Domaine Coste-Caumartin Part II

From 14.5 Hectares of land (10.5 devoted to red and 4 devoted to white) come the following six wines:

2004 Bourgogne Blanc (Chardonnay): Still fresh with pleasant, assertive aromas of honeysuckle and golden delicious apples. Nice, round mouthfeel with good acidity, a strong finish of white flowers and almonds.

2004 Saint Romain "Sous le Chateau" (Chardonnay): Smoky, grassy aromas initially dominate the nose. Elegant, though a little vegetal, with a fine mineral edge of wet gravel. Again, a strong acidity noted, with fine oak integration and a similar but sweeter taste of golden delicious apples. Persistent finish.

Retasted the following day: Not falling apart at all, nice acid presence, a bit hollow mid-palate, strong, sweet finish.

(I drank the rest last night, after it had been opened for four days and it showed only slight signs of oxidation. A very well structured wine.)

2005 Bourgogne Pinot Noir: Rich black cherry fruit and sweet spice on the nose. A bit one dimensional on the palate. Sweet attack, though a slight bitterness on the finish. Huge acidity and hefty tannins present for this level of wine. Nice, but needs some time to settle down.

The following day: Again, the black cherry really dominating the nose, though not as assertive as the previous day, and a hint of iodine emerging. Tannins noted again. Incredible structure at this level, but not really ready to drink. Needs food.

2005 Beaune 1er Cru Chouacheux: Similar black cherry fruit component but more subdued. Very reticent and subtle. Pleasant perfume. Raw red cranberries on the palate with very present acidity and some rough tannin.

The following day: Again, very subtle and reticent. Elegant and feminine. Really quite pleasant mouthfeel on the entry and mid-palate, but very tannic and acidic.

2005 Pommard "Le Vignot": Vanilla and a bit of alcohol on the nose. Red fruits, but hidden underneath the primary aromas of oak and alcohol. Rich initial mouthfeel that thins out a bit toward the finish. More tannin here and again the ever present acidity.

The following day: More fruit forward, with a generous sweet nose of red fruits. Sweet attack and big mouth drying tannins. This is a serious lieu dit wine.

2002 Pommard 1er Cru "Les Boucherottes" Monopole: Maintaining color. Rich, assertive aromatics, with some signs of maturation, namely a hint of leather. A bit green on the nose and a faint paint like smell. Sweet entry, but bitter finish with significant acidity and present, though supple tannins. Again a slight rawness noted.

The following day: Not as sound as the rest. More advanced nose with noticeable volatile acidity. Perhaps this wine did not take well to the airplane journey...

All of these wines shared certain characteristics in common, namely the incredible levels of acidity and their structure. I imagine that all the reds underwent macerations with some stems, due to the level of tannin and slight rawness of the wines. All the wines were sound (with the possible exception of the 2002 Boucherottes, but this may be more of a travel related problem). All these wines need be drunk with food for optimum enjoyment and would benefit from some bottle age.

I look forward to tasting the 2005 white wines from this Domaine, based on how the 2004s were showing. Overall, the 2005 Bourgogne Pinot Noir and the 2005 Pommard Le Vignot possessed the most potential.

These wines provide quite an interesting contrast to the Magnien's tasted earlier this month. Magnien makes wines in the modern style, very polished with the fruit quite present, the tannins supple and the acidities subdued. Domaine Coste-Caumartin's wines on the other hand are more rustic: tannic, acidic, and not as forthcoming, with less use of new wood. Both styles however, are well made and very clean. Both are high quality producers who capably demonstrate just how enticing the wines of Burgundy can be.

Domaine Coste-Caumartin

It is interesting how a great vintage can bring a person back to Burgundy...

Having shied away from the wines of the Côte d'Or in favor of the wines of Bordeaux for the past two years, I am finding myself more and more attracted to Burgundy, its wines, the region, its history and culture.

There are a few solid reasons why I have not gravitated towards this most haloed of wine regions: 1) Both the 2003 and 2004 vintages posed problems for Burgundian winemakers (less so the 2004 white wines, which were actually quite successful, especially in Chablis), whereas the 2003 vintage (as well as the 2004) received quite good press in Bordeaux. I must admit that I got quite caught up in the bordeaux frenzy with the string of (what appears to be) great wines produced in a succession of vintages. 2005 Bordeaux will be monumental of course, but because few of us will be able to afford them, we would be wise to take a look at 2004 as a vintage that has turned out many fine wines and some exceptional ones, with still (nearly) affordable price tags.

