The best ever lunch? So declared one member as the lunch got underway. Indeed, our most recent lunch was packed and the theme–old vine grenache–and wines won lots of praise from the attendees. For the first time, we polled attendees about their favorite wines. After tabulating the results, the top two wines were the Gilles Troullier 2005 from the Rousillon and the Domaine de la Janasse 2004 from Chateauneuf du Pape.

Charter member Paul Zimmerman volunteered to share his notes from the tasting. Take it away, Paul…

* * * *

As requested, I am sending along my notes on the Old Vine Grenache tasting on Oct. 3, 2007. They are totally personal, some are probably skewed because someone bumped my arm and put me in a bad mood, some weren’t given enough attention, others found total disagreement in the room. That’s why they’re called PERSONAL notes. At least I got to taste everything, and, surprise, within the allotted time. My grades are based on the old UC Davis 20-point system, with 15 being around a B over B-
Yours for better understanding among certain individuals,

Paul Zimmerman

(Wines are listed as they appear on the sheet)

2006 LA CONRERIA d’SCALA DEI BRUGUERES, WHITE—I got nut shell in the nose (lots of sneezing followed) and in the taste. Not in a bad way. Interesting. Some complexity. 16

2006 LAFAGE CUVEE CENTENNAIRE, GRENACHE BLANC—Fine body, a real feel of class, a nicely made wine. Slight touch of alcohol but lovely with the meal. Remember Bonny Doon’s Le Sophiste, which I believe was the best wine they made at the time? A blend of Marsanne and Roussanne? This reminded me of it very much. 17-/16+

2006 STEPHEN PANNELL GRENACHE ROSE—Simple berry on the nose, taste was criticized by some as being a little one dimensional in the candyish department, but I could see this wine on the patio during the summer, after you chilled the hell out of it, bringing great joy on a summer day. And as I kept thinking of it, I kept raising the grade, until it settled on the upper reaches. The 20 buck price tag was not joyful, though, but I know what they’re doing. They’re using the 1.85 formula. You take the age of the vines (37 years in this case), divide by 1.85 and that establishes the price. 17-

2004 SELLA 7 MOSCA, CANNONAU—Everyone liked it better than I did. I got a sour kind of quality in the nose and an old sweatshirt taste…or at any rate, it tasted sweaty, if that makes sense. I didn’t get a feeling of class here. 14

2005 VILLA CREEK CELLARS, OLD VINE GARNACHA—Controversial. I saw two fights break out. Nose had something a little cloyingly sweet in it. First element of the taste that hits you is the richness, then the spirity nature of it (I mean, 15.9 % alcohol…what would you expect?). En fin: Leave it open for a while, let it calm down, and it becomes a good, rich, food accompaniment, or a good accompaniment to rich food, or a rich accompaniment to good food. Second go round, I got a little raspberry (huh?) 16

N.V. EY VINEYARDS VIGNE LAS COLLAS—The $14 price tag put me in its corner right away. All together, bright, cherryish, zippy. 15+/16-

2004 EY VINEYARDS EY VIGNE D’EN GAUME—I’m guessing the higher price comes from more oak expense. I tasted a bit of it (now I’m gonna be told, “Never oak! Jamais!” and I’ll have to kill myself), which didn’t bother me; it just gave it a slightly different aspect. Still the same character, though…a pretty wine with hints of cherry. 15+/16-

2005 GILLES TROULLIER, L’ESPRIT DU TEMPS—I’m not sure what “biodynamic” means, but I’m guessing oak. Lots of it. New. Instantly felled trees. Now here’s where I run into trouble. Oak does NOT, repeat not, bother me. Nor Linda. We kind of like it, as long as it’s not raw oak of the oak chip family. This is a big, dark, lurking, oaky giant with, oddly, a kind of soft body. And I duck the flying rocks as I admit that I loved it. 17+

2004 CLOS DES FEES, PETITE SIBERIE—Come on now, 264 bucks? Using my 1.85 formula, that means the vines must be 488 years old. Maybe that’s where the volatile acidity came from, something happening around the late 16th Century. Got some oak in the nose and then V.A. Nose, taste, etc. A big disappointment. I’m being kind with the grade. 14-

