Notes from a comparative tasting of Chateauneufs.

First up was a while with a starter of melon and pork belly:

2004 Dom. des Relagnes CNdoP – nice honeysuckle nose, quite a rich
entry, and soft and smooth with fairly low acidity.

Then with a very creative salade nicoise prepared using hard boiled
quail eggs and sushi grade ahi tuna very lightly seared on the outside
with a caper mayonnaise as well as the usual beans

Les Cailloux CNduP:

1993 – mature fairly light colour, a nose of old leather and fruit,
smooth on palate good acid, almost no tannin left. Elegant and
probably would have been better a couple of years ago. Drink up.

1994 – (I couldn’t find this bottle – until the following day, so had
to open it then to fill out the vertical) Similar in colour to the 93,
smooth and finishing with more acidity, but with food it worked. This
wine has peaked and drinks well now. The nose showed more
differentiation with some black olive tapenade in it!

(we started in on a couple of tarts – a tomato and marjoram tart and a
traditional ****aladiere (onions anchovies and black olives)

1995 – nice fruit in the nose, obviously younger than the earlier
wines. This one has hit plateau now, very pleasurable, not much in the
way of tannins left but will drink well for some years.

1995 Cuvee Centenaire – I thought it would be interesting to see how
this reserve bottling compared to the regular one. It sowed a riper
burnt sugar nose at first but later changed to accent vanilla and less
burnt character and to add a hint of mushroom. A much bigger presence
in the mouth than the regular cuvee and more tannin, it is still
fairly early days for this one and there is no rush.

1998 – spice and leather here, with a bit of tar and pepper. Medium
body, now drinking well. Very nice.

2000 – stinky sweetish nose with white pepper, quite dry in the mouth
with good length. Drinks well now.

We then shifted to a cassoulet with 3 vintages of Pegau Cuvee
Reservee.

1999 – lots of white pepper, blood and plums in this nose and it got
brettier with time (it is often the other way around).Slightly hot in
the mouth, it drinks well now. Heavier handed than the Cailloux.

2001 – hot ripe nose, and heat followed through in the mouth. Bricking
at the edge – looking older than the 99. I found it too ripe and hot
for my taste.

2004 – early days for this one, but nice to get to taste it early on.
Leathery beefy blood and lavender nose, with some saddle leather, lots
of tannin and in need of a few more years before the next tasting.

Very interesting notes, Bill. A few questions:

How did the Pegau go with the cassoulet? I've not tried that pairing,
but a younger CdP might go well. How did you feel about it?

I'm surprised by the heat and ripeness of the '01 Pegau. I've found it
(early on) to be a more structured and restrained wine than the '00 or
'98 (the '99 was pretty comparable). Could your bottle have been heat
damaged? The fact that it looks older than the '99 raises my suspicions.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

The 2001 didn't come across as a baked wine, it was just the style.

But remember, we had just tasted a bunch of Cailloux, a wine with a
very different style and one I generally prefer. Pegau appeals to
Parker and the other reviewers, who seem not to value balance and
structure as highly as sweet forward fruit and power.

Bill S. wrote:
> The 2001 didn't come across as a baked wine, it was just the style.
>
> But remember, we had just tasted a bunch of Cailloux, a wine with a
> very different style and one I generally prefer. Pegau appeals to
> Parker and the other reviewers, who seem not to value balance and
> structure as highly as sweet forward fruit and power.

I agree that they have different styles, Bill, but in my book they are
principally distinguished as coming from a more modernist (Les Cailloux)
and traditionalist (Pegau) perspective. IIRC, Les Cailloux (even the
cuvée normale) sees some amount of new oak, and to me it shows in the
wine, which I find fairly sleek and polished for CdP. This is in no way
intended as a criticism, though, as I think that the Brunels are
excellent winemakers (and so too -- I assume -- do the folks at Pegau,
since André Brunel and Laurence Feraud formed a joint venture). Pegau
is indeed a powerful wine, but also (to my taste) sauvage. I don't get
from them the "sweet forward fruit" that I associate with so many wines
of the New World and, increasingly, Bordeaux. From several visits to
their cellars, I can assure you that they employ old oak foudres and no
sign of RO, micrbullage or other accouterments of the modern era. (In
fact, they still put the capsules on the bottles by hand there)

Wading through the plethora of notes on this wine in cellartracker (none
by anyone I recognize, though) it seems that most feel it to be
partially shut down and/or give it extensive (3-4 hours) of airing prior
to consumption. I still wonder if your bottle wasn't off in some way,
but I'll sit on mine (and the Les Cailloux for comparison) a bit longer
before checking myself.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

Tonight, the 1995 Clos des Papes.

And I must find that 1990 Pegau Cuvee Lawrence I know is in the cellar
somewhere......