Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Tasted Friday, March 14, 2014 by drwine2001 with 1,110 views
I skipped Courcel and Matrot due to wine saturation and included Clos des Lambrays in a separate tasting event focusing on that domain. I realize that with so many wines to taste and variation of bottles at the tasting, the notes may miss the mark at times, but they are honest if fleeting impressions.
Magnum. Darker than it should be. Heavy, woody and dull. Almost surely oxidized. I'm surprised this was shown, and I did not get a chance to retaste another sample.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Magnum. Sound light color and lighter weight than the plodding 2010. Much livelier, bright citrus. Excellent with nice vibrancy for this ripe vintage.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Magnum. Less overtly fruity than the '09. Still young and tight, terrific texture, limestone flavors. The acidity is strong but beginning to ameliorate.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Great breadth of flavor allied with delightful structure and acidity. Really unexpectedly excellent.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Typical Chablis right down to its greenish tint. Dense, full of oyster and stone. Wonderful.
Post a Comment / 2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Darker than the 2 younger wines. Neutral fruit, less intensity, in fact much less of everything than the '08 had. A rare occasion when I preferred an '09 to the more delicate style of 2007.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Wow, this is 100% soil and limestone-like sucking the proverbial rock. Tremendous acidity and admirable texture. Interesting wine that acquitted itself really well when placed amongst higher priced whites.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Sulfur mutes the aromatics. More fruit than the other 2 vintages, easier, more accessible style, but this still is a wine of structure.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Again, some sulfur although less prominent than in the 2011. Lemony fruit, light weight, great limestone finish.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Loved this wine-open, ready to drink, caressing feel, beautiful fresh fruit and barely perceptible wood.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
The most dense and closed of the 3 vintages and also possessing the greatest amount of soil.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Wonderful synthesis of the 2007 and 2008 with perfect weight, more concentration than the '07, and like all of these wines, pure citrus fruit. Not at all overrun by oak.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Marred by too much sulfur, but underneath, deep, tropical fruit, fine acidity, and moderate oak. Not great by any means but should be good if sulfur dissipates.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Yellow. Impressively fresh, bright citrus, discrete wood and excellent length. The best of these 3 wines.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Medium yellow. Unctuous and woody. Oxidized.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Pale. Pineapple fruit, middling acidity. Frankly unexciting. A second bottle proved to be longer, deeper and more creamy with much better acidity and verve.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Also very light color. Lovely texture, crystallized tropical fruit with zesty acidity and excellent soil on the finish. My favorite at this table for its delicacy, snap, and current enjoyment.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Medium yellow. Some tropical fruit, but the most lees and soil of the wines. Unfortunately, an off acetate aroma. This trait was still present but not as noticeable in a second bottle, which was not pristine but was better than the first. Disturbing bottle variation in 2 of the Lafon vintages.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Ruby. Black, peppery fruit. Typical brambly palate. Very young and undeveloped.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Browning which seems premature. Nice supple feel, redder fruit. Rounding into form, although some back end austerity reminds you that it's Savigny and needs more time despite the advanced color.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Brown edge. Strange combination of stalkiness and baked fruit aromatics. Dark fruit, earthy, good length, but the whole is less than the sum of the more appealing parts. Just out of whack and out of balance.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Ripe fruit. Much more wood than Sauzet. Good concentration and material but overoaked.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Beautiful combination of orange zest and earth. More Puligny in style and much less oaky than the 2010. Best of the bunch.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Light golden. Odd nose, dull flavors-oxidized.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Gorgeous citrus/soil interplay and balance. Completely elegant, medium weight, great length. One of the best white wines today.
Post a Comment / 2 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Ripest of the 3 vintages with underripe pineapple, but not overdone. Like the others, seductive texture, wonderful balance and persistence.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Pale. More floral and flinty than the younger vintages. Puligny flavors and refinement. Fabulous acidity and silky feel. Absolutely outstanding, youthful, and beautiful in every way. Bravo, Sauzet!
