I realized tonight I still have a couple bottles of 1992 remaining in my
cellar.

Last time I had it was really nice about 3 years ago. I had bought cheap on
futures.

All I can say is an off year of Bordeaux can often beat a great year
anywhere else. This wine is an example of that.

I noticed that Haut Brion says drink now. Robert Parker says Drink Now, but
will also hold for several years. Who do you beleive.

I plan to drink the remaining dinner with Rack of Lamb seared stove top,
that is coated in Coarse Grain Mustard and crusted Pistachio and finished in
oven to Med Rare.

It goes so great that way.

>I realized tonight I still have a couple bottles of 1992 remaining in my
>cellar.
>
>Last time I had it was really nice about 3 years ago. I had bought cheap on
>futures.
>
>All I can say is an off year of Bordeaux can often beat a great year
>anywhere else. This wine is an example of that.
>
>I noticed that Haut Brion says drink now. Robert Parker says Drink Now, but
>will also hold for several years. Who do you beleive.

I agree.

1992 has been a very useful vintage for early consumption and the pricing was
good allowing people to see the first growths at a good deal.

The wines were dilute, but not flawed so I have been amazed how people have
avoided the vintage.

Mouton and Petrus are my favorites, and Montrose and Cos were quite good too. I
am long out of these, but the best have time in hand I think.

To be safe, I would suggest drinking the top wines in the next 3-5 years, but I
do not see the need for a rush yet in terms of the Big Eight.

Tom.

Do you consider the Haut Brion one of the top 8.

I do.


"Elpaninaro" > wrote in message
...
> >I realized tonight I still have a couple bottles of 1992 remaining in my
> >cellar.
> >
> >Last time I had it was really nice about 3 years ago. I had bought cheap
on
> >futures.
> >
> >All I can say is an off year of Bordeaux can often beat a great year
> >anywhere else. This wine is an example of that.
> >
> >I noticed that Haut Brion says drink now. Robert Parker says Drink Now,
but
> >will also hold for several years. Who do you beleive.
>
> I agree.
>
> 1992 has been a very useful vintage for early consumption and the pricing
was
> good allowing people to see the first growths at a good deal.
>
> The wines were dilute, but not flawed so I have been amazed how people
have
> avoided the vintage.
>
> Mouton and Petrus are my favorites, and Montrose and Cos were quite good
too. I
> am long out of these, but the best have time in hand I think.
>
> To be safe, I would suggest drinking the top wines in the next 3-5 years,
but I
> do not see the need for a rush yet in terms of the Big Eight.
>
> Tom.

In article et>, "dick"
> writes:

>Do you consider the Haut Brion one of the top 8.

I think when Tom said Big Eight he meant the 1st growths (Lafite, Margaux,
Mouton, Haut-Brion, Latour) as well as Cheval Blanc, Petrus, and Ausone.
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

Thanks. I like Chateau Lafleur...personally I thing we should add them and
then call it the Big 9.

Don't know why but Lafleur is not as popular as Petrus but in my
opinion...just as good and cheaper.


"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>, "dick"
> > writes:
>
> >Do you consider the Haut Brion one of the top 8.
>
> I think when Tom said Big Eight he meant the 1st growths (Lafite, Margaux,
> Mouton, Haut-Brion, Latour) as well as Cheval Blanc, Petrus, and Ausone.
> Dale
>
> Dale Williams
> Drop "damnspam" to reply

In article et>, "dick"
> writes:

>Thanks. I like Chateau Lafleur...personally I thing we should add them and
>then call it the Big 9.

And of course Le Pin gets the big bucks, and some love Pavie, and LLC is often
as good as the 1st growths, and.......
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

>I think when Tom said Big Eight he meant the 1st growths (Lafite, Margaux,
>Mouton, Haut-Brion, Latour) as well as Cheval Blanc, Petrus, and Ausone.

Scratch Ausone as far as I'm concerned.

To be considered top flight (regardless of classification) a wine needs to have
a consistent track record. Ausone does not.

In article >,
(Bill Spohn) writes:

>
>Scratch Ausone as far as I'm concerned.
>
>To be considered top flight (regardless of classification) a wine needs to
>have
>a consistent track record. Ausone does not.

