This tasting was the practical coda to a talk given by Dr. Barry Smith, oenophile extraordinaire and Director of the Institute of Philosophy, on the philosophy of taste (Edinburgh University, Fri 18/2/11).
Barry’s position, as I understood it, was to set a limit on how far we can consider taste a subjective experience. His starting gripe was with some wine critics who, on the one hand, insist that the taste of a wine is a subjective, individual experience (we are often told at wine tastings that we must define the taste of a wine in terms which are meaningful to us and which may be very different from those used by others) but who then go on to give a categorical recommendation (and a score out of 100!) to individual wines. Surely there is an inherent contradiction here?
We can contrast phenomena such as lighting and our mood, which may subconsciously influence our evaluation of a wine, with criteria such as acid, tannin, sugar, sulphur and carbon dioxide, all of which are scientifically measureable components. A tannic wine will produce a classic “mouth-puckering”, drying sensation, which we should all recognize. Is this sensation not telling us something objective about the wine?
80% of what we perceive as flavour is in fact smell. This can be easily observed by taking a swig of wine while your nostrils are clamped firmly shut, and this phenomenon has interesting implications for what we describe as the taste and the aftertaste of a wine. During inhalation – orthonasal olfaction – we are able to perceive some 630 different characteristics. However, during retronasal olfaction – when we release air through our mouth – we can only perceive some 300 different characteristics. Since what we perceive as flavour is the result of retronasal olfaction, the more limited retronasal scent box leads us to perceive a different flavour profile from when we are merely nosing the wine.
WHITE
Les Champs Blancs - Chablis 2009 – Pascal Bouchard
A fairly classic, if relatively simple, Chablis nose; a moderate if not clearly defined fruit character that approximates pear and lime, with a note of lanolin.
Vaillons Millésime – Chablis Premier Cru 2007 – Simonnet-Febvre
Notably darker and more viscous than the Champs Blancs, the slightly Brie-like cheesiness gives this wine away as corked. It’s not so egregious as to hide the basic character of the wine, though, which has an interesting flavour profile (a.k.a. development of the wine as it moves across the tongue, as Barry so eloquently explained). After the initial fruit character (masked by the cork taint), there is that classic sheepy Chablis lanolin note, and a hint of oak. (Some Chablis makers eschew contact with oak entirely, while others, as here, use it only with moderation). It finishes with notes of acacia honey – a rather unexpectedly sweet note for the normally more flinty, austere Chablis.
Joseph Faively – Puligny-Montrachet Premier Cru 2008 – Les Folatières
An exquisite, complex nose, blending over-ripe mandarins with coconut. (“Over-ripe” mandarins may sound unappealing, but one of the curiosities of wine is how one can find smells that in other contexts would be unappealing – diesel in aged German Riesling, manure (“farmyard” is the polite euphemism) in red Burgundy, or glue in some very oaky Portuguese reds – and nevertheless find them attractive.) The coconut is a facet of this wine’s stay in oak, since we have moved out of Chablis and into the commune of Puligny-Montrachet in the Côte de Beaune, where the winemakers do not shy away from oak aging. This wine is similarly elegant on the palate, creamily blending fruit (again those mandarins, but also with lime beneath) and oak. Good length, and would age very well – though also a delight to drink now.
RED
Pirie Estate – Tasmania – 2007
The one joker in the pack, the point of this, the only non-Burgundian wine of the evening, is to make a stylistic contrast between Old and New World Pinot Noir. The rather undistinguished fruit on the nose leads on to a quickly-disappearing attack of fruit on the palate, which is rather stemmy and drying. A bit too tannic for what it has to offer in terms of fruit and acid.
Dureuil-Janthial – Bourgogne Rouge – 2005
One doesn’t tend to get particularly good value-for-money buying Burgundy (unless perhaps buying directly from the producer) and as this came in cheaper than the Pirie (£12 compared to £15) I didn’t have great expectations for it. In fact, however, it turned out rather well. The nose has more defined fruit notes of plum and cherry, and the spices too are similarly well-defined: cloves and cinnamon. (Not infrequently in wine tasting one can say “fruity” or “spicy” without it being obvious exactly which fruit or spice; but better wines tend to be more clearly defined). There is also a characteristically Burgundian note of wet earth. A definite winner over the Pirie.
Les Lavières - Louis Camus-Bruchon – Savigny-lès-Beaune 2003
2003 was a scorching summer across Europe, and many wine regions suffered for it – if the winemakers did not respond adroitly, they ended up with heavily overbaked wines which smell of jam more than fruit. This wine certainly has a slightly jammy quality – fruit compote – but is in no way unattractive. Beginning with strawberries (a classic Pinot Noir note) it goes on to offer cocoa and vanilla, closing with some rather burnt fruit. Showing its upfront vintage character, it seems rather blowsy in comparison to more elegant 2000 to follow. However, we had some of the 2003 left the next day, and it had evolved some beautifully savoury notes; granite, wet dog hair, and very pointedly, ribs with barbeque sauce.
Les Lavières - Louis Camus-Bruchon – Savigny-lès-Beaune 2000
2000 was also a hot year, but nowhere near as hot as 2003, and it shows in this comparison of the same wines from the two vintages. The 2000 has a lovely, classically Burgundian mix of fragrant and more meaty smells, notes of red fruit, saddle leather and game. It has higher acidity than the 2003, and a certain density of fruit on the finish making it port-like. On the evening, this seemed to me the far nicer of the two; I wish I’d had some of this the next day to see how it developed. It felt as if both needed more time, but this one especially – ironic, given it is already three years older.
Les Perrières - Jean Chauvenet – Nuits St.Georges 2002
2002 was a wonderful year – “If you couldn’t make good wine in 2002, then give up”. This wine is very dark for a Pinot, almost opaque. Similarly, the nose offers notes I’d expect more from the much more heavily-bodied Cabernet Sauvignon grape; green leaf, blackcurrants, leather, mint. On the palate, it doesn’t (yet) taste as good as it smells; the acid is very pronounced, and is probably needs some years in bottle to come out of itself and into balance. There is a pencil lead note that reminds me of Bordeaux – that Cabernet note again. As the evening closes, it has become noticeably better – one for the cellar.
Ghislaine Barthod – Chambolle Musigny – 1998
This wine has a lovely, faded colour, with a browning rim which betrays its age. It is a deliciously complex mix of aromas that span truffle, soy sauce, Demerara, liquorice and mint, keeping a sweet fruit element to the finish, which is long. 1998 was not a good year, but this is a beautiful wine drinking beautifully now. Extremely harmonious.