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Broad and rich but heavy handed, woody, and shapeless.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Oak less prominent than in the 2010. Zippy orange zest, excellent acidity. Better than either of the other 2 vintages, but is this really Grand Cru quality? There is nothing about it that remotely speaks of Corton.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Woody and dull. Nuf said. Pretty uninspiring set of wines here.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Dry, creamy, excellent acidity and some leesiness. Very good, and as opposed to the Chanson wines, true to the terroir.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Sulfur, wood and little else. Next.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Nice bitter citrus but not as creamy, leesy or interesting as the '08.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Dark color. Sweet, ripe cherry, low acid. Very simple and the most New World wine I had all day.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Similar weight but less saturated than the 2010. Not quite as ripe. More interest due to better acidity and some herbal complexity, but still hardly compelling Volnay.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Maturing color. Finer and less overblown and overripe than the younger ones. Secondary aromatics. Lighter weight, finer fruit, more lacy, excellent acidity. Not that far from its drinking window. Finally, a Volnay.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Fairly big for an Angerville. Ripest wine, licorice nose. Nice gentle sweetness, good sense of earthiness.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Very light, bright acidity. Redder fruit with some menthol. Short, tart finish. Not a great showing.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Enticing red fruit fragrance. Backward, earthy and substantial acidity. Despite the acidity, very fine feel and long, soil-infused finish. My pick of the 3 vintages and the one that fit the best with my mind's eye view of the Angerville style-precise, fine, understated, and needing time to unfold.
Post a Comment / 1 person found this helpful, do you? Yes - No / Report Issue
Brambly, Savigny-like nose. Some red fruit, grippy, tight back end. Not very flattering now.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Pale. In contrast to the '09, surprisingly sweet. Not brutally structured.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Light color with brown outer third. Lovely mature aromas. Excellent, relatively delicate, elegant Pommard.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Pale. Lovely balance between fine red fruit and soil. Drinkable over the short term.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Quite pale. All soil, fruit is dried out, short finish. Done.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Similar color but sappy red fruit that belies how limpid it looks. Much lusher and sweeter than the other two wines. Easygoing and open. Drinking well now, and it still retains the strong soil character, just displaced into the background.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Overwhelming toasty wood. Slight leesiness, pineapple fruit, no grip whatsoever. Gawd.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Pineapple and citrus. A bit more lively than the 2010, but still difficult to get past the overbearing oak.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Less imprinted by wood than the others, but still too tropical. At least it doesn't come across as so heavy, but this is reaching for faint praise.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Pale. Some wood evident on the nose. Light weight, black fruit, good material here. Tight but not inaccessible. Good.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Pale, browning-mature looking. Subtle red fruit. Light weight but sappy with significant wood char at its base. Would not wait if you own it, seems fully developed and at risk for having the wood take over. Very good now, the best of the vintages here.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Faded color. Celery and other green things on the nose, and more mint and herbs on the light palate than anything else resembling fruit. Completely disappointing for a 1999.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Pale. Enticing nose of faded dried strawberry. For its light color and weight, great delivery of flavor. Elegant, great purity, lovely acidity, gentle finish. Takes advantage of the wonderful fruit of the vintage without a trace of overripeness. Seductive wine that is the essence of Chambolle. My favorite, and I guess from this showing that we should be drinking these now, which is somewhat surprising. If I personally owned it, I would find it hard to pass up at this gorgeous stage. One of the most striking reds at the Verticals.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Essentially the same color as the '09. More sous bois secondary aromatics. Cut from the same cloth otherwise with beautiful, delicate strawberry fruit, light bodied. A bit of tart acidity remains to be resolved, making the finish not quite as round and harmonious as in the younger wine. No matter, though; this is also a beauty that I'd drink any time.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Curiously, the darkest color of the bunch. Harder to see the kinship with its siblings. Relatively speaking, a bigger wine (although no more than medium weight), much less of that glorious red fruit, and a chocolate/char component that I just don't find in the younger vintages. Hard to get excited about this after tasting 2009 and 2002, but not bad. Just less delicate.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Deep ruby. Dark red fruit and spice. Great length, zesty acidity. Wonderful cling and roundness without being heavy. So balanced and so much depth of fruit that it is remarkably open for a 2010 Grand Cru. Some might object and find it a little New Worldish, but I thought this was delicious. All it is lacking is complexity at this point.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Also a beautiful deep color if ever so slightly lighter than the 2010. Excellent pure cherry fruit, aromatically forward. A touch of herbs which the younger wine doesn't have, sound acidity, not quite the length on the finish. No excess sweetness.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Not in the same league as the 2 younger vintages. Lighter color, cranberry acidity, some earth, light red fruit that does not sing out. I'm afraid this could not overcome the limitations of the vintage; I would not have guessed Grand Cru quality.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Light color. 90% earth, 10% red fruit. Thin. Poor balance.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Very herbaceous. Stringy texture, little fruit. Could this really be a 2009??