Hi Bill,

I haven't had enough Ausone to make a judgement, but wasn't ranking wines,
just explaining the term- the five First Growths, the 2 St Emilion 1er Grande
Cru Classe "A"s, and Petrus. Certainly from a price standpoint Le Pin and
Lafleur are up there, but size of property, etc. have left the term Big 8 to
mean those, I think.

Of course, if anyone is passing thru NY area and wants to bring me some Ausone
to try, I'd be prepared to sacrifice my palate to see if I agree with Bill. :`)


Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

In article >,
Dale Williams > wrote:
>
>I haven't had enough Ausone to make a judgement, but wasn't ranking wines,
>just explaining the term- the five First Growths, the 2 St Emilion 1er Grande
>Cru Classe "A"s, and Petrus. Certainly from a price standpoint Le Pin and
>Lafleur are up there, but size of property, etc. have left the term Big 8 to
>mean those, I think.
>
>Of course, if anyone is passing thru NY area and wants to bring me some Ausone
>to try, I'd be prepared to sacrifice my palate to see if I agree with Bill. :`)


Wouldn't Y'Quem have to be one of the Eight? I am not sure that Ausone
belongs and Cheval Blanc does not. I would guess the Eight to be:


Haut Brion
Margaux
Lafite
Latour
Mouton

Y'Quem

Ausone
Cheval Blanc


Dimitri

>Thanks. I like Chateau Lafleur...personally I thing we should add them and
>then call it the Big 9.
>
>Don't know why but Lafleur is not as popular as Petrus but in my
>opinion...just as good and cheaper.

Agreed!

I am a Lafleur whore when I get the chance. Moieux himself (owner of both
estates) has claimed Lafleur has the better terroir of the two wines, and I
agree.

Petrus is a great wine and I enjoy the occasional bottle, but I do not seek it
out at that price. It is just not personally moving enough to justify the $$.

But Lafleur- all I can get my hands on!

As for the Big Eight comment, I was referring to the classic definition of that
term which Dale got right- the firsts plus Ausone, Cheval and Petrus.

I am not too big a fan of either Ausone or Cheval however. Add in Pavie to the
list. The St. Emilion wines are just not my thing in general I guess.

Think that covers everything

Personally, as time goes by I am pretty much devoted to white burgundy and a
few German wines. That is where my real love is- though a glass of Margaux or
Lafite is nice to have at times

Tom.

I've never had Ausone.

Sorry...

dick

"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Bill Spohn) writes:
>
> >
> >Scratch Ausone as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> >To be considered top flight (regardless of classification) a wine needs
to
> >have
> >a consistent track record. Ausone does not.
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I haven't had enough Ausone to make a judgement, but wasn't ranking wines,
> just explaining the term- the five First Growths, the 2 St Emilion 1er
Grande
> Cru Classe "A"s, and Petrus. Certainly from a price standpoint Le Pin and
> Lafleur are up there, but size of property, etc. have left the term Big 8
to
> mean those, I think.
>
> Of course, if anyone is passing thru NY area and wants to bring me some
Ausone
> to try, I'd be prepared to sacrifice my palate to see if I agree with
Bill. :`)
>
>
> Dale
>
> Dale Williams
> Drop "damnspam" to reply

In article >, (D.
Gerasimatos) writes:

>
>Wouldn't Y'Quem have to be one of the Eight? I am not sure that Ausone
>belongs and Cheval Blanc does not. I would guess the Eight to be:

I think the term has been applied only to reds. Actually, I listed Cheval Blanc
originally didn't I? If I didn't I should have. Anyway, it is the other St.Em.
1er Grand Cru Classe "A".

In any case, I'm pretty sure that when the term "Big 8" is used re Bordeaux
that's the list. Doesn't mean that there aren't other wines that are better.
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

In article >,
Dale Williams > wrote:
>In article >, (D.
>Gerasimatos) writes:
>
>>
>>Wouldn't Y'Quem have to be one of the Eight? I am not sure that Ausone
>>belongs and Cheval Blanc does not. I would guess the Eight to be:
>
>I think the term has been applied only to reds. Actually, I listed Cheval Blanc
>originally didn't I? If I didn't I should have. Anyway, it is the other St.Em.
>1er Grand Cru Classe "A".


