it’s a tad behind the 2005, which is just that bit more classy and special. The “sweet-sour” tension (more an analogy than an accurate description I guess) makes this a special wine for me though. 14

Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape 2000
Back to redder rather than purple. In many ways this smells and tastes like a mix between the ’04 and the ’05 – so I put that to the test by mixing about 15ml of each to compare . Perhaps it’s a process that Beaucastel should consider so that they can make SOME use of dreck juice like the ’03 ! The ‘04/’05 mix analogy is (like most analogies) inaccurate but not too wide of the mark. The ’00 has a very integrated nose, more like a beacon than a rainbow. That integration (while stumping me for descriptors) makes this wine very appealing and moreish. Fresher than the ’98, less rich, but great texture. This will be interesting to watch for further development. 13

Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape 1996
Darker garnet with bricking at the edges. The nose is well-developed, some greenness a little distracting. The themes here are black olive, brambles, red fruit... and a good dose of barnyard. This is holding up reasonably well for a ratty vintage. I suspect that the barnyard and underripe characters will dominate soon though. Right now, it’s attractive in a rustic sort of way. Serve with lamb or game. 8

Beaucastel Chateauneuf du Pape 1978
Lighter colour, showing its age, though a darker, murkier centre. And murky is also how the non-visual impressions progress! A lot of dirt and sewage blows off quite rapidly, leaving only a hint of scat to add to tertiary leaf mulch, surprisingly fresh red currant and leather. The palate is starting to dry, though the wine feels quite light and fresh. This is getting on a bit – still enjoyable though rather than merely academic. Some tangy sanguinello, hay and tobacco and a tiny bit of soy make a late appearance. 9-

[David M. Bueker]

Rauno,

What's your rating scale? I love the notes, but when I see a 14 I expect a mediocre performer. But then I am used to the 20 point scale in modern, grade-inflated times.

I use my "own" scale as I have never developed an affinity to the ones I see commonly used. For example, the 100 point scale really starts at 80, and the "common" 20 point scales start either at 15 or at 10. So my scale is out of 20 and uses the full range, as much as possible, and allows me to differentiate between excellent, super excellent and super-duper-wow-how-can-something-so-bad-feel-so-good bliss

A score of 14, for me, is excellent. You might consider it a "94" for example (though adding 80 is a simplification for me). I expect most wines I drink during the week to be between 6 - 9. Good wine. I've set my scale out below:

1 – 5 points: bad wine
6 – 10 points: good wine
11 – 15 points: excellent wine
16 – 20 points: spectacularly fantastic wine

"+" means that I expect (balance of probabilities) the wine to warrant more in the future, not just improve with age (or all young wines would get a "+") and "-" means that I expect it to be worse very soon.

Rauno, there seems much less consensus on how to use the 20 point scale than there is on the 100 point scale. With me less than 15 is getting iffy and less than 14 not worth bothering. There's a lot to be said in favour of widening out. With French critics "good" wines start at 13.

With the 100 point scale, consensus seems to be that serious wines seem to start at 90. Below 80 means not worth drinking.

[David M. Bueker]

With the 100 point scale, consensus seems to be that serious wines seem to start at 90. Below 80 means not worth drinking.

And the value section is from 87-89.

Rauno-

Far be it from me to question somebody else's scale--my own method has come under scrutiny and even parody (Jacques). However I find it a little strange that a full 25% of your scale is for spectacularly fantastic wine. I mean, you compress the typical 100 point scale's 70-94 into 15 points then allow the final 95-100 into 5 of your own points. I know it's all approximate, but it does strike me as odd.

Oh I fully agree that it's odd . I simply dislike the other scales - who knows, I might start a trend ! I use the scale primarily for my own reference, so haven't put much thought into whether it communicates to others clearly. Some particular features:

- Yes, I do want to have 25% of my scale to differentiate amongst spectacular wines. If I give them all an "A+" it's too blurry for me. And I'm really trying to not introduce halves and quarters (as I've seen others do).
- I do not see the need to differentiate between terrible wine and even more terrible wine, so if anything I should start "good" wine at "2" perhaps.
- You could consider my "compression" to be 70 - 84 = 1 - 5, and then 85 - 91 = 6 - 10. But it's all imprecise anyway...

I hope that between my descriptions and the scores (I will try to always include my "scale") people will be able to get a sense of how good I thought the wine was. For example, I slam the '03 in my words, given that I was expecting a Beaucastel and this was not to my taste, but recognise that the wine is still "good" with a score of 8.

I know a guy who started issuing scores on a 110 point scale, simply to be able to say he drank a lot of 100 point wine (tongue was firmly in cheek of course)

Nice notes

2003 - the CdP vintage of "stewed fruit" and "jam"

I am really interested to see how that vintage shapes up as time goes on, I haven't been doing the wine thing for all that long but I am not sure if I am familiar with a vintage that has more people split on the quality of the wine (speaking of that particular region).

After having tasted a n 03 Pegau recently that seemed out of sorts, I am letting what I have left from 03 rest for a while.