Vinosseur.com

In Part I of Clos Roche Blanche the producer profile, I talked about the Loire Valley and this Domaine.  In this entry, Clos Roche Blanche Part II – “The Wines”, I give detailed tasting notes for 4 wines that I was able to find here in Norway.  I was unfortunately unable to get a bottle of the acclaimed Cuvée Sauvignon Blanc nor was I able to get the other Cuvées.  When I do, I will be sure to write about them here on my site.

For this entry, the wines were all opened at the same time, Friday July 31st, 2009 at 16:45 (4:45pm) and tasted over the course of one week. Once opened they were simply stored with their original closures and kept in the refrigerator.  I did not pump the air out of the bottles. The first thing that struck me was that three of the four bottles used artificial plastic corks. Only the Cuvée Côt used a real cork. I am not sure how I feel about this as it’s not unusual to use an artificial cork to seal a wine bottle.  However I have to admit that I do find it strange that winemakers who make wines as close to natural as possible are using anything other than real cork.  Please comment on your feelings regarding  this matter.

Here are the wines:

Pineau d’Aunis Rosé 2008 – 12% Alcohol – Synthetic Cork

Friday July 31st, 2009 16:45 (4:45pm)

Appearance: what’s there not to like?!  A beautiful light pink grapefruit color. Absolutely lovely color. Clean with a medium intense glow.

Nose: The first aromas I note can only be described as “vitamin C”, the smell you get when you first open a bottle of vitamin C chewable tablets. Aromas of pink grapefruit, hints of under ripe raspberries (red), hints of yeast  (the first bottle I sampled a few weeks ago had much more dominant yeast aromas which I did not like).  Medium intensity and medium complexity.

Palate: Very dry, with medium to medium plus intensity. Grapefruit and under ripe raspberries also on the palate. Medium body, great concentration and great length with yeast and mineral undertones. Very mild tannins.   Medium to medium plus acid.  Well integrated alcohol.  Wow, much better tasting experience today versus the last time I tasted this wine a few weeks ago.

Saturday August 1st, 2009 14:21 (2:21pm)

Appearance: Not much change, perhaps just a shade darker

Nose: Still pink grapefruit but today the yeasty/leesy smell is a bit more dominant.  Hints of pepper which weren’t there yesterday.

Palate: still the pink grapefruit, put now the hints of pepper were also on the palate.  The yeasty feeling was  less noticeable than on the nose. Acidity is now medium plus (an increase from yesterday). There is a slight CO2 tingle at the front of the tongue. Hints of under ripe raspberry. Definitely more open then yesterday and a bit more serious

Sunday August 2nd, 2009 20:48 (8:48pm) – The wine is at it’s peak today.

Appearance: No change

Nose: A little bit sweeter nose today. Red raspberries, but not too ripe. Still hints of yeast, but it’s more of a peppery yeasty smell today. Citrus, pink grapefruit. Definitely more fruity today. Smells really nice

Palate: Very fruity initially with the raspberries and grapefruit really dominating. Less of the yeast today on the palate and a finish that is very long, fruity with hints of pepper and mineral. Very balanced, fruity and fresh. I am actually loving this wine today. Today is definitely the best it’s been with the biggest improvement being on the fruit – its much more focused today than it has been and seems almost “sweet”, though the wine is bone dry.    To sum up – sour red raspberries, fruity pink grapefruit with surrounding pepper notes and hints of yeast and mineral on the finish.. Wow… Looking forward to tasting it with my two types of Zucchini and red onion pasta.

Monday August 3rd, 2009 23:28 (11:28pm)

Appearance: No change

Nose: the berries are going more towards wild berries today instead of under ripe raspberries. sweet pink grapefruit, red apples today – weren’t there on the previous days. Overlaying pepper aromas. Hints of yeast, but mellowing with each passing day.  A fruitier “sweeter” nose today.  Although it may sound that the nose is more open today than yesterday, it was actually less appealing to me.

Palate: Acidity seems to have kicked up a notch today, but the fruit at the same time seems “sweeter”. Red apples and raspberries, with a mineral finish with hints of bitterness, like the white part of the grapefruit. Still fresh and drinking well, but perhaps it was a bit more enticing yesterday. The bitterness is dominating a bit on the finish.

Tuesday August 4th, 2009 00:31 (12:31am)

Appearance: No change

Nose: pepper dominates with pink grapefruit. Hints of yeast.  Not volatile. Still smells fine

Palate: sweet pink grapefruit and red raspberries with a peppered finish. The alcohol is bit more noticeable today and the fruit a bit more subdued. It has lost a bit of the fruity edge today. Not as exciting.

Wednesday August 5th, 2009 17:35 (5:35pm)

Appearance: No change

Nose: Still driven by the pink grapefruit and pepper notes. Still no signs of volatility on the nose. Still fresh. Still has hints of yeast..

Palate: Still fresh, but that fruit edge it had on the third day seems to have diminished a bit.  Alcohol a bit  noticeable like it was yesterday. However, still very drinkable, but slipping a bit.