You are right. I missed your mention of it.


>In any case, I'm pretty sure that when the term "Big 8" is used re Bordeaux
>that's the list. Doesn't mean that there aren't other wines that are better.


I am not sure why Petrus should belong. They make acclaimed wine, but they
are not classified as such. That is why I would add Y'Quem, since its
classification is even higher than that of the First Growths.


Anyway, the original poster has clarified and his definition agrees with
yours.


Dimitri

Elpaninaro wrote:

> Personally, as time goes by I am pretty much devoted to white burgundy and a
> few German wines. That is where my real love is- though a glass of Margaux or
> Lafite is nice to have at times

Tom,
Does this mean that (shock, horror!) you've given up on Red Burgundy? I
certainly hope not, as I've learned a lot from your observations about the
producers over the past few years in afw.

Mark Lipton

Salut/Hi Mark Lipton,

le/on Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:55:21 -0500, tu disais/you said:-

>> Personally, as time goes by I am pretty much devoted to white burgundy and a
>> few German wines. That is where my real love is- though a glass of Margaux or
>> Lafite is nice to have at times

> Does this mean that (shock, horror!) you've given up on Red Burgundy? I
>certainly hope not, as I've learned a lot from your observations about the
>producers over the past few years in afw.

Exactly the same thoughts passed through my mind!!

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.

>Elpaninaro wrote:
>
>> Personally, as time goes by I am pretty much devoted to white burgundy and
>a
>> few German wines. That is where my real love is- though a glass of Margaux
>or
>> Lafite is nice to have at times
>
>Tom,
> Does this mean that (shock, horror!) you've given up on Red Burgundy? I
>certainly hope not, as I've learned a lot from your observations about the
>producers over the past few years in afw.
>

Hi Mark and Ian,

No worries! I still drink some of the red stuff too lol.

Just not a whole lot with current pricing.

Recent notes include high marks for 2000 Drouhin Musigny and the 2000 Engel
range. 2000 Dujac Clos de la Roche is stunning as usual. 2000 DRC a mixed bag.
I liked the Echezeaux, but felt La Tache- while good- was not worth the cost of
having a case- so I sold half of it.

And pricing is just getting insane for too many wines. Mortet is getting up
there now. Great wines, but I will NOT pay $75-80 for AOC wines regardless of
who makes them. So now Mortet joins Niellon and a few others on my "no way I am
buying these" list.

But there is plenty to be excited about in white burgundy. I have been tasting
through the 2001 Ramonet whites and they are absolutely incredible. The
Chevalier Montrachet is one of the finest Ramonet wines I have ever had.
Puligny Champ Canet and Chassagne Caillerets are stunning. More TNs coming over
time. I intend to taste them all this year including Montrachet. A vintage this
good I do not want to miss at any stage of the game.

If you want my big score of the year suggestion- it is 2001 Ramonet whites. And
if you open one, give it time to air. The premier crus need a couple of hours.
The Chevalier hit its stride after several hours of airing and an overnight
rest in the fridge for the rest of the bottle.

Germany, of course, has been on a roll too. I am about this weekend to begin a
1-2 month plan to slowly try through the 2000 and 2001 Muller Catoir wines.

And Hune is having one heck of a streak too!

So with all that action, been kind of hard to justify spending the higher
prices on reds. But we shall see what 2001 brings. I am going to test some
things soon and see what I think. I usually post TNs on Squires these days, but
will do my best to remember to bring them over here too if there is still
interest.

Tom.

(Elpaninaro) wrote:

> I usually post TNs on Squires these days, but will do my best to
> remember to bring them over here too if there is still interest.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'd bet my very last dime that you can take this as granted, Tom!

M.

In article >,
Elpaninaro > wrote:
>
>But there is plenty to be excited about in white burgundy. I have been tasting
>through the 2001 Ramonet whites and they are absolutely incredible. The
>Chevalier Montrachet is one of the finest Ramonet wines I have ever had.
>Puligny Champ Canet and Chassagne Caillerets are stunning. More TNs coming over
>time. I intend to taste them all this year including Montrachet. A vintage this
>good I do not want to miss at any stage of the game.