Burgundy in 2004 rather disappointed me (with the exception of some great white wines as mentioned above), many of the reds were vegetal, austere, lean, and acidic. Some of these qualities, namely austerity and acidity I can appreciate, but so many of the wines I tasted possessed a green, underripe component, a major turn-off in my opinion.

And then the 2005s began to appear in the warehouse and the more I tasted, the more impressed I became. Great purity of fruit, balance, and structure, these wines were, are and will be delicious. And as regards pricing, it does not appear that Burgundy will vie with Bordeaux's awe inspiring level of inflation. Yes, prices are up, but then, so is the Euro, and the quality also.

And so, I have been tasting many 2005s and finding myself more and more in the clutches of Burgundy's Sirens. For many, one taste of a fine Pinot Noir from Burgundy is enough to justify a lifelong pursuit of finding another as good or better. And for many, this quest is akin to the hunt for the Holy Grail. For some reason, Burgundy seems to disappoint more than it enchants, and those of you chasing after this fickle mistress know that even the same exact bottle drunk only months earlier from the same exact case can taste radically different, for better or for worse.

While I have had some nearly enlightment achieving bottles of Burgundy (1983 Domaine Leroy Gevery-Chambertin Clos St Jacques, drunk last September after 1983 Yquem), this experience is rare, indeed frustratingly so. The majority of Burgundies tasted have been mediocre with some good to very good wines but few excellent ones. Buying it is such a gamble as, like I mentioned earlier, bottle variation runs rampant. And to get a potentially good bottle of red Burgundy one must generally spend at least $60, while in Bordeaux one can buy such second growths as Leoville Barton for about the same price and be guaranteed quality.

In any case, when people discuss the allure and magic of Burgundy, its mystique and romance, they do so quite justifiably, as is evidenced with a vintage like 2005. The wines are good at the entry level and get better as one climbs the appellation hierarchy. I have had maybe two mediocre wines out of fifty, a truly incredible ratio. Of course, do some research before taking out a second mortgage to buy 2005 Burgundies, as there are still underachievers out there producing wines at prices far above what they merit...

This rather long winded preamble brings me to the main subject of this post, the wines of Domaine Coste-Caumartin, located in Pommard.

The viticultural history of Coste-Caumartin dates back to the mid 17th Century, with the current Sordet family taking control of the Domaine in 1793. In 1988, the current proprietor, Jérôme Sordet (pictured above), took control of Domaine Coste-Caumartin and has continued the tradition of making very terroir driven wines that combine (in his words) elegance, power, and finesse.

I happened upon this winery (as luck would have it) in the midst of the 2005 growing season and met the amiable proprietor who very generously led me through a tasting of his wines. At the time I was still in the infancy of wine appreciation, though I remember liking the wines very much.

Recently, I rekindled my connection with this Domaine, in the hopes that the Importing Company for whom I work might be able to import these wines to Virginia, Maryland, and DC. They recently sent a six bottle assortment of samples for me to taste. I also plan to taste through their entire line-up when I visit Burgundy at the end of August.

See part two for tasting notes...

Thursdays in the Cellar Series Part 1: 1976 Chateau Palmer

A small, devoted group of wine lovers here in town has decided to get together every Thursday in order to taste wine. The new ritual will officially debut tomorrow, July 19th, 2007 with a bang (to include a vertical tasting of Dominus) but we did meet last week to taste and we sampled some interesting and delicious wines.

Stacy and I arrived at the cellar door, knocked, and in speakeasy fashion gave Andrew the password. Actually, we called once we got there and Andrew emerged from his subterranean lair to let us in. By the time we made our way through the labyrinthine corridors leading to the cellar, the bottle of 1998 Schramsberg "J. Schram" had nearly been consumed. It was yeasty and still showing a good amount of fruit. Though I have to admit I was ready to give it a good bashing (because it was sparkling wine from California from nine years back) it provided a very pleasant lead-off to the rest of the evening. A fine mousse, good acidity, and a sweetness of fruit that gave it away as new world (no that there is anything wrong with that). Prejudices aside, a good wine.