Thursday August 6th, 2009 23:54 (11:54pm) – Possibly peaking, again?

Appearance: No Change

Nose: Very fruity tonight with hints of pencil lead. Very ripe red berries.  Strawberries also showing tonight which I have not seen in the previous nights. No volatile aromas

Palate: Strange wine tonight. Very relaxed, fruity and fun. Ripe red fruit, namely raspberries with hints of strawberries. Also getting the hints of pencil lead on the palate. Hints of red apple, especially the skin.  Very fresh. Long, slightly bitter finish.

This is a wine that I don’t particular enjoy when first opened. It did become enjoyable from Sunday night on with the most exciting nights being Sunday (3rd night open) and Thursday(7th night open).

The Clos Roche Blanche Domaine is located  in the Touraine appellation of the Loire Valley in France.  Located almost in the middle of France (see map just below), the Loire Valley is a very large wine region with over 70 appellations stretching from the Atlantic in the far West, to the famous appellations of Sancerre and Pouilly-Fumé  in the far East. It is the largest white wine region in France, but it also produces great reds which are unfortunately often overlooked.

The principal white grapes of the Loire Valley are:

• Melon de Bourgogne – used in making the light & fresh Muscadet wines in the far west
• Chenin Blanc – found in the dry wines of Vouvray and the sweet wines of  Quarts de Chaume
• Sauvignon Blanc – in the racy wines of Sancerre and Pouilly-Fumé in the East

The principal red grapes of the Loire Valley are:

• Gamay – found towards the West primarily in Anjou and towards the East in Touraine
• Cabernet Franc – found in the earthy red wines of Anjou, Saumur, Chinon, Touraine and Bourgueil and some rosé wines as well
• Pineau d’Aunis – obscure and scarcely seen, yet making a comeback in the fruity red wines of Anjou and the Coteaux du Loire and the less seen Rosé wines of  Touraine (such as the one tasted from Clos Roche Blanche)
• Côt – also known as Malbec seen mainly in Touraine
• Pinot Noir – found mostly in the East in the red wines of Reuilly and Sancerre

Domaine Clos Roche Blanche has 18 hectares in the Touraine A.O.C.   The Domaine was created at the end of the 19th Century and is situated on the slopes of the valley of the Cher River, and has remained in the family ever since. Catherine Roussel took over the estate from her father in 1975 and was joined later by Didier Barrouillet who tends the vineyards and makes the wine. Both are enthusiastic proponents of non-interventionist wine making.  After the 2009 harvest, they will lease out some of their vineyards to a young female wine grower, reducing their holdings to just 10 hectares.

The poor soil is mainly composed of clay with flint and hard sandstone (grès), over a calcareous sub soil.  The wine cellar was carved out in the tuffeau in the same period; the extracted stones were then used to build the living house that overlooks the valley of Cher.

The house and chai - photo courtesy of Bertrand Celce @ wineterroirs.com

the door to the cellar and chai under hill - photo courtesy of Bertrand Celce @ wineterroirs.com

The balance between old vines (one 0,5 ha parcel planted with Côt  is more than 100 years old I’m told) and young vines, short pruning and low yields, assures a production of high quality, which they always look to improve.  The have been certified organic (Ecocert) since 1992. No plowing, they use grass and wild flowers between ranks.

The vinification is partly in the cellar, and partly in a cave carved out of the rock (see photo above) close to the vineyards, this helps them to deal with the harvest (done by hand, of course) without much of a delay.  Only indigenous yeasts, no chaptalisation, no use of enzymes or other additives, only a modest use of sulfur when racking the wine (they use CO2 when they bottle) and no filtration. No oak barriques are used, only steel and large format  used barrels for the Cuvée Côt.  This is quite close to my definition of totally natural.

The main production is the Sauvignon Blanc (40% – which ironically I could not get a hold of) and the Gamay (20%), the Côt and the Cabernets – Franc and Sauvignon, the Pineau d’Aunis and Chardonnnay make up the last 40%.

I will be publishing a follow-up to this Clos Roche Blanche producer profile in the next few days with my tasting notes of the Cuvée Pineau d’Aunis Rosé, Cuvée Gamay, Cuvée Pif and Cuvée Côt. The bottles were opened at the same time and tasted over the course of many days.  I often find that wines made more naturally improve tremendously after some days being open.

For more information on the Clos Roche Blanche Domain, visit:

Louis/Dressner Selections

Wine Terroirs

Jim’s Loire

Date tasted:  July 11th, 2009 22:30 (10:30 pm)

Egly-Ouriet has been a personal long time favorite producer of mine. The Champagnes see long lees ageing making them very complex and yeasty.  Located in the village of Ambonnay, Francis Egly owns approximately 8ha of vineyards, the majority of which are in Ambonnay.  All of the vineyards are classified as Grand Cru and have the reputation for producing some of the best Pinot Noir based Champagnes.  Most of the vines average between 30-50 years of age and are farmed using “common sense” principles.  In the most recent years, Francis has reduced the amount of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.  He never fines nor filters his Champagnes.

