Exams!

(Brooklyn Law School Library pictured above)

Yes ... it's that time of the year again. Exam time. And while the rest of you are out drinking Selosse, contemplating the oak chip v. no oak conundrum, we of the legal faith have confined ourselves to the law library day and night, day and night, without rest, to contemplate the finer aspects of Granholm v. Heald and other less noteworthy developments in the law.

So as the pressure rises, the 1Ls slowly lose their hair, our eyesight grows dim, and the days lengthen, raise a glass to your future advocates...we'll see you in June, and we'll be ready to have a drink.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

European Wine Laws: Prohibitive or Protective?

In The Pour, Eric Asimov made some interesting comments about the purpose and success of European beverage law - http://thepour.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/does-your-wine-need-viagra/.

A longer article is warranted on the subject, and I may take it up elsewhere, but I just want to take issue with what I perceive as Eric's confusion between market forces and the law. It might be true, to an extent, when Eric says, “European laws, which Americans are wont to sneer at as old-fashioned and restrictive, protect [winemaking] traditions.” But the law can only function to protect a tradition if the tradition is worth protecting. As we have seen in Montalcino, recently, and throughout France for decades (if not longer) market forces inevitably force some producers to abandon traditions in favor of making untraditional products. If the law functioned in the way Eric suggests, producers like Argiano, Antinori, etc. would never have made products the market demanded. That outcome is certainly worse than than the current confusion. Laws that stand in the way of market forces are generally inefficient, usually outdated, and often broken.

That is not to say that winemakers should abandon tradition in the name of the almighty dollar. It’s just to state what should be obvious: laws enacted solely to protect traditions will invariably be broken as some imaginative producers will invariably experiment with new grapes, new techniques, etc. How should consumers respond?

Well, if we acknowledge that it is pointless to require producers to resist market forces -- in the sense that we’ll never be able to stop producers from experimenting, from supplying demands, etc., and law enforcers will only ever be able to punish rule-breakers ipso facto, which is the most inefficient form of law enforcement possible -- one thing we can do is at the very least require truth in advertising. For example, we could certify traditionally made wines as Brunello and everything else as IGT. We could certify wines aged solely in oak barrels as “barrel aged.” We punish fraud in labelling with hefty fines. Now this might seem silly to some, but in fact, for better or worse, the US has a long history of requiring truth in food and alcoholic beverage labeling, whether we talk about cheese, meat, eggs, grains, wines or distilled spirits.

I think that what we really need to allow the market to function properly is an independent press to inform the public about problems when they occur, to evaluate wines and help consumers make fully informed decisions about a wide range of choices. Generally, the market works correctly. We should allow the law to function properly, as well, and not unduly penalize avant garde producers and their products.

Chateau de Beaucastel - Chateauneuf du Pape 2004 **

Plum color. This is very good. A mesh of dried fruits, freeze dried strawberries, raspberry leaf, and mellow crushed black pepper. It's more expresive with dinner and not so much of a stand alone do it yourself kind of playa.

Ridge Vineyards Monte Bello 2002 **

The wine is very dark and to me a blue blood with a purple rim (but the picture makes it look a little purple, I admit). The aromatics and top notes are woodsy: mostly soft cedar, a touch of evergreen, some fresh oak. There are thick tannins on entry and the acidity is light, but it has that mouth coating velvet texture I have come to love about Monte Bello. (I'm not at all biased, yeah right.) Ultra dry, and tight, the fruit is in a fading stage, and the secondary aromatics have yet to emerge. Overall, I think that right now, at six years of age, the 2002 is in between its fruity, sweet beginnings and a sophisticated adolescene just around the corner. I will come back to this wine in 2012.

The 2002 was the sixth Monte Bello I tasted this year. So, it's a good time to recap my Monte Bello tastings to date:

2007 *** showing good balance of sweetness and acidity, but what is really awesome about this wine is the purity of the fruit. This is like 2003 and could be greatness in the making.