Next up: Chateau Montelena 2005 Napa Valley Chardonnay. Vibrant, fresh, and lemony on the nose; rich, viscous, almost oily on the palate. Very present oak. Richness of a Meursault, but reminded me really more of Puligny because of something delicate in the aromatics. A little bit heavy on the palate without the lift that I like in a good Chardonnay. To be fair, this is quite a young wine and will probably come together with a little more time in bottle.

Next up we tasted a very curious wine called "La Diablesse" from Chateau de Coulaine in Chinon (Loire Valley). This bottle preplexed us because it is considered a Table Wine, yet made from (according to the web sources I found) Cab Franc grown in Chinon. This is an old vine cuvée aged in Oak barrels for 18 months. Etienne de Bonnaventure farms this estate organically and is highly regarded for his wines. The perplexing thing: it smelled of heavy carbonic maceration, as though this were a wine meant to be drunk in the prime of youth, while fresh and fruity, and yet, many sources say this is a wine to hold a while. I thought for sure it was Gamay. Very fruity, fresh, with a dense cherry character. Wish I had more info...

The main event: 1976 Chateau Palmer. Classified as a Third Growth in 1855, Palmer generally commands second to first growth prices and routinely performs well above its pedigree. Among its unique attributes, Palmer generally consists of a higher proportion of Merlot than the other Médoc Chateaux (47%). The turreted, fairy tale style castle sits on 128 acres of prime vineyard land in the commune of Margaux. Palmer is regarded for its alluring and complex aromatic profile, richness, supple mouthfeel, and concentration (no doubt due an extended maceration period of 20-28 days). Another interesting note about Palmer: it seems to perform better in lackluster vintages that in the highly regarded ones.

This Palmer represented my first experience with the Chateau. I purchased this wine at auction in decent condition: oxidized capsule, scuffed label, but aesthetics aside, the fill level was at base neck and that's what I mainly look for in bottles this old...well, and the condition of the cork.

The cork broke in half as I pulled it up out of the bottle. I carefully extricated the rest without it disintegrating into the wine. We then let it rest for a while before pouring it. An interesting side note: the volume of this bottle was 73 cl. The format changed in either 1977 or 1978. I am curious about the history here...

Initial nose: rubber tire, licorice, leather, very barnyardy and gamey. A bricky, nearly brown color. On the palate: a lot of coffee and beef's blood. Full bodied with nice richness and fine balance. Strong, still tannic finish.

With some time: menthol and sweet spice aromas and some underlying fruit shining through. Cedar, caramel, and a definite sense of oak. Pretty damn good actually. Didn't fade away the entire time in the glass. I liked it. I wish I had a couple more bottles, in fact. This will no doubt be the first of many Chateau Palmer experiences.

2002 Don Melchor Cabernet Sauvignon

The food cupboard and the refrigerator possessed only the remnants of this week's shopping excursions, leaving Marita and I scratching our heads for ideas on what to cook for dinner. I used up the litte leftover produce in this morning's omelet (leeks, brocoli hearts, garlic, tomatoes, some fresh herbs, cheddar cheese, etc), which we ate while drinking last night's unfinished bottle of Maurice Charleaux's 2005 Maranges 1er Cru "Le Clos des Rois." I am use to lighter styled Pinots from this most southerly of the Cote d'Or's communes, but this wine was big in flavor, extract and nose, with some surprisingly noticeable tannins (not harsh, but definitely present). Weighing in at a hefty 13.5% a.b.v this could nearly have been Oregonian Pinot. Very assertive, ripe and round. Bright too, with good definition, but like I said, I would have more likely guessed a regional wine from the Cotes de Nuits before I would have picked Maranges. Very full with good richness and mouthfeel. This bottle costs around $25 and seems like it has a good 3-5 years ahead of it. Perhaps it will exhibit more terroir with time in bottle...

Back to the dinner situation: we decided on vegetarian sloppy joes as we had the reqisite items available (TVP, barbeque sauce, and bread) and to make up for the paucity of our dinner (and because I asked Stacy to drop in) I popped the cork on the 2002 Concha y Toro 2002 Don Melchor Cabernet Sauvignon. Paul gave me this bottle recently for helping him in the shop. And because we rarely eat Cab conducive meals I thought I would try it out on our version of Mamwich and Stacy simultaneously.