This specific wine is a still red wine made with Pinot Noir.  I am told that Egly-Ouriet produces some of the best wines in the Coteaux Champenois under the guidance of Dominque Laurent.  Only about 200 cases are made.  12% Alcohol.

Appearance: Classic light Pinot Noir color with medium plus intensity. I was in a dimly lit place so I can’t be very precise with the appearance.

Nose: Sweet smoke, cedar, oak and minerals. Ripe cherries, red licorice and raspberry. The bouquet reminded me of the small candies and anise seeds you get when you leave an Indian restaurant.   Some hints of forrest floor and leaves. Quite complex on the nose.  Hints of tobacco.  Intensity about medium.

Palate: Cedar and smoke. Raspberries and those same small Indian candies and anise seeds I got on the nose. Great acidity with medium plus length.  Good concentration while remaining light and fresh. Great structure with mild oak tannins.  Sour cherries. Very elegant.  Hints of dried sour plums.  This is a very elegant wine with still dominant, sweet, cigar box oak.

23:35

Subtle hints of sulfur emerging, stinging the nose ever so slightly.  Hints of rubber. Seems as though the wine is closing and the fruit becoming less obvious. The wine never quite returned to it’s initial glory.

A great wine to have the opportunity to taste. I have tasted this vintage on two diferrent occassions and have been impressed both times. I have also tasted the 1999, but prefer the 1998 for its elegance.  This is a well-made Pinot Noir that is drinking well now so if you own a bottle, drink up!

There is a lot of talk, and words written, about natural wine these days and it seems to be all the rage.  I’m no exception to this as I have tasted quite a few natural wines, then written about them here.  I therefore felt compelled to write a few words about my thoughts on natural wines, including my definition of natural wine based on my experience and my beliefs.

Having visited Vini Veri, “Vino Vino Vino” in Verona earlier this year, I saw this trend in full swing.  Lots and lots of “natural” wines, many of which were not in my opinion well-made. Others didn’t fit my definition of natural.

I will begin with my definition of a natural wine:

A natural wine should be made first and foremost by a winemaker who has the right attitude and philosophy. It matters little to me whether or not the winemaker is certified organic or recognized by Demeter as biodynamic. I am not excluding these winemakers here, merely stating that getting certified or recognized by Demeter is sometimes not possible  due to vineyard treatments by neighbors or is sought out for the wrong reasons, like marketing rights or government subsidies.  Therefore, I feel that it is more important that the winemaker understands natural wine making and has the correct philosophy. The wine-maker wants to do the right thing.  It’s not important to me that the label states that the wine is biodynamic or organic.

Second, natural winemakers should never use pesticides in the vineyards. They should work as naturally as possible in the vineyards which can include green harvesting and canopy management.  It can include other measures to insure healthy plants which should in turn produce healthy grapes. They should even limit natural fertilizers whenever possible.  Biodiversity should be encouraged, not destroyed.

Wild boar footprints in the Roagna vineyards suggesting biodiversity - photo by Vinosseur

Third, the  grapes should be harvested by hand and not machine.  Hand selection of fully ripe and healthy grapes is an important step in producing a great wine.

Fourth, the grapes should then be crushed and left to macerate on the skins for an extended period of time before pressing to help stabilize the wine and preserve the wine once bottled.  This statement is not from personal wine-making experience but from my reading and talking to respected wine-makers.  Most of the natural wines I have tasted have had extended skin contact for the above mentioned reasons.

Fifth, the grapes should ferment with indigenous (wild) yeasts, not added (selected) yeasts.  Healthy grapes will have these indigenous yeasts on their skins.  I do feel however, that it’s ok to add a natural/neutral yeast to start the fermentation process if it does not commence on its own.  Natural wine makers whom I respect, have the right philosophy and work as naturally as possible have had to do this on occasion.

Six, the fermentation should take place without any artificial temperature control. Of course  the wine-maker may chose an ideal place to ferment the wine. If you are doing this in the cellar where the average temperature is quite constant, this is a sort of “temperature control”, and is ok in my opinion.

Grapes macerating in Amphorae. Photo courtesy of Doug Wregg of Les Caves de Pyrene

Seven, “oak” (barriques) should not be used.  When I speak of oak, I am referring to barrels smaller than 600 liters. Of course, it also depends on the age of the barrel. If the barrel is only 200 liters but is 100 years old, I suppose that there will be no influence on the wine except for the exchange of oxygen, and this is ok.  Oak, especially new, adds unwanted elements (flavors) to the wine and also softens tannins,  for these reasons I don’t think a wine is natural if it’s been fermented or stored in oak.  I want to clarify one thing here to those who might be reading this and thinking “this guy obviously hates oak”.  The point of this rule is that I am against the use of oak in natural wine because although oak comes from trees and in and of itself is a natural product, the oak is then toasted. Once the wine comes into contact with this finished barrel, the wine changes. I personally feel that this is completely unnatural. So, for my definition of natural wine, I feel that other fermentation/storage mediums should be used, like cement, amphorae, steel etc.

Eight, a natural wine should be neither fined nor filtered before bottling.  This in my opinion is an important rule. Why take anything from the wine?

