Well, we’ll be eating steak tartare, and drinking all that is listed below.
Puligny-Montrachet Premier Cru Clavoillon 2001, Domaine Leflaive
This smells really toasty, with round, buxom lemony fruit there. It is really creamy and mineral. Smells, perfectly balanced between youth and maturity. The palate is really fat and full-bodied, but has great fruit and lovely acidity. The balance is simply superb. It is incredibly complex, really long and screaming with style. This is tests-good white Burgundy, really excellent.
Riesling Auslese Bernkasteler Doctor 1996, Dr. Thanisch (Erben-Thanisch) Auction Wine
Dead, bereft of life it rests in peace. If I hadn’t pulled its cork it would be pushing up the daisies.
steak tartare with that? Goodness. Gone off it myself. I’d rather have very rare hamburger. Must be losing it. And your anti-claret prejudice is becoming tiresome!
Thanks guys. The two Burgundies were two of the loveliest wines I have had in a long time. The Leflaive was perfectly balanced, wonderfully complex, with all its elements, oak, acid, toastiness, citrus friut, perfectly integrated – absolutely delightful.
The Malconsorts was pure pleasure. Sometimes I feel – perhaps age is making me jaded – that tasting wines becomes an intellectual exercise, in which we list the reasons why a wine is good or not. This wine reminded me of how beautiful Burgundy is. Intense and complex, one could get carried away with adjectives. But most of all, it was just lovely, endlessly enjoyable. Silky and velvety, a wine without rough edges. It is a wine to make an old git feel optimistic again.
The Polish Hill was just boring. Lots of acidity, but lacking character either of the grape or of any terroir. No joy in it whatsoever. Riesling should be much nicer than this. Maybe it was an interesting, if bizarre, experiment to drink this with steak tartare. Not a combination to be repeated, however.
The Montrose was disappointing, it’s true. However, I think David enjoyed having an opportunity to rant against Claret again.