I decanted this into what everyone who sees it calls my "duck" decanter. Let it sit for about five minutes then poured three glasses and waited another fifteen minutes until we sat down to table to take a big whiff of this...this...rather unpleasant smelling liquid. It reminded me of a litter box and damp black potting soil. Really dirty and sort of ammoniated nose. My initial impression was that this wine had some flaw, but it didn't come across as being corked really, and not Brett either, not horsy enough for Brett, and the mere 4% Cab Franc couldn't give it this much of a foul smell. But really: like a gardening expedition. Not to be unfair, a lot like gardening while eating the strawberries and blueberries growing alongside the earth you are tilling. Sweet fruit, vanilla, plums, and red cherries. But then, the ever present cat litter box odor. Much better on the palate, very supple and silky with a nice dry chocolatey finish. Only a hint of the cat on the palate. A little cedar box on the nose. Quite complex if you can get around the dirty aspect. Hot on the palate. Strong finish. There were periods during which I really enjoyed this wine and then others when I found it quite off-putting. An almost Bordeaux like quality to it: elegant, (nearly) balanced, good acidity.

Frustrating. I wish I had had another bottle that I could have opened in order to compare. Was this a flawed bottle?

Later: I poured the wine remaining in my glass into my usual tasting glass, swirled it, then threw it out and repoured from the decanter (perhaps it was only a soap residue problem?). Still the potting soil component present...

While blogging: the scent now not as off-putting though still present (perhaps I discern less two and a half glasses of wine later?)

Overall, my feeling is that this wine, ordinarily, must be good. All the components are in place. I think that there may have been a problem with this bottle, or else it needs a little more time. Upstairs, one third of the bottle awaits for a follow-up tasting...

2005 Frederic Magnien Burgundies

On Wednesday of this past week I took out three of Frederic Magnien's stellar 2005 Burgundies. A bit of history: Frédéric Magnien represents the fifth generation of Magniens making wine in Burgundy. After studying viticulture at the Lycée Viticole in Beaune, he worked for Jean-Noël Gagnard in Chassagne Montrachet. In 1987 he invested in his father's winery, Domaine Michel Magnien, and worked side by side with him until 1991. In 1992 he worked for four months in the US at Calera and six months in Australia at Bannockburn. In 1993 he returned to Burgundy to attend the university at Dijon where he received a degree in Oenolgy. In 1995 he founded his eponymous negociant house. He works closely with grape growers throughout the Côte de Nuits, selecting grapes from parcels of old vines with an average of 40 years of age.

The line-up consisted of his AC Bourgogne Pinot Noir, Chambolle Musigny 1er Cru "Coeur de Pierres," and Nuits Saint Georges 1er Cru "Coeur de Roches."

The AC Bourgogne Pinot Noir at first sniff could almost be mistaken for California Pinot it is so generous with its fruit. Fresh, and clean, showing varietal typicity, though not necessarily terroir. This is a wine to lure the New World to the Old. Vibrant on the palate, smooth, and easy to drink. This is lieu-dit wine at its finest, without any of the harsh edges or green notes one often finds at this level. Good value too.

Chambolle Musigny 1er Cru "Coeur de Pierres": This is a blend of different 1er Cru vineyard sites including Gruenchers, Noirots, and Chatelots. Very sexy, though restrained and elegant, one could almost go so far as to say, "coy." This is quite complex stuff, but hiding a lot, palying hard to get and actually quite perplexing. I had to sit and think about it for a while. Multi-layered, with a silky texture that unfolds on the palate and tantalizes, then tempts as its impression on the tongue very slowly dances off and away. Dark fruits mostly: balck cherry and currents. Sweet and ripe. But reticent. Lay in a couple of cases of the Pinot above while waiting for this one to come around in, say, four or five years (though it will have a much longer life span).

Nuits-Saint Georges 1er Cru "Coeur de Roches": Wow. More muscle. This wine swaggers across the palate. A total contrast to the restraint and elegance of the Chambolle. Big, dark, sweet cassis fruit. And a little of the barnyard. Thick and chewy with big tannins. More body and an incredible mouthfeel (consistent to all the Magnien wines). Serious stuff, very pure. This wine will age well and if the tannins integrate it will be a very, very rewarding bottle to drink. Wait about six or seven years on this, although it is drinking fabulously now. Not as intellectual as the Chambolle, but what it lacks in brains it makes up for in sheer hedonism.

Get your hands on some of Frédéric Magnien's 2005 Burgundies. I can't imagine you will be disappointed.