2003 PASANAU GERMANS, LA MORERA DE MONTSANT—Something off here. I’m not too good on corkyness, but coming from NJ, I know my skunks, and there was a slight skunkiness here. 13+

2004 CAPCANES, CABRIDA–Nose is a little alcoholic, like the guy we hired to fix the roof, but the taste is soft and full (that’s me) and pretty. Late, soft tannin. 15+

? VTG. MAS DE LA DAME COIN CACHE—Cherry and chocolate on the nose. Taste was big, tough, a little hard. 15-

2004 SAINT JOAN DU BAROUX, L’OLIGOCENE—You’ve got to love these names, right? Bright, thick (? Hard to read that word) cherry on the nose. Body, good zip, late tannin on the taste. 15

2003 LA SOUMADE, FLEUR DE CONFIANCE—Brownish color, nose is raisiny, a little older, slight V.A., loses the VA on the taste, which gives the impression of an older wine…intellectual, interesting, with a tannic finish. 15

2003 DOMAINE LA ROQUETE CHATEAUNEUF-DU-PAPE—Older cherry color, brandied cherries on the nose, taste is alcoholic, a little coarse, saved by a big rush of cherries (take your time, little fellas, there’s enough for everybody). 15

2004 JANASSE, CHATEAUNEUF-DU-PAPE VIELLES VIGNES—Oh boy! To my simplistic taste, this comes close to the best Chateuneuf I’ve ever had. I know I’ve tasted others that strained the brain cells more, and a 1967 La Nerthe, tasted in barrel 34 years ago, absolutely knocked me for a loop, but this one is just such gooooood drinking. Maybe it’s too developed for a wine this young, and that might be a flaw, but how can you argue with something that’s just so delicious, with the big, thick concentration of cherries and the wonderfully full body, with absolutely no rough edges? 18

2004 DOMAINE DE MARCOUX CHATEAUNEUF-DU-PAPE—All of you who have been judges know that position in the batting order is essential, and following the Janasse, this one was at a disadvantage. I thought the best thing about it was the aromatic, charming nose. Some tannin on the taste, some alcohol, not really together, a little crude for the $$$ (150 of them).
15-/14+

2006 YALUMBA, BUSH VINE GRENACHE—This leadoff hitter of the Australian contingent was greeted by the curled lip, snide remarks, etc. How dare you show up here in your work boots and woolen shirt? And take off that stupid hat! And a $16 wine? That won’t even cover the entry fee. But is there anything wrong with the taste of raspberries, which the wine had in abundance? Or chocolate on the nose (no, not IN it)? A charmer. A real matey. 16

2004 YALUMBA OLD VINES GRENACHE “TRICENTENARY”—In short supply here. An upgrade of their Bush Vine Grenache. Kind of a brambly Zinfandel in character. Plus berry and a touch of oak. Very nice indeed, I thought. 16+

2003 PIRRAMIMMA OLD BUSH VINE GRENACHE—An oakier version of the TRICENTENARY, which doesn’t bother me or Linda at all, do you hear, not at all! 16/16+

2005 KAESLER GRENACHE, “THE FAVE”—It’s funny. Now that we’ve come to the higher priced Australians, I’m liking them less. Nose seems a bit commercial, with slight oak. Opening taste is kind of dull, and it finishes hot. 14

2005 DE LISIO—Top of the line Aussie at half a yard, or 50 bucks to non-New Yorkers. The quality is in the nose, which has a kind of muted fruit elegance, and is the basis for a grade higher than the taste (oak and slight VA) deserves. 14+

N.V.EY VINEYARDS BANYULS—Seems like a muscular tawny Port. Lovely, slightly spirity, a bit young, but beautiful. Linda and I are suckers for dessert wines anyway. 18-/17+

———————————————————————————————–

Thank you for allowing me to share my tasting notes with you. (I’m practicing humility this week). Ushers will pass among you with baskets for anything you would care to donate.