2006 *** I am eagerly anticipating the release of this wine. It's a combination of 2007's gorgeous and pure fruits and 2005's depth and class. There are some complex oak notes here (banana, pine colada) but they are well integrated. The wine is almost finished aging and will be released in a year.

2005 *** Very sophisticated. The fruit has been tamed. Raspberries, raspberry leaf, and mild cedar do most of the heavy lifting. This is probably your last chance to get a good glimpse of this wine before it closes down and does not re-emerge for a decade. Released last month.

2004 **? Totally closed down. The fruit faded quickly from this wine and nothing has emerged to fill the midpalate. I would not open another one of these for five years.

2003 **** Un-freaking-belieable. My favorite Monte Bello of the 21st century (thus far). Goreous and pure fruits, nice acidity, with secondary aromatics and a big finish. This wine bucks the old saw that Monte Bellos always need a decade to age. When you think of this wine, think Carolyn Murphy beauty.

2002 ** or ***? The fruit has gone and the complex notes are starting to slowly appear. Everything is there- the dark fruits, good balance, good tannins - but the wine's muted, and this may require some patience to release its full potential.

California Futures Tasting at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel

Eric Baugher (left) Sean McBride (right) holding bottles of 2006 and 2007 Monte Bello.

I traveled down to Wasihngton D.C. April 12 for the Twenty-third California Futures Tasting at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel, featuring wines from 48 producers’ 2006 vintage, plus a number of additional samples. I don’t usually go to tastings like this, especially if they’re outside of New York City, because they’re too expensive, but I made an exception for this event to get a chance to catch up a little with Eric Baugher, winemaker at Ridge, who was pouring the 2005, 2006, and 2007 Monte Bellos. I also got a chance to meet some other interesting characters. David Ramey was pouring his own wines, which were excellet, and the man himself was very nice, seemingly easy going. He was one of the stars at the tasting. It was also a pleasure to meet Kathryn Hall, Jennifer Freebairn (Director of Sales and Marketing at Paul Hobbs) and Nicolas Morlet (Peter Michael winemaker).

Overall, it was a good event – good food, good wines, good glasses, lots of water easily accessible, blah blah blah – and I had a very good time (if not too good), but I expected more white wine available. Many of the best 2006 California whites are not yet released, or only being released as I write this, and it would have been a good chance to sample some of the wines currently on the market. Of course, this event was about purchasing wine “futures,” and many of the wineries at the event only have reds for sale, but that said, a couple wineries included their current 2006 white release, most notably Nicolas Morlet, winemaker at Peter Michael, who, upon request, poured the 2006 Cuvee Indigene.

One last note before my thoughts on the wines ... I managed to sneak into the winemaker's party after the tasting, which had always been a fantasy of mine, and guess what they were drinking ... French wines! What is happening with California winemakers always drinking French wines behind the scenes?

Tasting notes for the best wines of the night:

Ridge Vineyards Monte Bello 2005 *** 2006 *** 2007 *** (all $80). These wines are, of course, exceptional. Saturated colors, and expressive on the nose. The 2007 is clearly the youngest, with flamboyant fruit notes. The 2006 shows a little more restraint, and the oak is starting to show, giving off a little cedar with a slightly drier finish. One 2006-taster noticed “banana,” and I had to agree once she pointed it out. There was some slight vanilla-esque toasty new oak apparent in the wine that conjured up pina colada, and made me think of two of Eric’s other wines, the 2005 Lytton East and the 2005 Geyserville Zinfandels. While Eric wasn’t totally thrilled about hearing any of this, I found the vanilla-banana notes very pleasing. The 2005 was even more subdued than either the 2006 or 2007. I could easily discern the evolution of these wines. The 2005 showed much more cedar, evergreen, and depth, and was, for me, very typical of the vineyard and winery style.

Diamond Creek’s three vineyard-designate 2006 Cabernet Sauvignons: Gavely Meadow *** Red Rock Terrace *** and Volcanic Hill *** (all $145). These were all exceptional wines. Dusky purple in color, showing predominantly sweet red fruits, with awesome balance and acidity, and expressing complex aromatic notes like fancy French perfume, dried herbs, cocoa, raspberry leaf, and finishing with sweet, fine tannin. Awesome. The only problem here was the line to taste these wines.