Nine, a natural wine should not have any added sulfur. This is probably the most controversial point.  Many producers are adding only 10 or 12 mg of sulfur (10-12 ppm) at bottling, and I am grateful that less and less sulfur is being added to wine, but adding sulfur is not natural and therefore for me to consider a wine completely natural, there can be no added sulfur. This being said, even a wine with no added sulfur will still contain sulfur since it is a by-product of fermentation.  I also feel it important to mention that although in my definition of natural wine there can be no added sulfur, there are many great wine makers who add a few milligrams of sulfur at bottling and I enjoy these wines on a daily basis.

That’s  my definition of natural wine.  Therefore, with regards to this website,  I will never categorize a wine I taste as “natural” unless it adheres to the guidelines I have laid out above.  Many of the wines that I do not categorize as natural, may to others be regarded as natural.  I have to add that I do not and have not ever made wine, so I realize that my definition might seem rather simplified to some.

As with any trend, there are leaders, followers and imitators.  I feel the clear outspoken leader in the natural wine world is Frank Cornelissen from Mount Etna in Sicily. I have written about him and his wines more than once here on my website.  Another leader in my opinion is the Domaine Le Mazel in the Southern Rhone who have been making wines without the addition of Sulfur since 1998.  Although less well known than Cornelissen, their Cuvée Raoul is one of the greatest wines I have ever tasted.  I will do a thorough profile and tasting note on this wine on this site in the very near future.

There are the followers.  These are the great winemakers who are more recently involved in natural wine making and in my opinion are doing a great job and making huge strides towards excellence.  These wine makers also adhere to the above mentioned rules I feel should be followed.

Then there are the imitators which I saw plenty of at Vini Veri and continue to see on a daily basis.  For one, some of these wine makers insist on fermenting and storing their wines in oak (barriques). At times even using new oak.  How is this natural?  Now, I find it important to state again that I am not against the use of  oak.  I am simply against the use of oak in natural wine making.  I also want to state that I am not accusing these wines as being “bad”.   I have tasted many excellent wines which are almost natural and have been aged in oak.  And second, some of these natural wines are just poorly made.

Finally, I feel that some people just don’t understand natural wine.  I am happy that natural wines are becoming trendy, but as with any trend, there are many  bad copies.  Not all natural wines are good.  I may offend some people by these statements and this isn’t my intent at all. I am simply stating my opinion.  I welcome comments and an open dialogue with anyone who feels otherwise.

To sum up, natural wine should be fermented grape juice.  Nothing taken, nothing added.

Date tasted:  June 9th, 2009

I have written before about Frank Cornelissen.  To refresh your memory, click here for one of my previous tasting notes and more about Frank.

I may not have mentioned this before, but I feel very fortunate to live in Norway when it comes to wine.  We do get our hands on some pretty obscure and rare wines that very few other places in the world get.  This wine is no exception.  The 2002 was his second vintage in which he produced about 2000 bottles total between the 3 Magma’s and one Rosso del Contadino.  In this vintage, Frank Cornelissen produced 3 different single-vineyard bottling’s of the Magma 2.  The Calderara, Trefiletti and the Marchesa vineyards.  Approximately 1300 bottles of the Magma’s were produced.  That’s it.

The Marchesa vineyard is an ungrafted vineyard which is normally very sun exposed and has a good balance between tannins and density.  According to Frank, this was a “backward” vintage, and therefore the alcohol was rather low, even harvesting as late as November 2nd.  Harvest of the Nerello Mascalese grapes are done by hand and the grapes are foot trodden.  The wine was fermented in Amphorae buried in the ground up to the neck (to keep the Amphorae from exploding during fermentation).  Only indigenous yeasts are used of course, and the wine is left to macerate with the skins for between 5 and 6 months.  The wine is bottled directly from the Amphorae without fining nor filtration.  Nothing is added nor taken.  No added SO2.

504 bottles of the Magma 2 Marchesa were produced, approximately 150 came to Norway.  Like I said, I feel fortunate to live in Norway.  Price at time of release, 1000 Norwegian Kroner ($155).

Bottle opened at 22:45:

Appearance: Very light red but within 15 minutes darkening to a darkish purple, black then going back to red again within a few minutes.  This is certainly a “living wine”.

Nose: Crushed rose pedals, dark plums, rose hips. Very farmyard, especially dead sheep (the specific dead sheep comparison came from my two Norwegian friends who were tasting with me). Wild, sour, small cherries.  Hints of dark cocoa.  Hints of Macadamia nuts, eucalyptus.  Much more tight and precise than it was the first time I tasted this wine back in 2006. If you breath in deeply, hints of prune juice without the dried fruit aspect.

