The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.

WTN: Short notes from a trade tasting in Lucerne

Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker

no avatar
User

David from Switzerland

Rank

Wine guru

Posts

580

Joined

Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:03 am

WTN: Short notes from a trade tasting in Lucerne

by David from Switzerland » Sat May 26, 2007 8:25 am

A trade tasting by Carl Studer Vinothek in Lucerne, which I attended with Rainer on March 3, 2007. Wines are presented here in the order they appear in the flyer, not the order we tasted them in. Needless to say, I didn’t even come close to tasting all there was on show here. Quite an interesting since diverse portfolio.

It is early days yet, but some words of caution regarding the hyped 2005 Châteauneuf-du-Pape vintage may be in order: it’s easy to be fooled by the purity and precision of the fruit that perhaps all 2005s share. I am reminded of the 1996 red Burgundy vintage, in which one needed to sift chaff from the wheat in like manner: acids must be ripe and not green, plus there needs to be density of fruit to go with those acids, possibly a baby-fat-like surplus, some of which a wine can live off as it ages in bottle, every young wine’s tuckerbag, so to speak. In my experience, a whiff of greenishness and bitterness to the tannin may prevent oxidation, and be fully absorbed by a wine’s tannic backbone with bottle age. Some 2005 CdPs may be susceptible in this regard, however. If you (have to) base your buying decisions on other people’s opinion, be careful and remember that high alcohol levels, as they do not prove a wine’s particularly concentrated or thoroughly ripe, no matter how often producers and wine critics repeat this false belief.
Apart from the above-mentioned caveats, there is an aspect I already mentioned in an earlier post, which is that one may wonder if harvesting three to four weeks earlier on average than a quarter of a century ago (or less) has more than a little something to do with a tendency to play it safe (for more on this subject, see http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/village/viewtopic.php?t=7441).
Having said all this, I have so far only tasted very few examples and am convinced there are bound to be some fine, and probably a few great wines in a vintage like this, as at the very least it must have been possible to pick healthy fruit.

Kurt Angerer Grüner Veltliner Kies 2006
Light, fruity-herbal, tasty. Rating: 83

Kurt Angerer Grüner Veltliner Spies 2006
A bit deeper, more minerally and tannic, nice herbs, fuller body, some length. Rating: 84

Kurt Angerer Grüner Veltliner Loam 2006
More multi-faceted, nice crispness, stony herbs. Rating: 84+

Kurt Angerer Grüner Veltliner Eichenstaude 2006
More emphasis on soil notes, grassy stone, more tightly structured, good length. Rating: 84

Kurt Angerer Riesling Donatus 2006
Tannic, chives, has cut. Rating: 84

Kurt Angerer Riesling Ametzberg 2006
Granite, stone dust tannin, much more minerally, a toughie this one, some apple, fairly concentrated, higher acidity. Rating: 86+?

Knoll Grüner Veltliner Smaragd Ried Schütt 2006
Deep, well-concentrated, good spice and minerality, some green tea. Rating: 87+

Knoll Grüner Veltliner Smaragd Ried Loibenberg 2006
Rounder but more tannic, murkier fruit, less focus. And yet, these two were served in this order and Rainer and I were told it is because people “find like its approachability and find the Schütt difficult to interpret” – do they, seriously? Rating: 85+?

Knoll Riesling Smaragd Dürnsteiner Ried Kellerberg 2006
Good depth, an elegant medium weight with some subtlety, long. But as Knoll always emphasizes, this is from the flat lower part of this great siteRating: 86+

Knoll Riesling Smaragd Ried Schütt 2006
Fuller, thicker, more glyceric, more complex and fruitier, showing good body and intensity. Touch of iron the minerality here. Rating: 88

Knoll Riesling Beerenauslese Pfaffenberg 2006
From 500 ml bottle. Not sure the vineyard designation figures on the label. Clean botrytis, fresh pepper, pure and lively, some white green blossoms, some green. Tasty, but never too interesting in view of the German late harvest Rieslings we tend to drink. Rating: 87+

Kracher Beerenauslese Cuvée 2005
Blend of Welschriesling and Chardonnay. Hard to define, but the dumb botrytis breadiness verges on grey glue, it is probably clean enough, but not optimally fresh. Rating: 86

Kracher Trockenbeerenauslese Cuvée N.V.
Nice complexity, some dried apricot and spicy gingerbread, but light for a TBA, high alcohol. Rating: 86

Kracher Welschriesling Trockenbeerenauslese #2 “Zwischen den Seen” 2004
Somewhat oxidative banana, viscous, malty, a bit herbaceous. Rating: 86+?