Ramey’s 2006 Pedregal Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon *** ($125) might have been the best wine of the night. A purple and dark ruby color, with a sweet fresh bouquet and good zing. It’s simply drinking perfectly right now, without any noticeable edges, and, in a word: delicious. Also, the 2006 Larkmead Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon ** was very good, but showed a little too much spice.

Peter Michael 2005 “Les Pavots” ** was a touch zesty, with fresh spice and dark berries, black cherries, and chocolate. It was the most Sonoma-esque of all Les Pavots I have ever tried. It may need a little time to cellar? The 2006 “Lex Pavots” *** was better, with less zing, but delicious and pure dark berry notes. While my taste buds were probably shot by this point, the 2006 Cuvee Indigene *** was fabulous – and an extraordinary way to end an evening drinking full bodied red wines.

Paul Hobbs 2006 Beckstoffer To-Kalon Cabernet Sauvignon ** ($195) was probably the most expensive wine of the night. Rich, elegant, and very fruity, the wine showed too much Napa spice for me to be truly wowed, but this will probably outlive many other wines, and once the pepper and spice fades, it may be truly extraordinary.

Other wines worth mentioning (listed alphabetically)
Andrew Will 2006 Sorella ($53); Axios 2004 Cabernet Sauvignon * (retail $100) and 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon * ($95); Barnett 2006 Spring Mtn. Cabernet Sauvignon * ($60) and 2006 Rattlesnake Cabernet Sauvignon * ($100); Blue Rock 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon ($40) and 2006 Syrah ($29) and 2006 Best Barrel ($75); Culler “La Palette” ($39); Delectus 2006 Cuvee Julia * ($125) and 2005 Cuvee Julia * ($125) and 2005 Merlot; Dunn 2006 Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon * ($55); Fisher 2006 Coach Insignia * ($60) and 2006 Wedding Vineyard * ($100); Girard 2006 Artistry * ($33) and 2006 Pritchard Hill Cabernet Sauvignon ** ($60); Kathryn Hall 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon * ($60); Jack Larkin 2006 Pritchard Hill Cabernet Sauvignon * ($70) and 2006 Merlot *.

2005 Rhône Valley Reds - Extraordinary

In my effort to better understand the reds from the 2005 vintage in France and the wines from the Rhône Valley in general, I recently tasted Guigal's 2005 Cotes du Rhône * and Tardieu-Laurent's 2005 Vacqueyras */** and Chateauneuf du Pape **. I enjoyed all of these wines immensely, and while they exhibited varying levels of fruit, spice, extract, concentration, texture and subtlety, for the most part each wine expressed its terroir to me.

Guigal's 2005 Cotes du Rhône * was a ruby color, flinty on the nose with serious pepper and spice aromas. The acidity was a little strong ... the red fruits dominated by spice. To me this was a sound and interesting wine that for $15 makes a great table wine.

Tardieu-Laurent's 2005 Vacqueyras * or ** ($35) was deep plum purple. It had a big nose of fresh spring flowers, yummy red fruits, a touch of exotic dried spices (nutmeg or saffron, maybe savory) and a mellow note of whole white pepper. Fully extracted, with good minerality on the palate and very ripe, this is a hedonistic type of wine.

Tardieu-Laurent's Chateauneuf du Pape ** or *** ($55) was a slightly more complex wine in my opinion. This, too, was a deep plum purple ... just not as deep. And this had roses, minerals, and sweet dark berries on the nose, but there was fancy French perfume, too, with mellow spice characteristics rounding it out. The minerality and the fruitiness were nicely balanced, and it was nearly seamless. In a word, it was fantastic.

I would recommend all these wines for someone looking at these price points for 2005 Rhône wines. Having tasted about 10 wines from this vintage at a number of different price points, I heartily recommend it. The wines are well structured; they have excellent fruit, acidity, and tannins - and their component parts are often nicely integrated. What's more, the wines from 2005 are showing typicity of the Rhône Valley.

