The Prima Vini Pages

Our fearless leader John Rittmaster was one of the lucky few that was able to attend the tasting of the newest releases of DRC Burgundy yesterday, some of the most famous and expensive wines in the world. Wines that mere mortals like myself will probably have to experience vicariously. Here is his unfiltered account of the day. Enjoy!

Contemplating the DRC tasting held today in SF over a refreshing glass of Ravello Bianco and a pizza at A-16.

The tasting this year was at Quince and, as usual, ably and professionally hosted by longtime Domaine importer Wilson-Daniels.

There is a ton of hype and anticipation regarding the Domaine’s 2009s. Domaine director and host Aubert de Villaine compared the vintage to 1959….high praise indeed. And, as a rare bonus, it’s a vintage of quantity as well as quality. Predictably, there was a lot of fawning over the wines after the tasting, and a lot of it is deserved for sure.

The Richebourg was certainly the best I’ve ever tasted, the Montrachet haunting with a finish I can still taste, and the R-C probably one for the ages.

Also on the sizable plus side of the ledger: the Domaine’s new Corton is fabulous. Made only from older vines in Clos de Roi, Renardes and, mostly, Bressandes, it’s a departure wine with a great, earthy feel to it…all black truffles, violets and cardamom spice. It captures a sense of finesse I rarely experience with wines from Corton. You could call it oaky, but so what? It sure tastes good.

The Domaine is replanting the younger vines in this holding, leased from the old Prince Florent de Merode holding, to better material and the hope is that there will someday be three DRC Corton cuvees. Something for you youngsters to hope for!

La Tache is a blockbuster: plush and sexy. This will always be the DRC I would go for given my druthers, and 2009 is excellent.

And the Richebourg? Sleek, sexy and elegant in every good sense of the word. Easy to understand, it had a perfume that couldn’t wait to get out of the glass. If I had tasted it blind, I might have confused its cool, liquid perfume for the R-C.

Wait….did I just write ‘easy to understand’ and then compare the wine to the notoriously inscrutable R-C in the same paragraph? Hmmmm.

Romanee-Conti is, in 2009, an amalgam of the best attributes of the La Tache (more textural and voluptuous) and Richebourg (underlying structure and a more feminine sensibility). Sort of like Renoir painting an Egon Schiele model. (Or is that the other way around?) It’s less restrained and minerally than the 2008 but, after doing this tasting now for many vintages, it is understandable as an R-C. Raj said it might be the best R-C ever. I can’t comment on that but I do know it will be the most expensive!

And Montrachet….atypical in that it wasn’t as overtly voluptuous or tropical as some past vintages (2007!) nor is the acidity as obvious as was the 2008. Jordan Mackay, who sat next to me at the tasting, called it “a Montrachet from Chassagne rather than Puligny” as it showed Chardonnay’s floral and orchard side and tasted of being siphoned through mineral, yet was not at all sharp or acidic. The finish was creme brûlée and lasted over a minute. Spectacular.

But the empirical taster in me found some things with which to quibble.

Yes, nature was magnanimous in 2009 but I wonder if, in the case of the Vosne 1er Cru, comprised of the Domaine’s younger vines, if it might have been too much so. Compared to the really fine and focused 2008, 2009 seemed downright light and a trifle too crisp. It has great freshness and spark but is there enough there there? I loved the 2008 and maybe it was asking too much of the 2009 to match it.

And I’ll insert another note here. Something was up with the pouring, either with the glassware at Quince or with the conditioning wine. My first impression of the V-R 1er, the second wine after the Corton, was of tankiness bordering on corkiness. My neighbor Allen noticed this as well, but after recoating our glasses with the wine inside (the glasses were supposedly pre-conditioned with 2007 Leflaive Meursault!) that negative impression faded. Could it have been an off bottle of Meursault to blame? I don’t know, but the Vosne never dug itself out of the doghouse in my estimation. But, to be fair, by the time I tried it a third time, I had had R-C and Montrachet ahead of it.

Echezeaux was pretty…very pretty… with plenty of blood orange, ferrous and rhubarb backing it up, and it added weight with each successive pass, but still, I’d call it a good Echezeaux and not a great one.

