I met up with two friends and a new acquaintance earlier this month at a local tavern to enjoy some Mark Aubert and Peter Michael Chards, followed by an anything goes (but Spanish-dominated) red wine smorgasbord.
2002 Peter Michael Chardonnay Sonoma County La Carriere. This is fairly cloudy in appearance. It opens with a really beautiful bouquet that comes in waves of crushed rocks, nuts, tropical fruits, citrus, chalk and peach fuzz, to go along with a kiss of soft oak. In the mouth, it shows good complexity, with sweet rich pear and peach fruit dominating the fainter tropicals. It has a smooth, fairly leesy texture and holds onto solid richness as it fans out throughout the mouth. The finish is very long with a little bit of drying wood. My one complaint in the initial glass was the fairly open-knit structure that seemed to diminish a sense of drive in the wine. However, a second glass a few hours later rectified that in spades, as the overall intensity and drive of the wine really increased, showing more compact power without losing complexity. Overall, this gave a very impressive showing.
2004 Peter Michael Chardonnay Knights Valley Belle Cote. Again, we see the cloudy appearance. After that, the similarities with the ’02 La Carriere largely end. This wine is considerably tighter and more compacted on the nose, with fine powdered minerals, chalk and white peach aromas. It is precise and crisp in the mouth, with fine delineation. The finish here shows less length, but fine minerality and less oak. In the end, this is perhaps a more intellectual Chardonnay than its stable mate, but I’ll take the fleshy sexiness of the La Carriere right now.
2004 Aubert Chardonnay Sonoma Coast Ritchie Vineyard. Compared to the two Peter Michael Chardonnays, this is even more cloudy in appearance, adding a distinctive yellow-greenish color. On the nose, the first thing I noticed was a certain nuttiness. I heard somebody mention coconut, but that was not quite it in my mind. Behind that there are very sweet pear, mineral and herb aromas, and after a few hours, more pronounced grapefruit notes. Still, overall, it seems tightly wound on the nose compared to say the ’03 Aubert Ritchie. Perhaps a bit of decanting next time would be in order? Never fear, though, for in the mouth, it shows its pedigree more distinctly. It is very nicely layered already with excellent focus, drive and length in a full-bodied package. It possesses a nice leesy quality and just shows a great deal of presence all around. The finish is very long and lasting, with great balance. While I think the nose needs to come around a little, the palate on this ’04 Aubert Ritchie is remarkably similar to the ’03 in my opinion. I just took ownership of my ’05 stash, so I’m looking forward to comparing the trio one day soon.
Three of us had our preferences in the exact same rank order (’02 PM La Carriere, ’04 Aubert Ritchie, ’04 PM Belle Cote), and one had his order as ’04 Aubert Ritchie, ’02 PM La Carriere, ’04 PM Belle Cote. A pretty consistent view, I would say.
We moved on to the reds. The first two were decanted by the restaurant staff for us upon arrival.
1983 Bodegas Alejandro Fernandez Ribera del Duero Pesquera. The fill looked a little on the low side, but lo and behold this has a really beautiful light ruby color to it, not showing as much age as I would have expected. Oh, and what a nice, almost exotic bouquet! That bouquet evokes soft buffed leather, dried cranberries, persimmon, clean animal fur, dark cherries, and cinnamon spice. In the mouth, it is medium-bodied, surprisingly creamy-textured and nicely layered. There are no tannins whatsoever, but it does show a tight tingle of acidity that keeps it feeling fresh and structured. Spices and smoke kick in big time on the finish—just a real nice package overall!
1977 Torres Gran Coronas Reserva Black Label. 90% Cabernet Sauvignon and 10% Cabernet Franc. Initially, it is hard to get past the nose of this particular bottle, which shows strong balsamic vinegar notes, dark caramel and rather elevated dark red fruits. But, in the mouth, it has a pleasing sweetness on the attack of blueberry, cherry and rhubarb fruit. The middle palate is similar before it turns drier and more toward sour cherries on the somewhat clipped finish. A dubious bottle, but I found it at least interesting, nonetheless.
2001 Bodegas y Vinedos Maurodos Toro Vina San Roman. On the other hand, there was nothing dubious whatsoever about this wine. It was decanted for about 4 hours, and once poured, it was immediately notable how much it coats and almost seems to paint the inside of the glass with its ruby color. It has a phenomenal, penetrating nose of sweet dark cherry, persimmon, blood orange, cassis, raspberry compote and dark musky incense. It seems to get deeper and richer with every passing minute, adding notes of caramel after a while, too. It is huge in the mouth, filling every crevice as it expands out from its core of explosive, deep dark berry fruit. It shows excellent balance, too, as big rich tannins come in on the very long finish. This seems to be drinking just great right now, but I would not hesitate to hold for a while, either. This one had us all scrambling to find more bottles (sadly, without success so far).
1996 Abadia Retuerta Sardon del Duero Cuvee El Palomar. I believe 1996 was the inaugural vintage of this 50% Cabernet Sauvignon, 50% Tempranillo cuvee. The nose here shows red currants and minerals. In the mouth, it displays flavors of dark chocolate, black fruits and mocha. It is clean and solidly constructed, with a certain elegance and fine balance. However, it never seemed to really break through from being a nice wine to drink to being one that deserved my undivided attention. From what I have read about this wine, this bottle may not have been the best example.
1998 Bodegas y Vinedos Valderiz Ribera del Duero. Aromas of red currants jump right out of the glass and are later joined by a distinct green leafiness and even later, some chocolate notes. In the mouth, it is just OK, with a bit of a chalky mouthfeel and chunky tannins, but also lots of smoky spices to keep things interesting. It does gain in interest over time, but was outclassed by a lot of other wines on this night.
A couple of non-Spanish wines found their way to the table, as well.
2005 Bodega Colome Malbec Estate. Adam just brought this home in his luggage from his vacation in Argentina. I think this comes from one of the highest altitude vineyards in the world. Initially, the nose is quite herbal, with menthol, white pepper, medicine, green pepper and iron aromas. But as it opens up, the bright red cherry aromas come closer to the fore. In the mouth, it is finely textured with a sharp red fruit profile, very heavy spice accents, and a fair bit of alcohol. It seems awkward at this stage, but it finishes clean with fine tannins. Naturally, it was drunk far too young, but I would sit on this at least another 3-5 years before trying again.
2002 Sadie Family Columella Swartland. This is mostly Syrah (and some Mourvedre) from South Africa. Young Eben Sadie has been all over the Wine Spectator recently, as the 2005 version of his Columella hit the 95 point mark. The 2002 we drank was his third vintage for this cuvee. The nose here is rather elegant, with bright red candied fruits, dark cherry, a mix of red and black currants, and a reservoir of spices that build up incrementally as it sits. In the mouth, there is a finely defined structure, with solid body, silky texture and flavors of high-toned fruits and big spices. It finishes with lifted red fruits and a touch of warming alcohol.
The voting for red wine of the night was pretty even. 2 first place votes and 2 seconds for the Pesquera. 2 firsts and 2 seconds for the San Roman. 3 third place votes for the Sadie Family Columella and 1 for the Colome.
-Michael