Up next - Notes from the California Wine Futures Tasting in D.C. this past weekend, and a final salute to Chateauneuf du Pape 2005 with a half bottle of "La Crau!"

Sloan is here!

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Three red wines by the glass.

Dom du Colombier 2004 Chinon * This is dark and medium-full bodied. Uber dry with raspberry and bay leaf. Low acidity, and a decent chalky finish. I'm a sucker for good Chinon so this was very pleasing and almost deserves two stars.

M. Chapoutier Cotes du Rhone 2005 * Plum color. Spicy nose with red flowers. Overt crushed peppers, red wine reduction with long lingering strawberry finish. This wine is a lot of fun, a little lighter than the Chinon and a longer finish too.

Ch. Virecourt Pillebourse 2005 Bordeaux * despite being unknown, this wine was surprisungly full of dark berries, and an enjoyable finish to dinner.

2005 Pierre Usseglio "Cuvee de mon Aieul" Chateaunuef du Pape ***

This is blood ruby.

Blackberry and cherry cola and chambourd. Lightly flinty with soft tannins, finishes a little hollow to be a total blockbuster. It took forever to open up but when it finally did - wow - finally got a sense of the depths here - steak blood and oranges - orange beef with a light mandarin spice. It's short on herbs and spice, and so it might be a little untraditional for this region, but it shows a lot of class. I'd cellar this for at least 3-5 years before taking another look. An excellent wine.

Boutari "Kallista" Santorini 2004 *

I opened this bottle of Boutari yesterday to celebrate the first 70 degree day of the year. It's a very nice expression of assyrtiko, Santorini's predominant grape, which I brought back from Santorini in 2006. Aged partly in new French oak barrels, and blended with small amounts of Greece's other indigenous varietals, this "Kallista" is pale honey in color, still very fresh, tasting of the stony soil of this volcanic isle in the middle of the Cyclades. There are some citrus notes, too, mostly lemon, and a little honey, perhaps from aging in the cellar. This was better, fresh, in 2006, but it's still enjoyable...drinking these (old) Santorini wines always brings me back there.

NV Champagne: René Geoffroy Brut Premier Cru à Cumières ****

This was quite easily not only one of the best Champagnes I have ever tasted, but of course one of the best wines. Pale hay. A fruity nose with lemon citrus hints. A grandiloquent texture (translation: ultra fine fizz) with excellent underlying notes. A full palate of melon, orange rind, lemon zest, buttered brioche and sweet peaches. Not a powerful finish, but not stingy or clipped either. I've had better Champagne, maybe, once in a while, but it's rare, and at $40, this wine is a steal. Highly recommended.

http://www.champagne-geoffroy.com/-Bienvenue-

A. Voge 1998 Cornas *

I'm a big fan of Voge's Cornas but Im used to drinking these wines relatively young. This 1998, which I picked up at Heights Chateau along with a funked Rayas, was the oldest of his wines I've tried, so at first I was a little worried. But my first impression after popping the cork of this wine was full and nicely complex. Deep plum color. Inviting dusty dry red fruits, a little apple and dried spice nose. The fruit's no longer young, but it's texturally crisp and firm. A little feral, with roses and mushrooms(?) too, dried lavendar and mellow cocoa. A dry clean finish.

Acorn 2005 Heritage Vines Zinfandel Alegria Vineyard RRV *

Another gem suggested by Eric Baugher. An old vine field blend containing zinfandel, petit sirah, alicante boushet, carignane, trousseau, sangiovese, petit boushet, negrette, syrah, muscat noir, cinsault, and grenache. Medium ruby with a slight shine on it. Spicy nose mixed with stewed plum and herbs...sage note? Racy attack, complex notes of crushed black pepper, rhubarb, and mellow red fruit sweetness. This is worth investigating.

Harlan est arrivé!