Palate: Extremely concentrated but very light and fresh with red fruit dominating.  Within a few seconds, the tannins arrived and held firmly.  None of us could sense the 13.7% alcohol, it was extremely well integrated.  The acidity was medium plus and very ripe and “sweet”, but the wine is bone dry.  Hints of plums that have been picked a week before being over ripe,  the fruit is very ripe.  No dried fruit evident.  Sour fruits.  Every sip seems different and has you going back for another.  The wine will most likely run out before we finish analyzing this bottle.  There is a slight nuttiness on the finish with super-ripe fruit that  lingers and these two aromas add incredible complexity to the wine.  One of the most fantastic and interesting wines I have ever tasted, again.

23:15:

Tannins really stepping up, but not dominating.  More nutty macadamia’s starting to show.

23:30:

This is the hard part of this entry, having to write and report the following:

The wine seems to be “dying”.  The finish seems to fade quickly now. The 3 tasters all agreed that the wine was now dead. Perhaps if we had waited, and if we had any wine left, the wine would have come back alive. I am not sure.  I should also mention that this wine was not stored perfectly.

To conclude, I feel that this wine will throw many old school wine people off.  I believe they will most likely say that the nutty aspects of the wine are signs of oxidation and therefore this wine is not a good wine, and therefore not well-made. This being said, you have to remember that when judging  a wine, you must do so as objectively as possible.  You cannot let your personal opinion of weather or not you like the wine enter into the equation.  There are many well-made wines that I just don’t like, that doesn’t change the fact that the wines are well made.

The facts about the Magma 2 Marchesa are that this wine is well made, has tremendous concentration, complex aromas both on the nose and palate, is extremely well-balanced and the finish seems to never end.  These are
facts that are undeniable and in my opinion reflect an excellent, well-made wine.  Don’t get distracted by the nutty aromas and forget the aforementioned quality attributes.

Translation of back label:

Ingredients:  Only Nerello Mascalese Grapes from the 2002 harvest without the addition of any other ingredient.

Attention:  This wine has not been modified.  It doesn’t contain stabilizers nor preservatives.  There will be a natural deposit because the wine has been bottled without filtration.  It’s important to store the bottle at temperature of less than 16°C  (60.8° F).  It’s recommended to not decant.

Date tasted:  June 2nd, 2009 15:00 (3pm)

In the hills and mountains of Friuli-Venezia Giulia in North Eastern Italy, there are a group of winemakers that wish to make wine like they did centuries ago.  They farm organically and believe very firmly in the principles of natural wine making.  Ancient methods of cultivation are employed and the white wines are treated to extended maceration periods on the skins, producing “orange” wines.   Indigenous yeasts are used without the use of temperature control.  Fermentation takes place naturally and spontaneously.  In some cases, this takes place outdoors in large terracotta Amphorae.

The Vodopivec brothers’  Valter and Paolo’s winery is about 20 minutes north of Trieste, near the Slovenian border.  The brothers own a nursery and are plant and flower experts.  They have been making wine since 1995.  Up until the 2005 vintage, they have always used big Botti, now they are also using Amphorae.

The Vodopivec brothers usually bottle two different wines from the Vitovska grape.  The Vitovska grape is a vine with a greenish-gold berry that has always been cultivated in area of Trieste.  The name of the vine is undoubtedly of Slovenian origin, and was often called Vitovska Garganija.   The top bottling is the Solo, comprised of the top selection of grapes from older vines.  The second bottling is their second selection.

2005 was a challenging vintage with an overabundance of rain, therefore only one (hand) harvest was made. The Solo cuvée was not produced.  After harvesting, approximately 70% of the grapes were then fermented in Botti, the remaining 30% in Amphorae.  The wine was macerated with the skins for around 70 days.  Only indigenous yeast, no filtration, no treatments.  The botti were sprayed with about 10mg/liter of sulfur about 2 weeks before the harvest to “sterilize”.  The Amphorae were not sprayed.

There were two bottlings for the declassified 2005 vintage.  The wine fermented and aged in Amphorae has an orange stripe on the label.  The wine fermented and aged in Botti has a green stripe on the label.  This bottle was the Amphorae version.  Price in Norwegian Kroner is 320 ($50)

Appearance: Apricot, amber color. Clean. Medium plus intensity.

Nose: Spice, Cinnamon. Kumquat, Umami and orange peel.  Very intense and complex nose.  Keeps you going back to the glass to smell and smell again.  Also leaves the impression that this wine could be very fruity or even sweet.

Palate: Medium tannins and extremely focused fruit.  Orange peel and touches of spice.  Medium plus, mature acidity with a smooth, long and elegant finish.  Bone dry.  Really complex with some minerality on the finish.  Best enjoyed at closer to room temperature.  Goes very well with mature goat cheese.  I have also found success pairing this wine with pork belly in an Asian inspired sauce.

Although extremely enjoyable now in it’s youth, the wine’s concentration indicates to me the potential to lay down in the cellar for 5-8 years; perhaps more.

Date tasted:  June 2nd, 3rd & 5th, 2009

Located in the Anjou region of the Loire Valley in France, the Domaine Griottes is a natural wine maker making very interesting wines.

This wine is a Vin de Table, or Table wine,  made with 40% Pineau d’Aunis, 30% Grouillot and 30% Gamay.  The Pineau d’Aunis grape was more widely planted in the Loire in the past but has been largely ripped out to make more room for commercial grapes.  Dating back to medieval times,  this individual variety bears small black grapes.