Grands Echezeaux was, as usual, a cipher to me. Chunkier and edgier than the Echezeaux (nothing unusual there) the scorched red earth, meat blood, broad tannin and introverted nose reminded more of Nebbiolo than Pinot Noir. It’s an understatement when talking about DRC, but this will require time!

Romanee St. Vivant is usually my bellwether wine for DRC but the 2009 was curiously restrained and ungenerous, even after two or three passes. The texture was spot-on but I missed the sandalwood incense nose I remember fondly from 2008 and, especially, 2007, and there was an uncharacteristic chunkiness that segued backwards towards Grands Echezeaux rather than ahead to the La Tache. To be fair, de Villaine, pointed out that the RSV had shown better two days earlier in New York, and that sort of staginess is not uncommon. Still, for me, it was puzzling showing for this, usually my second favorite, of the DRC crus.

All in all, I think DRC fans will be very happy with the 2009s. Whether or not they will prove the equal of 1959 is for another generation to judge, but I do believe that the trifecta of 2008, 2009 and, most likely, 2010 will prove to be one of the most glorious strings of vintages ever at this august address and I am honored to be around to enjoy the ride.

I’ll admit, when I first began working in wine I was a California Cab Girl all the way – the oakier, fruiter, more alcoholic the better. I think a lot of that had to do with my comfort level. It is intimidating to sit down at a nice dinner, scan an extensive wine list and have no idea where to begin. It’s easier to seek out familiarity, and in my case, treating myself to a night out at the time meant I wanted to drink something I knew for a fact that I loved. I didn’t want to have to get used to an earthy Burgundy or a austerely tannic Borolo. I didn’t want to have to think about it too much.

But as the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt.

The more I tasted wine though, the more I realized how limiting domestic wines can be. Big labels tend to aim for crowd pleasing consistency year to year in order to dazzle in their tasting rooms and at events. Because of that, they are more difficult to pair with the wide varieties of foods I like to eat. Highly stylized, fruit forward wines don’t have as much of a place next to the delicate, umami flavors of sushi, or the thousand and one spices in chana masala. If I’m having pizza I rarely go for a domestic wine or varietal.

To be honest, the depth of character in Italian and French wines for me became a lot more interesting and taught me more about wine than going tasting every weekend in Sonoma ever could have.

However, I do realize that I’m spoiled. I got into wine when I was an undergrad at Cal Poly. I could literally ride my bike to different wineries and try things I normally wouldn’t have been able to afford on my student budget, thanks to $5 tasting fees. Living in the bay area means we’re only an hour away (depending on traffic) from world renowned appellations. I can understand living here, falling in love with wine here, and wanting a similar experience at home.

It’s important to support local industry, and in California wine is a very large part of that. But if you really love wine, expanding your horizons is just as important. Only being serious about drinking California wine really does limit one’s palate and experience.

Yes, the prices of Burgundy, Brunello and Champagne can be stroke inducing. Especially if you aren’t completely sure what you’re in for. But there’s no reason to be so ambitious. Start low and aim high. If you’re a bargain hunter (like me) you’re better off drinking old world wines. I hate to say it but in the $10-$20 range I have much more success finding something delicious from Spain, Italy, or France than California. This will also help expand your palate and figure out what you really like in imported wine so that when you go to higher end tasting events or restaurants with specialized, old world wine lists, you’ll get a better idea of what you’re looking for.

On that note: the “Only Red Drinkers” have a special place in my heart. I was totally like that too. I assumed that serious wines had to be red. No exceptions. Drinking white meant you either couldn’t handle your booze, or didn’t appreciate anything remotely delicious.

But then I got into champagne and white burgundy and all that changed. To my Red Only people: what to you drink with subtler seafood and poultry dishes? What, for the love of all that is holy do you drink with Dungeness crab and Hog Island Oysters?

I hope I’m not offending anyone here, and I hope I’m not coming across as a snob. I believe variety, and steeping out of your comfort zone is the best thing you can do for your palate. The famous California producers we all know and love deserve all the accolades and success that come to them. I’m just asking you; as a wine consumer to expand your horizons. Don’t walk into a restaurant and immediately flip to the Domestic section. Don’t go to a wine store and ask the staff to only find you a California wine. Go to a tasting event with a varietal or region you’re not familiar with. You just may find yourself falling in love all over again.