I bought some 2001 Ensigneres at a great price. In fact, I have not seen
Ramonet so cheap in a long time. I did not even taste it yet. What should
I expect and how long to hold before drinking? I thought 2001 was cheap
because the vintage was lesser quality. (Robert Parker gave it an 86). Is that
a bad assumption?


>If you want my big score of the year suggestion- it is 2001 Ramonet whites. And
>if you open one, give it time to air. The premier crus need a couple of hours.
>The Chevalier hit its stride after several hours of airing and an overnight
>rest in the fridge for the rest of the bottle.


I love Ramonet, but it is rarely cheap. It always needs air, too. There is
so much sulphur when opened. It is hard to believe all the fruit that
suddenly comes out of nowhere after time exposed to air.


Dimitri

>I bought some 2001 Ensigneres at a great price. In fact, I have not seen
>Ramonet so cheap in a long time. I did not even taste it yet. What should
>I expect and how long to hold before drinking? I thought 2001 was cheap
>because the vintage was lesser quality. (Robert Parker gave it an 86). Is
>that
>a bad assumption?

Hi Dimitri,

Actually this is a function of market more than anything I think. Ramonet has
not raised his prices since 1990- but many retailers and wholesalers decided to
gouge customers during the good times.

Up until the 2001 vintage, I had never paid more than $225 per bottle for the
Montrachet and for 2001 it was $275- in line with the currency effect happening
with many wines. I paid $202.50 for the 1995 Montrachet- same as I paid for the
1994.

As for the WA opinion, Rovani and I have had some Squires BB discussions about
Ramonet and we have a key disagreement on whether the acidification practices
changed in the mid 1990s leading to lesser quality.

I will not disparage his views here since he is a learned critic and he is not
a reader here, but I will just say we disagree.

While Ramonet still has a huge fan base, WA opinion has- I think- chased a lot
of the rich point buyers off of Ramonet and on to things I am happy to let them
have instead The loss of this small, but wealthy, crowd has an enormous
impact on demand and pricing- to the benefit of those of us who truly
appreciate the wines.

In fact, demand has been so low relative to the recent past that my 2001
allocation has tripled from what I got in 1995! So no complaints here.

As for the 2001 vintage in general, it is not a top year but my experience so
far agrees with Burghound that there were a few estates that did have a truly
monumental performance. 2001 Ramonets, if they age as I expect, will represent
one of the great vintages for this estate.

>
>
>>If you want my big score of the year suggestion- it is 2001 Ramonet whites.
>And
>>if you open one, give it time to air. The premier crus need a couple of
>hours.
>>The Chevalier hit its stride after several hours of airing and an overnight
>>rest in the fridge for the rest of the bottle.
>
>
>I love Ramonet, but it is rarely cheap. It always needs air, too. There is
>so much sulphur when opened. It is hard to believe all the fruit that
>suddenly comes out of nowhere after time exposed to air.
>
>
>Dimitri

True- Ramonet never comes cheap. But relative to Niellon, Leflaive, d'Auvenay
and the other truly top estates of proven record it remains the best value I
think. So while $60-300 a bottle is not exactly cheap, relative to the
population the pricing is very good.

And over time I think this wine ages the best too. I have had many a bottle of
great vintage Niellon that was past best- Niellon himself advocates drinking
the wines young. But Ramonet wines consistently reward cellaring and, while
great in youth, are just unbelievable when mature. You have to taste one to see
just how much they change since tasting them young makes you think it cannot
get any better.

And current auction value of older vintages is proof of that I think. In 1997 I
paid $400 per bottle for the 1982 and 1986 at auction. These days, they go for
closer to $1,000. Right now Christie's is about to auction off a bottle each of
the 1992 Batard and Bienvenue and the low estimate is $700!

So more than in the past it is wise to grab these on release since it is no
longer possible to get mature bottles at a reasonable price.

Tom.

PS- What is your favorite Dimitri? I have to confess the Bienvenue Batard is my
favored Ramonet wine. I would take that over any of the others any day!

In article >,
Elpaninaro > wrote:
>
[snip!]
>
>As for the WA opinion, Rovani and I have had some Squires BB discussions about
>Ramonet and we have a key disagreement on whether the acidification practices
>changed in the mid 1990s leading to lesser quality.
>
>I will not disparage his views here since he is a learned critic and he is not
>a reader here, but I will just say we disagree.