The grapes for this wine are picked entirely by hand.  The maceration period is between 60-70 days in fiberglass.  No treatments, no sulfur, no filtration nor fining.  Only indigenous yeast – spontaneous fermentation.  This wine was bottled around August of 2007 and is totally without any additives.  It’s totally natural.

First tasting (June 2, 2009 15:00):

Appearance: Light Color. Dark pink rose pedal, light red. See through like a Pinot Noir. In a blind tasting, the Pinot Noir would be the first grape I would think of.

Nose: Incense, white pepper, black tea, musk, cherry and raspberries. With some air, hints of blackberries also emerged.  Very complex for a light & fresh wine with only 11% alcohol. Hints of saddle or baseball mitt and hints of licorice also emerging.

Palate: Light and fresh with medium plus acidity.  Medium fruit tannins with precise, focused fruit shining through. Red plums and plum pits.  Long, fruity finish with persistent well-integrated tannins.  The alcohol is extremely well integrated.

Second tasting (June 3, 2009 23:56):

Appearance: Only slightly darker, but not much color change noticeable.

Nose: Less of the exotic spices, more dark plums and hints of blackberry. Seems a bit more closed tonight then it did yesterday afternoon..With more glass swirling, more of the pepper and licorice emerged again.

Palate: Tannins are firmer than yesterday, but still only at a medium minus to medium level.. Some roasted meat aromas and rosemary. Dark plums.  Acidity still medium to medium plus.   Some hints of pepper, smoke and minerals in the background.

Compared to yesterday, less aromatic and spicy on the nose.  Not as exotic.  A bit more focused and serious.  Good concentration while still remaining light and fresh with a 30 second finish.  The alcohol is a bit more noticeable than yesterday.. Will retaste tomorrow.

Third tasting (June 5, 2009 00:49):

Nose: Again, less exotic and less “spicy”.  More perfumed and floral.  Dark plums and morel cherries.  Hints of red fruit and anise.  A bit nutty.

Palate: Superb concentration with hints of hazelnuts.  A bit darker fruit, plums and some blackberries, with supporting red fruit like raspberries.  Mild plus tannins. Medium acidity.  Quite elegant and long with a smoky aftertaste.  Surprisingly structured and still drinking well.  A bit more serious than yesterday with very well integrated alcohol.  Drinking very well today.

Open for almost 3 days and stored in the cellar at around 16°C, and still beautiful, in fact perhaps better than when I opened.  Who says you need to add sulfur to wine to keep it once opened.  In my opinion, natural wine is alive and with a little air and some days exposed to oxygen, the wine fully comes alive and expresses itself.  In contrast, conventional wines made from grapes with pesticides and then manipulated in the winery, are dead and once opened and exposed to oxygen, only decline…

I will continue to focus on wines made naturally and I will hopefully also eventually have the will power to keep a bottle open for a longer period.  Please stay tuned.

Date tasted:  June 2nd, 2009 15:00(3pm)

Frank Cornelissen owns about 12 ha on Mt. Etna in Sicily. He’s a non-interventionist who says “Consequently this has taken us to avoiding all possible interventions on the land we cultivate, including any treatments, whether chemical, organic, or biodynamic, as these are all a mere reflection of the inability of man to accept nature as she is and will be.”

Frank & Alberto at the top of 'Rampante', the pre-phylloxera vineyard at 1010m altitude located above Solicchiata on Mt Etna after the devasting forest fire of 3 full days & nights.

On a postcard I recently received, he goes on to say  “To produce a bottle of genuine, natural wine, the recipe is simple:  take large quantities of dedication, determination, intuition and coherence.  To these ingredients throw in a strong dose of masochism in order to physically and emotionally survive the difficulties and downsides of this ‘Art of Wine’.  Finally, enjoy a glass (or more) of this wine, before sending the rest around the world to good homes.”

Of all the “natural” wines I have tasted, Frank’s are always the most interesting.  I am not saying that his wines are the most well-made of the natural wines I have tasted, but his are always the most engergetic.  And, definitely the most natural tasting compared to his counterparts.  From the very rustic labeling, to the almost opaque  wines that are very obviously not filtered nor fined.

This “orange” wine is no exception.  Made from the local (white grapes) Grecanico Dorato, Coda di Volpe, Carricante and Cattaratto grapes, this orange wine is barely see through.  This cloudy wine is so packed full of sediment that I swore I could see chunks of grapes floating towards the bottom of the bottle.  Of course this is a “slight” exaggeration, but it sure made me happy knowing that this wine was made from something (grapes) that was growing wild in the vineyards, and nothing else.   His wines are the most natural of the natural wines I have tasted, and this wine was no exception.  His wines have a certain “energy” about them which is hard to put in words, but they make you feel good.

The grapes for this wine come from various vineyards on Mount Etna owned and cared for by Frank.  Frank harvests the approximate 13ha/hl of grapes totally by hand.  The bunches of grapes are put into a destemmer and crushed, not pressed at this time.  This machine is more of a crusher than a destemmer as it hardly removes any of the stems at all.

