The Auswine Forum

Finally got the ball rolling on this. The goal is to discover, via a series of head-2-head tastings, whether oz or burg is where my $ should be invested. I'm endeavouring to match up like with like price point wines. First up it's:

Curlewis Reserve 2002 - mid $60's
Robert Chevillon NSG VV 2002 - mid- $60's
Robert Chevillon NSG VV 2001 - mid $50's

All bottles masked and numbered randomly by another person. Poured into numbered Riedel burg vinum glasses.


DAY 1: Tasted over 3 hours.

Wine #1: Explosive nose of cherries, spice and some VA. Masculine palate is mid-weight and framed by excellent acid. More sour cherries and some beetroot. Some silky mouthfeel developing. All components in balance. Excellent. At this stage 95/100.

Wine #2: Subdued and somewhat closed nose. Palate is silky and powerful. Excellent acid spine and lots of beetroot and spice. Some complexing VA. More feminine in structure. Perfect mouthfeel and all components in balance. Excellent. 95/100

Wine #3: Closed nose. Almost identical to wine 2 silky palate, although not as full and rounded as wine 2. Good acid. Feminine and refined. 93/100


Wines 1 & 2 were the standouts, with wine 3 not too far behind. All wines showed exemplary winemaking. My current guess is that wine 1 is the oz and wine 2 is the 02 burg (I'll remove the silver foil at end of day 2). If only wine 1 had more mid-palate weight and wine 2 had a more explosive bouquet !


DAY 2:

Wine #1: Nose has settled down and is quite pleasant. Palate has filled out somewhat with VA still evident. This is excellent 95/100

Wine #2: Nose open slightly more than yesterday (delicate rose petal). Palate still well rounded but has a touch of bitterness. I'll be generous and leave it at 95/100, as it does have some minerality.

Wine #3: I like the nose more on this today. Palate has more bitterness though, but also some attractive spice. Still 93/100 but only just.


So for me, wine 1 is my pick with wine 2 very close behind (this is more style preference). In time, who knows the order may indeed change.

Now which is which ? Guessed right this time around:

Wine 1: Curlewis
Wine 2: Chevillon 2002
Wine 3: Chevillon 2001



PART 2: Burguet Bourgogne "Pince Vin" 02 versus Ashton Hills 02 - $40's category

Not blind this time around.

Day 1:

Burguet: Subdued nose. Palate shows fine grained tannins and beetroot. Good mouth feel and palate weight. Good acid.

Ashton Hills: Bouquet to-die-for. Perfume of flowers, mixed herbs, deli meats, cherries and spice - the lot. Palate has filled out over the past 6 months - much longer now. Savoury finish.


Day 2:

Burguet: Nose more open now - much better - delicate rose fragrance. Palate better too - well integrated and good weight without being super refined. 92+/100 and worth 5 years cellaring.

Ashton Hills: More integrated today. Good balance and that nose is still magnificant - could sniff it all day. 93+/100 and should improve over 3 years.

These $40 pinots represent excellent value for $. Either would be a welcome addition to any pinot cellar.



PART 3: Mugneret-Gibourg Vosne Romanee VV 2002 versus Giaconda Pinot 2002 - $60's category

Tasted over 4 days.

Mugneret: Exotic, subtle perfumed bouquet (recognizably Vosne). Palate shows silky fruit, appropriate weighted mid-palate and medium grained tannins. Excellent wood integration, good acid spine and good (but not great) length. Showed best on 2nd and 3rd day. Excellent 93+/100. Will develop well over 5+ years.

Giaconda: Very backward nose for an oz pinot (same for 4 days). Palate shows balance and deft winemaking with find grained tannins and balance throughout. If anything, this is quite a "boring" pinot (I expect more leading edge risk taking for $60 - like pushing the limits of VA, etc). Wood is good quality but a bit sappy for my liking (I find this in a few oz pinots). Acid profile is strange (like an inverted umbrella, rather than a pencil) - acid adjustment ? Very good 90/100. Will develop over 3-5 years but will never be a great pinot. Probably the best of the 7 years of Giaconda pinots that I have purchased, and probably my last (Beechworth is just too hot for great pinot, I have concluded after many years of hope).


CONCLUSION:
(1) The huge difference to me were the bouquets. In general, Oz pinots are more complex noses when young (and hence more attractive). In time, burgs develop their own terroir bouquets, of course. Vosne is always nice even as a young wine.

(2) I found that the VV burgs that I tasted (Chevillon NSG, Mugneret Vosne) were much better on day 2 and day 3 (and had much better mouthfeel and palate length than the Oz wines as breathing progressed). I think that Oz pinots drink much better from the word go but lack the mid-palate weight of good-year burgs.

As a consumer, one MUST compare Oz pinot to Burgundy. It is simply a case of where to put one's $. The conclusion from my tastings was to pick the best of both and create a more diverse and complex cellar.

A worthwhile experiment. I await the results with interest.

Kieran

Rattie, you have lost me already.
Blind Freddie should be able to tell those two Burgs from the Curlewis!!
I don't think I have a great palate, but I'll stop drinking if I couldn't tell the difference!!
Secondly, your lowest score is 93, which already is about 7 points for the Oz effort.
Thirdly, if these score 95, I can't wait to see what you score the 78 La Tache!!

Actually, a very interesting exercise. If you are new to Burgundy, the 02 is a great place to start, esp with Chevillon.