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Off aromas. Dull black fruit, overly tannic. This completed a very weak trifecta.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
This had both Gevrey fruit and soil, but very poorly integrated. Hard feel, harsh finish. Not at all pleasing.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
The ripest, biggest wine in the style of the vintage. Less earthy complexity than the flanking vintages. Good, for the medium term.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Light ruby. OK, finally here was the right mix of light red fruit and earth tones. Not at all ripe or sweet, but a more satisfying balance with enough material to carry it forward for another few years.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Oh my, after the subdued to non-existent fruit in the Burguets, gorgeous cherry liqueur scents leap out of the glass and are intoxicating. Some wood present, beautiful juxtaposition of vibrant fruit and terroir, nice acidity, round, ripe tannins. Outstanding and it just brings a smile to your face due to the essence of Pinot fruit without fruitiness.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Aromatics are not quite as effusive as the 2010, but that deep red fruit is still there. Slightly lusher, riper feel than that wine without being overdone. Smoky, savory notes, fantastically long, silky finish. These wines have incredible charm and texture.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Crystallized strawberry and raspberry on the nose. Lighter weight, bright acidity, not as much soil as the younger examples. A very pretty 2007 that would make for fine drinking on its own, but today overshadowed by 2 younger, more complete vintages.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Light color. Stalky, green, thin wine. Give me the Fourrier Premier Cru from this vintage! A joke for Grand Cru level wine, even if it is a lighter Gevrey cru.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
A significant step up from the '07 (thankfully). Bigger wine, sappy mixed fruit with a chocolatey aspect. Drinking well. Subtle, not extraordinary.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
As anticipated, more structure and tannic bite than the 2006, and the only one of the 3 wines that exhibited much soil. Fruit is very much in the background. This is holding things in reserve and will need a long time, but it should be excellent, and one can see the class. Typical lighter Gevrey Grand Cru.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Light color. Soil and some gentle wood. Really good savory flavors and complexity with a good Gevrey mix of delicacy and impact.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Fairly pale. Bigger, lusher than the '08 without the wood getting the way. A sexy, smoky tone, very sappy and long. Textural. Excellent if you can tolerate some oak on your Chambertin.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Light ruby. Darker fruit than the '09 and '08, more on the black side. Lean feel, especially compared to the 2009. More herbs than the others. Very different animal than the '09. Clearly needs time. Will it turn out better? I'm not sure it has the stuffing or balance, but it may be closed and a poor time to assess it.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Pale. Some earth. Ripe black cherry fruit. Not a lot of tension, seemed simple despite its component parts.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Tight, light, closed. Blacker fruit than the '09. Difficult to assess.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
Again, light and earthy. By far the most open, lacy, supple wine of the trio. Pretty red fruit. Very attractive and does not seem that it will shut down like the 2010. Is this truly worthy of this exalted site? Time will tell, but not a wine to hold for 20 years.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
For my taste, the most exciting wines were from Sauzet in white, and Drouhin and Fourrier amongst the reds. Pleasant surprises included the whites of Alain Gras and Bernard Moreau, and by far the biggest sleeper was Hudelot-Baillet, a property with which I was completely unfamiliar and provided 2 gorgeous Bonnes Mares. Relative disappointments-Hudelot-Noellat Beaumonts, Rousseau Charmes, and Faiveley Clos de Beze. Bravo to Daniel Johnnes and his staff for bringing these producers together and arranging a flawless event.
© 2003-24 CellarTracker! LLC. All rights reserved. "CellarTracker!" is a trademark of CellarTracker! LLC. No part of this website may be used, reproduced or distributed without the prior written permission of CellarTracker! LLC.
2010 Domaine Louis Michel Chablis Grand Cru Grenouilles
France, Burgundy, Chablis, Chablis Grand Cru
Surprising breadth and lush feel for an unoaked Chablis. Excellent lively orange fruit, deep and long but only moderate acidity that is lower than the 2008 that followed.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
2008 Domaine Louis Michel Chablis Grand Cru Grenouilles
France, Burgundy, Chablis, Chablis Grand Cru
Of all the Chablis poured today, this was the most Chablisien of them all. Less weighty than the 2010, more sea breeze, higher acidity and impressively stony. Here the citrus is downplayed. The best of the trio.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue
2006 Domaine Louis Michel Chablis Grand Cru Grenouilles
France, Burgundy, Chablis, Chablis Grand Cru
Viscosity and pineapple fruit that sets it apart from the 2 younger vintages. Nevertheless, it finishes with fine acidity. The least of the 3 wines, but very good in the context of the vintage. Rich but not flabby or too exotic.
Post a Comment / Do you find this review helpful? Yes - No / Report Issue