Thanks for your lengthy response. Please summarize the key points of
disagreement if you will.


>PS- What is your favorite Dimitri? I have to confess the Bienvenue Batard is my
>favored Ramonet wine. I would take that over any of the others any day!


I am not privy to have tasted as many as you have, but I love all of the
premier crus, especially Les Caillerets and Les Ruchottes. Of the
grand cru, I have only had the Batard Montrachet, which was good but
probably not worth the price. I have read that the Bienvenue is probably
their best wine and definitely the best Bienvenue.


I have not had any of the reds, but would like to try some. I never see
them, nor the village wine. I would buy them if I found them. I rarely
see any Ramonet at all, in fact.


Dimitri

>>As for the WA opinion, Rovani and I have had some Squires BB discussions
>about
>>Ramonet and we have a key disagreement on whether the acidification
>practices
>>changed in the mid 1990s leading to lesser quality.
>>
>>I will not disparage his views here since he is a learned critic and he is
>not
>>a reader here, but I will just say we disagree.
>
>
>Thanks for your lengthy response. Please summarize the key points of
>disagreement if you will.

Hi Dimitri,

I think the main issue is that Rovani expresses concern with current
acidification practices and feels they are not rendering wines that will have
the greatness of older vintages. I believe, based on experience and discussion
with some who know the Ramonets quite well that nothing has changed from the
past in this regard.

But Rovani is no idiot and has been to Ramonet many times, so while we agree to
disagree I am not prepared based on my limited first hand knowledge to dismiss
his views as unfounded or without some reasoned basis.

I also generally disagree with the styles of wines he prefers. I do not care
for many of the estates he rates highly, and vice versa. But again keep in mind
my tastes are hardly mainstream. I do not like burgundies with what I consider
an excess of fruit and wood relative to the balance. Burgundy is not great for
its fruit power, but for its finesse and perfume. That is my view anyway.

>I am not privy to have tasted as many as you have, but I love all of the
>premier crus, especially Les Caillerets and Les Ruchottes. Of the
>grand cru, I have only had the Batard Montrachet, which was good but
>probably not worth the price. I have read that the Bienvenue is probably
>their best wine and definitely the best Bienvenue.

Where did you read this? I would be curious to know. It certainly would reflect
a view shared by many of my fellow Ramonet fans. My love of this one is also
one of style. I tend to prefer a Bienvenue or a Criots to something more
massive like a Corton Charlemagne or even Montrachet. There are very few
Montrachets in fact that I like given the opportunity cost of owning them. But
Ramonet Bienvenue just sings. It is unreal how good this is and I cannot WAIT
to try the 2001- I am saving that for a special lunch the first week of
November.

As for Batard- I have never cared for the Ramonet bottling, or most others for
that matter. But to be fair I think a lot of this has to do with the sheer mass
of the wine. Ramonet Batard is, in my experience, the least giving of the
Ramonet wines in youth. It never shows well young and I am at the point where I
am waiting for what I have to mature so I can rethink my position. As with the
Montrachet I think this one just might need time to show its stuff- whereas
Chevalier and Bienvenue are quite generous in their tender years. I am fairly
new to the Chevalier since it just joined the Ramonet line-up, but I think this
one is surprisingly forward. Burghound has made this comment as well in his
notes for the 2000 bottling- which I have not tasted, nor own.

>I have not had any of the reds, but would like to try some. I never see
>them, nor the village wine. I would buy them if I found them. I rarely
>see any Ramonet at all, in fact.

No TNs for the reds here either. Winebid.com has some right now at VERY low
prices- along the lines of $15-20 each. So those might be worth a look if you
are interested.

The village wine is good, but I really like the Bourgogne Aligote. See if you
can find this one. It is made from the Aligote grape (white wine) and quite
tasty. Runs about $20-25 these days.

Tom.