The must is then placed into plastic containers in his backyard (no temperature control here) which are then covered with a tent-like plastic material to keep the rain out.  Of course only indigenous yeast here.  The wine is left to spontaneously ferment and macerate with the skins for about 4 months giving the wine it’s apricot-hued glow.  The wine is then pressed into Amphorae with the help of gravity and then bottled.  Absolutely nothing else is added to this wine. Nothing.  Not even SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide).  The wine is not fined nor filtered before being bottled and this is evident.  Since Frank bottle’s his wine without filtration, the last wines bottled have more sediment than the first ones.

First tasting 1500 (3pm):

Appearance: A very cloudy, unfiltered appearance.  Loads of sediment which are very visible to the naked eye.  In the glass, the wine has an apricot juice hue with a medium intensity.  It is hard to analyze intensity with an unfiltered wine of this type (wine with high intensity glows can indicate a high level of intensity and vice versa).

Nose: Apricots with hints of minerals and loads of farmyard (those of you familiar with red Burgundy know what I am talking about).  The distinctive (for me) Cornelissen pickle juice.  Dry hay and flowers.

Palate: Wild just like the other Cornelissen wines.  Typical.  A little tingle at the front of the tongue initially from the slight residual CO2, which quickly burns off with a little swirling of the glass.  Medium minus tannins.  High acidity, but not harsh, just mouth watering and mature.  Pickles and smoke.  Kumquats.  Essence of apricots and peaches, but not sweet.    Bone dry with around 2g/liter of residual sugar according to my palate.

Second tasting 1809 (609pm):

Nose: Much more pickles and farmyard.  Less distinct apricots.  The apricot aromas I do get are of unripe apricots.

Palate: Medium minus tannins.  Rosemary, sweet yellow fruit at the back end, apricots.  Finish is long and persistent with mild tannins, great acid and smokey flavors.  The wine sits and sits.

Interesting to note that although the wine was dry, it paired well with sweeter dishes.  It worked well with my honey and lemon marinated chicken.  It was also working surprising well with my Mexican Cactus Fruit.. Strange….

I’m always fascinated with the fact that the few bottles of natural wine that I manage to keep open a few days seem to only improve.

Please check out my video wine tasting of Frank Cornelissen’s Rosso del Contadino! Click below and forgive the quality:

Wine Tasting with Vinosseur – 2007 Frank Cornelissen Rosso del Contadino 5 from vinosseur on Vimeo.

Date tasted:  May 19th, 2009 23:40 (11:40pm)

Dr. Bürklin-Wolf is the largest family owned estate in Germany with just over 110HA of vineyards all located in the heart of the Pfalz.  The vineyards are located in Wachenheim, Forst, Deidesheim and Ruppertsberg including the monopol sites “Wachenheimer Rechbächel” and “Gaisböhl” in Ruppertsberg. They were the first non-French member of the well-known French organization “Syndicat International des Vignerons en Culture Bio-Dynamique” with the label BIODYVIN.  In the beginning of 2005 all 83 hectares of Bürklin-Wolf’s vineyards were converted to bio-dynamic methods. Dr. Bürklin-Wolf has passed with success all necessary controls by the EU control agencies and is certified as a bio-dynamic winery.

Gaisböhl 2007 BA harvest

This wine has a special place in my heart.  On September 12, 2007 a friend and I arrived in the Pfalz where I would remain for the following 10 days to take part in the harvest.  The very next day we had our very first harvesting experience.  We were to (hand) harvest grapes (Riesling) in the Gaisböl vineyard, and those grapes were to be at the Beerenauslese level!  Beerenauslese (BA) directly translated means “selected grapes”, which simply meant that we were hand selecting grapes that were going to be used in this wine.  The grapes in a BA wine are normally effected by Botrytis (the basis for the worlds greatest sweet wines like Sauternes and Tokaji).  The minimum required Oechsle value (of the grapes) in the Pfalz to qualify as a BA is 120 (the Oechsle scale is a hydrometer scale measuring the density of grape must, which is an indication of grape ripeness and sugar content.  The higher the value, the higher sugar content, the higher the potential alcohol).  This wine also had a small percentage of “fresh” grapes; grapes not effected by this “noble rot”. At analysis, the grapes that went into this wine had an Oechsle reading of 145!  This Oechsle reading puts this wine at just a few degrees under the Trockenbeerenauslese level of 150!

It is quite unusual to be picking grapes of this level so early in the harvest season.  Many of the other Bürklin vineyards weren’t even going to be harvested for fresh grapes for another couple of weeks.  I have to say that it was a challenging first day of harvesting!  There are many types of rot and you have to be very selective to assure that the good rot is the one you are harvesting, the rest goes right on the ground!

The Gaisböhl vineyard is solely owned by the Bürklin estate.  This vineyard is considered a “Grand Cru” (according to the Bürklin-Wolf’s own strict vineyard classification system dating back to 1995).  The vineyard covers 5,7ha and was planted in 1977.