Kracher Trockenbeerenauslese Grande Cuvée #6 "Nouvelle Vague" 2004
Blend of Welschriesling and Chardonnay. New oak, good density of Sauternes-like fruit. Nice sweetness, body and balance. Creamy soft banana, caramel, oily mouthfeel, yet nicely structured, long finish. Fair complexity, well made of course, ultimately without real depth, as usual. Rating: 88+/89?

Dal Bosco Valpolicella Superiore La Guaite 2002
Poured by Stefano Pizzighella himself. A bit raisiny, medium weight for what it is, tasty, chocolaty, a bit pruney, fairly oxidative but still Port-like in a good way. Rating: 85

Dal Bosco Amarone della Valpolicella La Guaite 2002
A bit nutty, strong marzipan, some raisin, some coffee and chocolate, but not really dense with fruit, somewhat evolved already, some alcohol sticking out. Rating: 85+?

Dal Bosco Recioto della Valpolicella La Guaite 2002
Denser, nicely sweet, some honeyed creaminess, raisins, soft mocha, honey, longer than the two dry 2002s, a relative success. Rating: 88+

Montepeloso Suvereto Eneo 2004
Quite complex, a little charcoal to exotic dark berry flavours, iodine, eucalyptus, low acidity, a bit hot and tough, good body and quite long. Rating: 87

Montepeloso Suvereto Nardo 2004
A bit tougher, tighter, more depth, fairly long, slightly rougher tannin, needs some time. But it is obvious these wines have become yet more modern in style, less authentic, something I find a huge problem in this price category. Rating: 87+?

Montepeloso Suvereto Gabbro 2004
A medicinal top note, common sorrel, weird peaty graphite, and hung game in dense blackcurrant. Big, long, attractive yet perplexing. Rating: 88+

Albino Rocca Barbaresco Brich Ronchi 2004
Garnet-ruby. Nicely forward nose, rose-hip fruit, round and tasty, a rather pretty and approachable wine with tannin that is orange-flavoured and perhaps not ideally, that is, thoroughly ripe. Interestingly, it seemed at the same time rather evolved for its age and yet, not really expressive enough. Fair enough length. Some marzipan, a combined effect of the fruit and seemingly at least partially new oak, but not too modernistic for this bottling. As far as the wine’s aging potential is concerned, I would not overestimate it, even if there is something to be said in favour of balance and early harmony – this may always drink well. Maybe I am underrating this? Rating: 89+?

Albino Rocca Barbaresco Brich Ronchi 2003
Firmer, with a slight bitterness, more concentrated, tighter, much less pretty now, less expressive, and I kept wondering if it ever will be. May evolve well, but I prefer the more approachable, admittedly easier to interpret 2004. Rating: 88+/-?

Mauro Veglio Barolo Castelletto 2000
Abrasive wine, promising enough on nose and attack, but immediately imploding on the palate with severely tight tannin – will this ever live up to the (relative!) promise of the warm, evolved, lightly autumnal and nicely sweet nose? Near-impossible to tell with confidence. I continue to find the percentage of 2000s I get to taste that exhibit tough or bitter tannins disturbing. Rating: 86+?

Mauro Veglio Barolo Vigneto Arborina 2003
More animal, meaty, soft tobacco, tannin is not too tired but marzipan- and caramel-flavoured, and the “fruit” emphasising cork rind. Faint bitterness and bit coarse. Rating: 83

François Mikulski Mersault 2005
A bit glyceric, sound acids, limey, some oak, some minerals. Rating: 86+?

François Mikulski Mersault Charmes 2005
More grassy and herbal depth, longer. Good concentration, a bit youthfully tannic. Rating: 88+?

François Mikulski Pommard 2005
Fairly bright, tough not really lively fruit, with a faint animality or sweatiness. A touch bitter and cool. Medium length. Rating: 84+

Mittnacht Frères Riesling Rosacker 2005
Floral, yeasty apple, persil, a bit oxidative, evolved. Rainer thought the fruit almost Germanic. Rating: 84+?

