2004 Louis Carillon Puligny Montrachet: A few prem-oxed 2004's in the last few weeks (Colin, Gouges) had me eager to test some of my other 04's, so I pulled the first of our stash of Carillons. No worries here! Rich gold color. Big nose of flint, orange blossom and wet dog. On the palate, those elements repeat with lemon zest, quince and spice. Overall seamless and surprisingly vivid, with medium-full weight on the palate that exceeds all expectations: exceptional quality that easily surpasses two 04 grand cru white burgs I've had in the past month.
1997 Swan Pinot Noir, Wolfespierre Vineyard, Sonoma: I'm almost moved to tears in writing about this one. Swan has always been a favorite American producer, Wolfespierre my favorite vineyard in the Swan assortment, and 1997 the last year because the owners ripped out the PN vines to replant with The Next Big Thing, syrah. I don't know who they are, but I hate them and hope they felt really stupid after Sideways. (Btw, does anyone know which Syrah that would now be?) This was my last bottle, and I'd saved it for a very special occasion--knowing the mint I'd probably find on the Chaves I thought this would be an appropriate introduction, and though I offered Ted his choice among three great older California pinots I admit I steered him toward this choice. Not that he didn't go there by himself, as it was the oldest. Initial funky nose appropriate to its age that blew off with some time in the glass to reveal the typical Wolfie mint and rich black cherry nose. Dense in color and lush on the palate with accents of thyme, stewed ripe tomato, caramel and cocoa on the finish. Amazing for a 15 year old California pinot. A true Swan song in every possible way I could mean that.
1983 and 1985 Chave Hermitages: Having enjoyed these side by side, it's almost impossible to describe them separately. So I won't.
I've never found it easy to describe wines of overwelming beauty (it's much easier to describe wines that disappoint, in fact.) What I actually write down at the time are lifeless nouns devoid of feeling, and I rely on the wine's lasting impression to fill in the gaps and do justice to what I end up writing about the experience. About the '83, my notes say: incredible perfume, animale, charcoal, dirt, Bactine, fungal, mint, pepper, granite, orange zest, baked cherries. About the '85, my notes simply observe the minor yet significant difference between it and the '83: more tannin, less charcoal, less assertive acid. It also had an extra pop of cherry flavor that created a degree more sweetness on the finish, and I believe that and the lower apparent acidity is what made it the favorite of the other four persons at the table besides Ted and I. But to the two of us, the '83 was THE wine for drinking right now, the most complete, fully arrived with dimension on both nose and palate that the '85 is still on its way to acquiring, and it had everything about it that makes Chave Hermitage my favorite wine in the world. It's very similar to my last '86 (from Magnum) that I opened a few months ago. When I drink wines like either of these I swear my feet don't touch the ground. Incredible. Thank you thank you thank you, Ted.