Hendry Block 28 Napa Valley Zinfandel 2004 **

Recommended to me by Eric Baugher (VP and winemaker at Ridge Vineyards) Hendry's Block 28 Zinfandel is a little known gem from Napa. Located between Carneros and Mt. Veeder AVAs, Block 28 receives hot Napa sunshine and cool Carneros fog. The wine is a deep purple with good opacity. A restrained nose of mostly dark fruits and stones. Medium body with fresh acidity, purple fruits and new oak, good loam on the finish. This has the makings of a great 2004 Zinfandel without being pushy, over extracted or too sweet or volatile.

2005 Kosta Browne RRV Pinot Noir ****

What am I doing eating shell steak and drinking Cali Cult Pinot Noir in the middle of the day on April 1? Well, today is not only April Fool's Day, it's also my dog's birthday, (which is why I named her "April" 13 years ago.) And we have a little tradition today, she and I...I make us a big steak and bone to share and then we both eat so much we feel sick aftrewards, me probably more than her. But this year is a little different because April currently lives with my mom, and since my inlaws are in town and I have to be home for dinner tonight, it was necessary for me today to make the jaunt to the Upper East Side for our traditional birthday meal at lunch. Now, to be honest I had planned on skipping our little tradition this year and eating an apple for lunch because I'm on a diet these days, but after seeing the chop my butcher cut for April, welll...how could I resist? (By the way, my butcher, Staubitz, is a genius in an apron.)

So what does Kosta Browne have to do with any of this? Well, since my mom is out of town we have a friend watching April for the week, and this friend apparently has very fine taste in wine, because when I arrived at my mom's apartment I discovered that our friend had opened one of the bottles of my birthday pressent to my mom last year: my allocation of Kosta Browne RRV Pinot Noir. So since it was already open, and since it was a special occasion, and since I was making steak anyway...you probably already see where I'm going with this.

This Russian River Valley Pinot was in Spectator's top 5 for 2007 - I think it was their #3 wine of the year actually - and while I don't quite share that level of enthusiasm, this wine clearly stands out from the pack of California Pinot Noir, and is probably the best wine from here I've ever had.

2005 Kosta Browne Russian River Valley Pinot Noir **** Gorgeous ruby. Fresh thyme and tarragon on the nose, with quintessential Californian Pinot Noir characteristics and mellow red fruit flavors. Here is the smooth attack, and here is a lush midpalate...very much NOT what I expected from Kosta Browne (clearly I underestimated them, as evidenced by my callously giving away their wine). Let me just say this ... If wine were a movie, then is the Cool Hand Luke of RRV Pinot. Mellow crushed black pepper, tart cherry skins without the sweetness, finishes with crushed chalk and then fresh herbs. It's a ridiculous 14.7% alcohol and although I can't taste a lick of it I really think my work day is over. I am honestly trying to think of an imperfection here and the only one I can think of is I don't own more of this. And this one wasn't even mine. A gorgeous wine.

Chateau Rayas Chateauneuf du Pape Reserve 1997

I have been eagerly wanting to taste this Chateau's wine for years. Rayas is one of those names that I hear whispered reverently at tastings, and never having tried it myself, I assumed it would be otherworldly. Which, perhaps, in a different vintage, it is. But I happened to taste the 1997, and 1997 was a very bad year for Rayas.

Jacques Reynaud, the legendary owner/winemaker at Rayas passed away in 1997, leaving people my age, who only really started to get into wine that year, in a lurch. I will never be willing to spend thousands of dollars on Reynaud's legendary 1989 and 1990, and I will never get to taste his wines young. Which I means I'll never get to know Rayas for what it once was. But I can hope that the Reynaud heir now in charge, Emmannuel, will continue the family's tradition of fashioning otherworldly wines. So I'm putting this 1997 behind me.....

"Jacques Reynaud's reputation was well-deserved. At their best, his wines at Rayas offered lilting perfume and layers of lush, pure raspberry fruit that set them apart stylistically from the rest of the appellation. But for all intents and purposes, the Rayas legend is built upon the stunning success of only a handful of vintages, namely 1978, '89, '90 and '95. The vintages in between are better than average, but not quite in the same league."

http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Features/0,1197,3209,00.html visited April 2, 2008.