Aussie Johns wrote:Rattie, you have lost me already.
Blind Freddie should be able to tell those two Burgs from the Curlewis!!
I don't think I have a great palate, but I'll stop drinking if I couldn't tell the difference!!
Secondly, your lowest score is 93, which already is about 7 points for the Oz effort.
Thirdly, if these score 95, I can't wait to see what you score the 78 La Tache!!

Actually, a very interesting exercise. If you are new to Burgundy, the 02 is a great place to start, esp with Chevillon.

Well AJ,

Forums are for vinophiles of all levels. I try to make my posts interesting, informative and a 2-way street of learning. I like to detail my own process techniques (which some may like and others not). I also try (!) to be as tactful as possible (mood dependent). Yes, I do trust my "guesses" are accurate, but I'm always looking for ways to humble myself so that I can fit my head through the door.

The interesting conclusion of this first matchup is that the Curlewis reserve was certainly in the same class as the Chevillon VV's. As to scores, the scale is not linear (been discussed before). Didn't you give 97/100 to the Chevillon 02 VV in your UK TN a few weeks ago ? You sound more generous than me !

I'm with Ratty on this one. I have tasted a few of the 02 Chevillons and I tell you, I loved them. I went and bought as much as I could afford. But then, I loved the 02 Curlewis Reserve too, and I reckon it holds its head in that company. The idea that Oz doesn't make anything decent on the pinot front has some merit, but on an individual by individual basis is an old-fashioned one. I'd love to serve these wines blind to AJ and see if he's as good as he thinks he is.

B.

.....sorry, Rattie, I really wasn't having a go. All a bit tongue in cheek. I love reading your posts, they are very interesting and informative. Keep up the good work.

....I don't have any doubt that you will better appreciate Burgundy as you become more acquainted with the region, it surely is the quality wine centre of the planet. Two decades of drinking the stuff, and getting to know its various nuances really does make for a fascinating past-time.

...you are quite correct in saying that I scored the villages wines highly in a recent thread- but I also said that the great wines of Burgundy, of which I have had too few, would score 150+ using that scale!!

...as for the tasting, I have had the Curlewis, and it is an excellent example of Oz pinot. Come back in 8-10 years, however, and the comparison of the three may be a very different story. Also, don't forget that you are comparing the bottom rung of Burgundy with the very best of Australia. Forgetting the cost, (as hard as that may be), the best that we have to offer is still only (just) comparable with pretty perdestrian Burgundy, taking a holostic approach.

..looking forward to seeing tomorrow's results!!!!
AJ.

Anonymous wrote:I'm with Ratty on this one. I have tasted a few of the 02 Chevillons and I tell you, I loved them. I went and bought as much as I could afford. But then, I loved the 02 Curlewis Reserve too, and I reckon it holds its head in that company. The idea that Oz doesn't make anything decent on the pinot front has some merit, but on an individual by individual basis is an old-fashioned one. I'd love to serve these wines blind to AJ and see if he's as good as he thinks he is.

B.

....please don't get the idea that I think I have some sort of fantastic palate, but comparing that particular Oz pinot to Chevillon's village wines would be very easy to pick if you have drunk a lot of Burg. The key difference is the minerality and spine of the French wines tasted, it is very easy to pick if you specifically look for it.
...and yes, I have been caught out on countless occasions, often mistaking Oregon pinots for villages Burgundy, but I haven't been caught out with the Oz stuff yet..

...Len Evans once mistook the 1955 Grange for the 1947 Romanee Conti, so it is easy enough to do, but, with Oz pinot?????......I'm not so sure.

Len Evans once mistook the 1994 Bannockburn Serre pinot for a good-quality Burgundy, but then (before the bottle was revealed) qualified his statement by saying "if it's Australian, then it's the best australian pinot yet". So even someone who has drunk everything burgundy has to offer can still (seldomly, admittedly) mistake Oz for burgundy - which is a fair defence of Ratty in itself. It should also be said that structurally at least, Curlewis is dead-keen to style his wines on the burgundy model. He won't get minerality, true, but he may (***may***) get the structure right. He also would like you to come back in 8 years time to see how much better his wine tastes then too.

Burgundy is though the greatest wine region on the planet, no argument from me.

B.

Added day 2 notes.

Added part 2, 3 & conclusion.

CR,
Thanks for your "experimental" notes. Will keep themm in mind when tasting those wines in future.


sanjay

Are you sure of the mid $60 fro the Curlewis Reserve. I can only get it wholesale, ex GST, for that much. I thought it would retail for more like mid $70's.

RORY

Rory wrote:Are you sure of the mid $60 fro the Curlewis Reserve. I can only get it wholesale, ex GST, for that much. I thought it would retail for more like mid $70's.

RORY

Rory,

It currently sells for $65 ex-winery. It was on pre-release sale for $57 up until August (that's what I paid).

sanjay wrote:CR,
Thanks for your "experimental" notes. Will keep themm in mind when tasting those wines in future.


sanjay

Sanjay,

Yes, I agree with your implication that it is far too young to try these wines. However, it must be done in the name of science and my hip pocket $. The wine I enjoyed most was the Vosne (even though it didn't receive the highest score). The most disappointing was the Giaconda. Best value for $ were the Ashton Hills and Burguet Pince Vin. From other reports, the Hillcrest Pinot 03 is another steal in this $35 - $45 category as well.