PS- As for you rarely seeing the wines, I think that is just the nature of
burgundy. Some people have the idea I have all this access to burgundy and huge
sums of money to throw at the stuff. Not true actually. I just have the luck of
a good merchant who charges fair markup and gives me incredible access to about
5 estates, and I keep a savings account all year for the annual purchase about
this time of year. I never see Lafon or Leflaive around here for example. And I
have never had a good shot at Vogue (which does come here and is reserved for
others) or Dugat-Py. So I have just resolved to dig deep into the ones I can
get at true release price and I avoid chasing the others on the secondary
market. As much as I love Ramonet, there is every chance I would be raving
about some other Domaine if Ramonet was not something I could get my hands on


But I think that is the secret to burgundy. Find what you really like out of
the ones in your market, and go with it. I do not imagine I will ever be
someone who can afford to have a little bit of all of the top wines- not to
mention how hard it would be to find them all!

In article >,
Elpaninaro > wrote:
>
>I think the main issue is that Rovani expresses concern with current
>acidification practices and feels they are not rendering wines that will have
>the greatness of older vintages. I believe, based on experience and discussion
>with some who know the Ramonets quite well that nothing has changed from the
>past in this regard.


Well, I did read that they have been adding acid to their wines. They used
to do it only when it needed it, but after seeing the results decided to
always do it. It's not exactly a natural approach to winemaking.


>Where did you read this? I would be curious to know. It certainly would reflect
>a view shared by many of my fellow Ramonet fans. My love of this one is also
>one of style. I tend to prefer a Bienvenue or a Criots to something more
>massive like a Corton Charlemagne or even Montrachet. There are very few
>Montrachets in fact that I like given the opportunity cost of owning them. But
>Ramonet Bienvenue just sings. It is unreal how good this is and I cannot WAIT
>to try the 2001- I am saving that for a special lunch the first week of
>November.


The Montrachet is aged on 100% new oak versus something like 33% new oak
for the other bottlings. I read this information on the Internet,
cellarnotes.net. That's not the only place, though. On your advice I now
own a 1998 Bienvenue-Batard which I bought because I found it fairly
cheap. Even though 1998 was not the best year, Parker says it was better
than the 1996 and 1997 (ostensibly better years in Burgundy). Have you had
it? When will it be ready to drink?


>>I have not had any of the reds, but would like to try some. I never see
>>them, nor the village wine. I would buy them if I found them. I rarely
>>see any Ramonet at all, in fact.
>
>No TNs for the reds here either. Winebid.com has some right now at VERY low
>prices- along the lines of $15-20 each. So those might be worth a look if you
>are interested.


I looked and I bought 6 bottles for $20 each. Supposedly they are not that
good compared to the best Burgundy has to offer, but for $20 they don't
have to be. Thanks for pointing that out to me! I am anxious to try them.
For $20 (even with shipping) they might make great everyday wines! If not,
then I learned something interesting. I have had red Chassagne before and
I think it usually represents good value, although it is a bit thin.


Dimitri

>On your advice I now
>own a 1998 Bienvenue-Batard which I bought because I found it fairly
>cheap. Even though 1998 was not the best year, Parker says it was better
>than the 1996 and 1997 (ostensibly better years in Burgundy). Have you had
>it? When will it be ready to drink?

Hi Dimitri,

Well, I think WA really missed the boat on 1996 Ramonet. That was one of the
greatest Bienvenues they ever made. The other wines were similarly stellar.

The 1998s I have had are fairly forward and well structured. No Ramonet TNs
however- I missed the 1997 and 1998 vintages during my wine collecting hiatus.

This forwardness is where I get concerned with WA reviews. Many 1997 red burgs
got higher marks than 1998s and even 1999s. The wines are not as good, but
certainly far more obvious in youth. I am of the impression that forward
vintages are getting a bit better overall press than they deserve and that more
structured backward vintages like 1998 are dismissed generally.

Bienvenue Batard is the most forward of the Ramonet grand crus, but I have been
told by those who know older vintages well that the wine has the staying power
of the Batard over time. Given what little I have experienced with 1998 whites,
I would suggest drinking your Ramonet Bienvenue between 2005 and 2008. It may
go longer, but if you only have the one bottle it is not worth the risk to keep
it too long- especially since it is surely already at a point where it is going
to show well.

Good show on the Chassagne reds! Looking forward to your TNs for those. I have
had all of the Ramonet whites many times, but the reds have never come my way.

Take care,

Tom.