As many of you may know, 2007 is heralded as an excellent vintage in Germany.  A vintage which has the potential to age for decades.  This wine was no exception.  It was immediately approachable but had the potential to age, well probably longer than you or I.

Wine analysis/details:

Grape:  100% Riesling

Oechsle measurement before fermentation:  145° Oe

Price:  € 70,00 per 0,375l, double for 0,75l (this  bottle was a 0,375 l)

Production:  about 500 liters

Residual Sugar:  188g/liter

Residual Acidity:  16g/liter!!

Alcohol content:  7%

Appearance: Poured like liquid syrup!  Golden orange with amber hints.

Nose: Orange marmalade, apricot nectar, honey, lemon with mineral undertones.  “cool” chalky smell with hints of eucalyptus.  Lots of apricots!  I could smell this wine all night!

Palate: Pure, apricot syrup with extreme, mature acidity!  The finish has hints of dried apricots and sour fruit.  The wine really coats the mouth and the texture is mind-blowing.  The finish is extremely long, at least a minute or more..

This has got to be one of the finest sweet wines I have ever tasted, because it had extreme focus of both fresh and dried fruits with amazing acidity giving this wine lift and freshness!

For those of you that don’t enjoy sweet wines, this one is worth a try.  The secret with sweet wines is the acidity.  Sweet wines need acidity to balance out the sugar.  When the acidity is in balance,  the wine will seem fresh no matter how sweet it is.  In other words, the higher the residual sugar, the higher the acidity needs to be.  If there is a lack of acidity, which unfortunately is too often the case, the wine will seem cloying and will sting at the back of the throat.  This is why cool climate countries have the advantage in the sweet wine world. The cooler climate produces grapes with higher acidity and typically the sweet wines made from these grapes are fresher.

Suggested music pairing:  Blank & Jones “Butterfisch” from the album Relax Edition 4

Date tasted:  May 19th, 2009

Exciting things are happening in Western Slovenia and North Eastern Italy.  The exciting thing that both countries have in common is the Rebula (Ribolla Gialla) grape which is quickly gaining cult status among us wine nerds.    It produces aromatic wines with high acidity and when a little skin contact is added to the mix, wines of great complexity and length can be produced.  (White) wines with skin contact are gaining popularity in the wine world and being referred to as “orange wines” due the color that extended skin contact gives the wine.

Vinarstvo Simčič is situated in Ceglo (Zegla), a small village in the region of Goriska Brda, by the Slovene-Italian border, by the Italian hills of Collio.  Half of their vineyards lie in Slovenia while the other half lie in Italy.  An hour and half drive will get you both to Venice or the capital of Slovenia, Ljubljana. I have been told that this is one of the top producers in Slovenia, if not the top.  In fact, I was speaking to a respected source who also sampled some of their red wines (blind) and said that they were better than many Bordeaux’s….

They grow 100% of their grapes in their vineyards, which cover 16 ha.   They believe in the most natural methods of viticulture, reducing crop and leaving the grapes on the vine as long as possible.  They also follow ancestral and traditional vinification methods in the cellar, which is located 5 meters underground.

This wine is the Rebula Reserva (Seleklija).  The Rebula vines are 48-51 years old and lie at an altitude of 200-250 meters above sea level.  They have a North-West exposure and the soil is composed of marl, slate and sandstone.  The grapes are hand-harvested (bunches are carefully selected)  at the beginning of October.  The fermentation takes place with the skins in 3000 liter conical oak barrels (tino) using only indigenous yeasts.  The wine is separated from the skins after 6 months of maceration.  The wine is then matured in big oak barrels for 2 years.  The wine was bottled in September of 2008 without fining or filtration.  No added sulfur.  Only 2000 bottles produced.  13.5% Alcohol (14% according to the label).  Total acidity is 4.56 grams per liter.  Price in Norway is 250 Norwegian Kroner ($39)

First tasting:  15:51 (3:51pm):  (from the refrigerator)

Appearance: Apricot orange.  Very clean looking with medium intensity.

Nose: Yellow fruit especially yellow plums.  Fresh apricots.  Hints of acacia honey.  Hints of herbs with underlying minerals

Palate: Ripe fruit, apricots, sultana raisins (semi-dry).  Medium to medium plus acidity.  Medium to medium plus alcohol.  Long finish, light minerality.

Second tasting:  16:31 (4:31pm):  (cellar temperature)

Nose: Tighter, more complex yet more focused.

Palate: Focus on the palate also sharper, alcohol a lot more integrated (interesting since this was now a few degrees warmer).  The wine has become very elegant with very mild tannins starting to emerge.

Third tasting:  21:00 (9:00pm):  (cellar temperature)

Nose & Palate: Amazing focus and elegance with “sweet” fruit emerging.  Lots of apricots.  Mild tannins, ripe acidity and great length.

This wine improved after being open half a day.  I often find that wines that are more natural tend to improve over the course of several hours and even days.  Unfortunately, this wine was so good that it never had a chance to make it to day two or three.  In my opinion this is a serious wine well worth the price tag.