Charvin Côtes-du-Rhône 2004
A bit cheesy on the nose and palate, nicely mature (!) fruit, faint prune, aged meat, fermented cherry. Rating: 86

Charvin Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2004
82% Grenache, 8% Syrah, 5% Mourvèdre, 5% Vaccarèse. Fresher, racier than the CdR, Burgundian petits fruits, crystallised berries, Kirsch. Not too dry tannin, mouthwatering. Rating: 88

Charvin Côtes-du-Rhône 2005
Fuller, meatier than the 2004, soft sage. Slightly bitter at the core, though not at all dry. Maybe a fraction lighter than the 2003, but really a close call. Rating: 87

Charvin Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2005
82% Grenache, 8% Syrah, 5% Mourvèdre, 5% Vaccarèse. As with the CdR, virtually no greenishness, in contrast to some 2005s. Not the concentration or weight of the finest Charvins (1998, 2000, 2001), but nicely subtle and long. In need of a little bottle age. I am currently wondering if this has the potential to turn out better than the 2003 (another Charvin I am not as convinced with as I had hoped). But I still like the style here: unartificial CdP with a taste of the grape and soil, making for ideal food matches, more so than most of those alcoholic heavyweights. Rating: 89+?

Clos du Caillou Côtes-du-Rhône Bouquet des Garrigues 2005
Barrel sample ready for bottling. Pretty nose, fruit cake subtlety, bitter and faintly green underneath on the palate, medium-plus length. Rating: 86

Clos du Caillou Côtes-du-Rhône Les Quartz 2005
Barrel sample ready for bottling. Opaque purple, watery at the rim. Bigger and sweeter wine, some tightness and minor bitterness to the tannin, pretty complexity, milk chocolate and soft spice, good length, a relative standout. Rating: 87+?

Clos du Caillou Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Barrel sample ready for bottling. Deeply coloured. Fairly animal, medium complexity, Provençal herbs, some underlying green aspect makes this tight and tough, if superficially still attractive. Rating: 88+?

Clos du Caillou Châteauneuf-du-Pape Les Quartz 2005
Barrel sample ready for bottling. Opaque purple-black, minor watery rim. Dark chocolate, mint, floral essence, quite old-viney, quite highly concentrated, palate-staining. Should absorb most of its bitter and green tannin, and turn out well, but achieve full harmony? Time will tell. Shows good depth, though. Rating: 90+

Clos du Caillou Châteauneuf-du-Pape Réserve 2005
Barrel sample ready for bottling. Complex, meaty, fruit cake, violet, mulled claret spice, sous bois, chocolate. Highly concentrated. Tight tannin, good minerality, full body, quite palate-staining, fairly long. Rating: 92+/93(+?)

Clos Saint Jean Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Vincent Maurel actually showed up with a copy of a barrel sample review of his wines in Stephen Tanzer’s International Wine Cellar, neatly plasticized, with I believe a copy of the Wine Advocate review on the flip side. Can you believe this guy? Wrong country, man! What makes Switzerland such a great country to buy wine in, apart from availability and prices, is that we are still used to getting the stuff to taste before we make a buying decision. Prospective customers are apt to take offence if one rubs in premature praise. Having said that, the man’s commitment cannot be in question. What bothered me rather more was that Clos du Caillou’s, Clos Saint Jean’s and Saint Préfert’s wines seemed all more influenced by the same (Philippe Cambie's?) modern style of winemaking rather than true individuality, let alone terroir expression. In particular, these are wines that emphasize high alcohol contents, ironically without being more concentrated at times. 60% of Clos Saint Jean’s top cuvées stem from a parcel of Grenache planted in 1905. Not in the standard CdP, though, if I understood correctly, which appears to be about 70-75% Grenache, the rest Syrah, Mourvèdre, Cinsault.
Barrel sample ready for bottling. Slightly expressionless nose, medium depth, good body and length, fairly tight tannic backbone, a touch bitter. Rating: 86+

Clos Saint Jean Châteauneuf-du-Pape La Combe des Fous 2005
Barrel sample ready for bottling. 60% Grenache, rest Syrah, Cinsault, Vaccarèse. More complex forest berry mix centered around blackberry, some soft spice box, dark chocolate, deeper, longer. This should be able to integrate its bitterness with bottle age. Rating: 88+/89+?

Clos Saint Jean Châteauneuf-du-Pape Deus ex Machina 2005
Barrel sample ready for bottling. 60% Grenache, 40% Mourvèdre. More abrasive tannin, more violet, more impenetrable at this stage, and yet, less bitter, more potential for harmony here. Good length and alcohol integration. Nice soft animality from the Mourvèdre. Rating: 89+/90+?

Clos Saint Jean Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2004
Rather evolved, fairly hot and a bit soapy. Medium weight, mulled wine spice and orange. Rating: 85

Clos Saint Jean Châteauneuf-du-Pape La Combe des Fous 2004
60% Grenache, rest Syrah, Cinsault, Vaccarèse. More complex, a bit firmer, also evolved, tobacco, not really deep, needs a year or two in bottle to better express itself. Rating: ~86?

