Notes from a wine dinner I did last weekend. Probably surprised my
guests a bit. I have a reputation for serving up great bloody slabs
of protein and neglecting vegetables except as almost garnishes. This
time, I did an almost completely vegetarian dinner with only one small
bit of protein, just to confuse them.

1995 Drappier Champagne Cuvee du Millenaire ‘2000’ - made for the
millennium celebrations (nicely avoiding the ‘real millennium, false
millennium’ issues as it could be used on either Dec. 31 1999 or
2000). Nice citrus and yeast in the nose, crisp and with a surprising
amount of flavour in mid palate.

Served with a chived Parmesan tuile.

1999 Ch. De Beaucastel Vielles Vignes Roussanne - I wanted a white
wine with some power behind it, and this one, the best white in the
Southern Rhone (IMO) fit the bill nicely. Made in very small amounts
(4-500 cases a year) with miniscule yields (often around 1 ton/acre),
it has never failed to imprss me. On this one I noted a fairly deep
amber colour, a sweet warm apricot nose that with air became peach
rather than apricot, weighty feel with a big body for a white, and
good balance.

Served with a thick autumn squash and leek soup on top of which I
floated pieces of seared foie gras.

Next up were an interesting Italian pairing.

2000 Poliziano Le Stanze – this IGT is a Bordeaux blend of cab and
merlot, and the nose showed some blood/meat and a faint hint of
nutmeg. Still fairly tannic, it was nevertheless very enjoyable, full
in the mouth with some vanilla flavour, through a medium long finish.

1988 Lungarotti San Giorgio – this mature cabernet was showing a more
‘cabish’ nose, mature and mellow, and it was also quite mellow on
palate, supple and smooth, though not without a bit of remaining
tannin, and excellent acidity.

For that pair I made mushroom agnolotti with a truffled cream, bacon,
and bail sauce.

1982 Ch. Palmer – good colour, deep nose of dark fruit and a hint of
anise, clean integrated presence on palate and a balanced lengthy
finish. Classic clatter.

1983 Ch. Palmer – there aren’t a lot of house where the 83 was better
than the 82, especially now that the 83s seem to have peaked, for the
most part, before the 92s, but Palmer is a classic example of a good
82 followed by a great 83. It had a big assertive, slightly animal
nose with tons of fruit, cassis, some cedar, in the mouth a fair bit
of extract, excellent weight and a really excellent long finish,
tapering off very slowly. We allowed as how this was the best
Bordeaux any of us had tasted in a long time. Wish I had a case of
it!

I served this with an autumn mushroom ragout topped with a braised
quail and Pommes Anna, a strata of potatoes baked with heavy cream.

1970 Burmester Port – I probably bought this wine back in the late
1970s and it was my last bottle, chosen not because it was a top Port,
which it isn’t, but for it’s maturity. Hot nose, sweet and pleasant in
the mouth, with medium length, amply repaying the quarter century or
more of storage in my cellar.

Hi Bill, thanks as always for the notes.

On 11/16/2009 04:12 PM, Bill S. wrote:
> (4-500 cases a year) with miniscule yields (often around 1 ton/acre),

Do you know what this translates to in hl/ha?

I have many fond memories of the 82 Palmer, but one in particular
involves a lost weekend in the Catskills that featured a mag of this
juice with dinner and endless other libations; I remember staggering
through the dark for a 2 am dip in the freezing river. The next (rather
headachey) day we went back for trout, and were amazed to have survived
the experience. I revisited the place this past summer, with the same
hosts, and am still amazed! The joys of fearless youth.

Anyway that 82 was a real classic.

-E

On Nov 19, 11:28*am, Emery Davis > wrote:
> Hi Bill, thanks as always for the notes.
>
> On 11/16/2009 04:12 PM, Bill S. wrote:
>
> > (4-500 cases a year) with miniscule yields (often around 1 ton/acre),
>
> Do you know what this translates to in hl/ha?

I think that is around 15 hc/hl, Emery.

"Bill S." > skrev i melding
...
On Nov 19, 11:28 am, Emery Davis > wrote:
> Hi Bill, thanks as always for the notes.
>
> On 11/16/2009 04:12 PM, Bill S. wrote:
>
> > (4-500 cases a year) with miniscule yields (often around 1 ton/acre),
>
> Do you know what this translates to in hl/ha?

>I think that is around 15 hc/hl, Emery.

hc?
Anders

Mike Tommasi wrote:

>>>> (4-500 cases a year) with miniscule yields (often around 1 ton/acre),
>>> Do you know what this translates to in hl/ha?

>
> Off top of head, 1t/acre = 2.5t/ha, counting about 6hl/t that would be
> 15 hl/ha.

The problem is that ton is unit of weight, not volume, so a straight
conversion isn't possible. Taking into consideration that 1 acre = 0.4
ha and that 1 hl = 26.4 gal, with a further assumption that the ton is a
ton of wine (with a density of 1 oz/fl oz) gives a conversion of 1
ton/acre = 3.8 hl/ha.

Of course, if the ton refers to the weight of the grapes, then a further
conversion factor must be applied.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net

On Nov 20, 12:52�pm, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> Anders T�rneskog wrote:
> > "Bill S." > skrev i melding
> ....
> > On Nov 19, 11:28 am, Emery Davis > wrote:
> >> Hi Bill, thanks as always for the notes.
>
> >> On 11/16/2009 04:12 PM, Bill S. wrote:
>
> >>> (4-500 cases a year) with miniscule yields (often around 1 ton/acre),
> >> Do you know what this translates to in hl/ha?
>
> >> I think that is around 15 hc/hl, Emery.
>
> > hc?
>
> Off top of head, 1t/acre = 2.5t/ha, counting about 6hl/t that would be
> 15 hl/ha.
>
> --
> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
> email linkhttp://www.tommasi.org/mymail

15 hl/ha is miniscule. The wines that I posted on from J. Voillot are
from yields around 30hl/ha and I thought they were small.

Bi!! wrote:
> On Nov 20, 12:52�pm, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
>> Anders T�rneskog wrote:
>>> "Bill S." > skrev i melding
>>> ...
>>> On Nov 19, 11:28 am, Emery Davis > wrote:
>>>> Hi Bill, thanks as always for the notes.
>>>> On 11/16/2009 04:12 PM, Bill S. wrote:
>>>>> (4-500 cases a year) with miniscule yields (often around 1 ton/acre),
>>>> Do you know what this translates to in hl/ha?
>>>> I think that is around 15 hc/hl, Emery.
>>> hc?
>> Off top of head, 1t/acre = 2.5t/ha, counting about 6hl/t that would be
>> 15 hl/ha.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Tommasi - Six Fours, France
>> email linkhttp://www.tommasi.org/mymail
>
> 15 hl/ha is miniscule. The wines that I posted on from J. Voillot are
> from yields around 30hl/ha and I thought they were small.

Thanks Bill (and others).

I realize the conversion isn't direct, I actually thought that since the
hl figure is that usually used in France they might have said.

Actually 15 hl/ha is not unheard of in the southern Rhone, e.g. off the
top of my head, Clos des Cazaux routinely harvest at < 20, real fanatics
like the folks at Faucon Dore at < 10! I think you'd find many who are
< 20 for old grenache and syrah.

I mention cepages because the numbers aren't really comparable across
different varieties: I think you can harvest Cabernet Sauvignon with
very good concentration at 60 hl/ha, but perhaps this is more difficult
with Grenache.

-E

-E