We were drinking from magnum and a nearby table had a bottle. I had the opportunity to taste both. BOTTLE - slightly butyric nose at first. Pale gold colour. Sprightly, energetic, lovely, with a long finish. MAGNUM - opened without an audible pop! Not to worry - clearly a sign of the sommelier's skill, or my failing hearing. This is the same as the bottle but - as a fellow diner remarked "turned up to 11". Probably a little younger, but also, in every dimension, just a bit better.
Pale gold colour. Quiet on the nose, you have to sniff hard, and you're rewarded with maybe some grass cuttings, some citrus. The palate is long, there's a creamy breadth but also lovely acid and definition. Blind - would I say burgundy? I don't *think* so, and this wine certainly doesn't feel like it's trying too hard, but there's a delicacy and definition here. Only one of this flight I finished wine of the flight by a clear head.
Found this curiously both bigger and lighter than the preceding bottle. There's nice structure here, not too flabby - but a bit cloying on the mid palate. Not really fair to judge this wine this way - it's a perfectly decent local teenage band, they've just come on after Johnny Marr did his soundcheck.
France, Burgundy, Côte de Beaune, Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru
By far the most expressive nose of this flight, there's pencil lead and more yellow fruit. The palate is a bit plumper, this is lovely and somewhat ripe. Again - this would be a jolly nice wine more of the time, but it was not flattered by the line up.
Violets on the nose. So exquisitely balanced. Too exciting. This doesn't just tell a story, it's a whole cinematic universe. There's lovely acid here, lovely structure - but it's in no way screechy - someone said that it was almost not quite like Cornas and...i can kinda get it. It's certainly very well behaved Cornas. Wine of the lunch for me. Yum.
Garnet colour, slight bricking. There's lovely material depth to this - but on the finish - slightly baked? I called this as faulty but wheeled that back - there was always this lovely floral finish, but somehow this needed air to clean up. By the end there - just lovely - not quite at the same heights as the 2006, but doing just what is asked of it.
Garnet colour. Oddly violet nose? Certainly more than I remember from this wine. Lovely balance here - good tannin, a kind of technicolor fruit coat over them. A fellow diner said “stupendous” and yes - agreed.
Compared to the Geyserville which preceded it - much deeper purple colour. There’s a savoury character in the middle here - curry leaf maybe - but the overall fruit energy stops this becoming herbal. A bit more taut, focused than the Geyserville, but more similar than the colour difference would suggest.
Garnet colour. A bretty character which I don’t think I’ve ever had before on a Ridge wine? Evidently this has been impeccably stored, and it’s on the right side of animale for me. Some discussion at the table and general agreement that this is not *too* bretty. Underlying it, lovely fruit, the acid is still there, but if this were characteristic of these I’d be looking to drink up.
Dark colour - I thought darker than other bottles from the same source, but I am reliably informed they were all very similar. This is still sweet - no marmalade bitterness at the back of the palate, but it feels like the acid is going into a gentle snooze. Perfect end to an excellent lunch.
2012 Dom Pérignon Champagne
France, Champagne
We were drinking from magnum and a nearby table had a bottle. I had the opportunity to taste both.
BOTTLE - slightly butyric nose at first. Pale gold colour. Sprightly, energetic, lovely, with a long finish.
MAGNUM - opened without an audible pop! Not to worry - clearly a sign of the sommelier's skill, or my failing hearing. This is the same as the bottle but - as a fellow diner remarked "turned up to 11". Probably a little younger, but also, in every dimension, just a bit better.
Post a Comment / 8 people found this helpful, do you? Yes - No