Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Wine (alt.food.wine) Devoted to the discussion of wine and wine-related topics. A place to read and comment about wines, wine and food matching, storage systems, wine paraphernalia, etc. In general, any topic related to wine is valid fodder for the group. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
TN Corton-Charlemagne 1992, L. Latour
Latour's 92 Corton-Charlemagne now is light yellow. It has an intense
bouquet for a white Burgundy, but it is a bit more fruity and less mineral in character than I find in the best examples of this wine from Latour. It has now smoothed, and has a medium finish. The main problem is that it is a bit heavy and not as refined in style as are the best examples. I think it should be drunk fairly soon. It is above average, but not up to Latour's best. For example, I still have some of Latour's 1976. It is a considerably better wine in nearly every way, is better balanced, and has a complex mineral character as well as good fruit and acidity. The 1976 evolved slower than the 1992, and probably will be in a better shape in a few years than the 1992. When everything is right, Corton-Charlemagne can be a very long lived white Burgundy and sometimes can last longer than some good examples of red Burgundy. |
|
|||
|
|||
TN Corton-Charlemagne 1992, L. Latour
Dear All
The 1976 vintage was an exceptional vintage with a long hot summer producing high alcohol strong concentrated wine that was only balanced out by the wine makers adding acidity. This is why it ages so well. I have drunk some Chablis Premier Cru Montée de Tonnerre 1976 which is superb. Your comment at the end about White Burgundy wine ageing better then red is something I hear a lot and from what I have tasted I would agree. Marc "Cwdjrx _" > a écrit dans le message de ... > Latour's 92 Corton-Charlemagne now is light yellow. It has an intense > bouquet for a white Burgundy, but it is a bit more fruity and less > mineral in character than I find in the best examples of this wine from > Latour. It has now smoothed, and has a medium finish. The main problem > is that it is a bit heavy and not as refined in style as are the best > examples. I think it should be drunk fairly soon. It is above average, > but not up to Latour's best. For example, I still have some of Latour's > 1976. It is a considerably better wine in nearly every way, is better > balanced, and has a complex mineral character as well as good fruit and > acidity. The 1976 evolved slower than the 1992, and probably will be in > a better shape in a few years than the 1992. When everything is right, > Corton-Charlemagne can be a very long lived white Burgundy and sometimes > can last longer than some good examples of red Burgundy. > |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
1997 Louis Latour Corton Charlemagne | Wine | |||
TN:Corton-Charlemagne 1992, Domaine Louis Latour and others | Wine | |||
TN Corton-Charlemagne 1992, Domaine Louis Latour | Wine | |||
TN Corton-Charlemagne 1976 Louis Latour | Wine | |||
TN Corton-Charlemagne 1992, L. Latour | Wine |