Clos Saint Jean Châteauneuf-du-Pape Deus ex Machina 2004
60% Grenache, 40% Mourvèdre. Looks and smells a bit pruney already. Again more animal fur due to the Mourvèdre. Rounder, and still a typical exponent of a higher acid vintage. Rating: 87+

Saint Préfert Châteauneuf-du-Pape Réserve Auguste Favier 2005
Smells and tastes as if aged in new oak, but note there is none. Bottled a month ago, a bit tight and closed. Well-coloured, ripe fruit of good purity, distinct toughness to the green tannin. Rating: 86+?

Saint Préfert Châteauneuf-du-Pape Collection Charles Giraud 2005
Barrel sample to be bottled in two months. At least as tight tannin as the Auguste Favier, hard but less green, fruit sweeter and a bit deeper, longer. Rating: 86+

Vieille Julienne Vin de Pays Orientales Classique 2004
A blend of Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Syrah, Grenache. Not bad in a gastronomic way, if a bit undernourished and tough, expensive for what it is. Rating: 84+?

Vieille Julienne Vin de Pays Orientales Classique 2005
Barrel sample. Same blend of Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Syrah, Grenache. More deeply coloured, sweeter and more concentrated, has grip, but is also tougher and greener, as well as bitter underneath. Rating: 85+?

Vieille Julienne Côtes-du-Rhône 2004
Mild garrigue, medium warmth of fruit, tasty if a bit simple and grainy. Rating: 84+?

Vieille Julienne Côtes-du-Rhône 2005
Barrel sample. Again a bit more depth of colour, sweeter and fruitier, denser and a bit longer, but also fairly bitter. I am starting to think this what characterizes the 2005 Southern Rhône vintage most, a combination of attractive if cool fruit purity, combined with a backbone of borderline-ripe, more or less green and bitter tannin. Rating: 85+

Vieille Julienne Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2004
Nicely fresh if a bit light, fair enough body, somewhat more complex than the CdR, a bit tighter at this stage than most 2004s I have tasted, acceptable length. Rating: 86+?

Vieille Julienne Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2005
Barrel sample. Opaque purple colour. Vintage Port nose as if of a youthful Graham, dense, quite thick, fruit cake and mulled wine spice, for once the tannin seemed quite flavourful, too, and more promising insofar as this should be able to absorb its bitterness. Rating: 89+

Daniel Huber Fustoquattro 2005
Gastronomic wine, warm and simple fruit, medium body, a touch bitter. Rating: 82

Daniel Huber Merlot di Monteggio Vigneti di Castello 2005
More complexity, longer, reasonably tasty, still a bit heavy and faintly nutty. Rating: 83

Daniel Huber Merlot di Monteggio Tenuta del Ronco di Persico 2004
A bit meatier and heavier, cork rind earth, a bit more complex, but a bit tired already. Rating: 84?

Daniel Huber Merlot di Monteggio Montagna Magica 2004
More complex or just a fraction more depth? Seems to have spent more time in oak, more compressed though not worn out, longer. Rating: 84+?

Werner Stucky Merlot Tracce di Sassi 2004
Mature fruit, a bit nutty and cork rind-flavoured and earthy tannin, all of just acceptable liveliness. Glyceric and sweet, good roundness, sound alcohol, fair enough length. Rating: 84

Werner Stucky Conte di Luna 2004
Forest floor earth, slightly burnt fruit, a bit hotter altogether, a bit tight and bitter underneath – I kept wondering if the popularity of these wines (kept listening to people tasting at the three Swiss booths) is based on people’s experience that they do tend to integrate acceptably enough in a gastronomic way, or if they intend to drink them at this early stage. Rating: 83+/84(+?)

Christian Zündel Vino Rosso del Malcantone Terraferma 2005
Evolved fermented grape juice and charcoal, heavy if only faintly alcoholic, with the tannin a bit tired. Rating: 83

Christian Zündel Vino Rosso del Malcantone Orizzonte 2005
More complex, a bit racier and livelier, although just a fraction, a bit nutty. Rating: 84+?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
no avatar
User

Victor John Randall

Rank

Wine geek

Posts

28

Joined

Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:19 pm

Re: WTN: Short notes from a trade tasting in Lucerne

by Victor John Randall » Sat May 26, 2007 6:17 pm

yawn, oh it's 0.16 hours.
Cheers, victor

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot, ClaudeBot and 4 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign