The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #13

For the last wine in this decanting series we head back to Burgundy and the Mercurey Appellation. And this time it’s a Faiveley. That’s right, the last wine will be the most severe test of the idea that aeration softens tannins because this wine, like all good Faiveleys, has astringency in spades. Oh, excuse me. Its more robust than most. Let’s see if a little air will bring it down to earth!

Wine #13: 2003 Faiveley Mercurey Clos des Myglands Premier Cru, Burgundy, France ($21.00USD, 375ml), 13% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degrees F. After two and a half hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.

Glass A: Muted notes of strawberry and cherry over toasted oak and anise. Very soft and supple entry that is overrun by gripping tannins. Nicely structured with good clean acidity.

Glass B: Is there wine in this glass? Nothing except a faint whiff of toffee. Same palate as glass A ; soft and supple on entry but the astringency is overpowering.

Glass C: As for glass B, very, very closed. Just a little anise and oak. Again a palate overpowered by astringency.

My opinion: A and C are from the bottle and B the decanter.

Reality: A is from the bottle and B and C are from the decanter.

Conclusion: My first assessment of the glasses was that A was from the bottle. Why didn’t I stick with that? Well, the aromas in this wine (like a lot of red Burgundy that I have tasted) are very subtle and I knew that I should spend time searching for them. In the end it was a somewhat futile exercise as the astringency of a young Faiveley batters the palate into resignation. But I will say one thing. Two hours of air seemed to make this wine more astringent, if that is possible!

Just to see what a long exposure to air might do I left one bottle about a quarter full of wine and the other was filled with the remaining wine and corked. After 24 hours the wine in the full bottle was still quite fresh and had developed a note of mushrooms while wine from the other bottle was quite oxidized and almost undrinkable.

Score: Wines tested 13, Decanters 1, Non-decanters 4.

The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #12

For our twelfth wine we are finally headed to Bordeaux. Château Ducru-Beaucaillou is in the Saint-Julien appellation; one of the four major appellations of the Médoc region. On the left bank of the Garonne estuary, Château Ducru-Beaucaillou is one of the five second growth (Deuxièmes Crus) vineyards of St-Julien. The chief feature of the vineyard are the pebbles or "cailloux" which contribute to the greatness of many Medoc wines. This gravel, about 5 meters deep, is on a calcareous base of about the same thickness. The vineyards are planted in 65% Cabernet Sauvignon, 25% Merlot, 5% Cabernet Franc, 5% Petit Verdot.

Is this a wine that needs decanting? The Chateau recommends that a ten year old wine should be decanted two hours before serving, 20 year old decanted 1 hour and a 40 year old wine decant at the time of serving. Our wine is 5 years old so it will get at least 2 hours.

Wine #12: 2002 Chateau Ducru-Beaucaillou (St Julien) ($37.00USD, 375ml), 13% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degrees F. After two and a half hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.

Glass A: A little muted with notes of banana skin, violets and dusty coffee. Full bodied with clean acidity and firm tannins carrying a short finish. More aromatics on the palate.

Glass B: Has the most complex aromatic profile with oak, cedar, dusty coffee and banana skin. More acidity and obviously firmer tannins that carry a longer finish than glass A.

Glass C: Very muted. Faint violet under dusty banana skin. Again firm tannins but little length to the finish. Nicely balanced but with less vibrant acidity than in glass B.

My opinion: B is from the bottle, A and C from the decanter.
Reality: B is from the bottle, A and C from the decanter.

Conclusion: After smelling all three glasses I was ready to name glass C as the decanted wine but tasting revealed that the wine in glass B was more vibrant with the firmer tannins encouraging a longer finish than the wine in the other two glasses. Still it did take a while to reach a final conclusion, and calling A and B as the wine from the bottle was always the backup decision.

Common to many wines the act of swirling the wine in the glass over time did open this wine even further. That does seem like a contradiction if exposure to air actually lessened the appeal of the wine. But exposure to air in a decanter and coating the inside of a glass with a thin film of wine by swirling are not one in the same. That thin coating of wine is likely to release its volatile components more readily possibly due to effects of surface tension and exposure to warmer air within the bowl itself. If you don’t believe me take two glasses, pour several ounces of wine into one and just a few milliliters into the other. Now swirl for a few moments and smell. Notice any difference?

Score: Wines tested 12, Decanters 1, Non-decanters 4.

The Great Decanting Experiment – Wine #9

If a big, fruity Pinot Noir from Carneros is adversely affected by aeration I wonder what happens to a Burgundy. I’m not going to open anything special just a Premier Cru (also denoted as 1er Cru) from Mercurey in the Côte Chalonnaise. There are something like 30 vineyards that are designated Premier Cru in Mercurey. I would have preferred for it to have been a Faiveley, but we can’t have everything.

Wine #9 2005 Mercurey 1er Cru, Clos des Montaigus, Domaine Patrick Size, Burgundy, France: ($13.99USD, 375ml), 13% alcohol.
One bottle was splash decanted and the other left unopen; both in the cellar at 56 degree F. After 3 hours the second bottle was opened and the two wines poured randomly into three marked opaque glasses while I was out of the room.

Glass A: Subtle but attractive notes of cherry and anise. Medium weight with very soft (velvety) entry and nice flavor carry. Finishes with a touch of astringency and slightly sour acidity.

Glass B: Very closed, almost nothing. Faint cherry, grapey notes over a trace of anise. Did open with time. Nicely balanced with nice acidity and a soft and supple presence on the palate, finishing with firm tannins.

Glass C: As for glass A with an additional herbal note. On the palate, very much like glass A with nice juicy acidity and softer astringency than glass B.

My opinion: B is from the decanter, A and C are from the bottle.
Reality: A and B are from the decanter, C is from the bottle.

Conclusion: This wine was tasted on June 6th, and I’ve been reluctant to post the assessment for several reasons. First, my success with 2003 Robert Stemmler Carneros Pinot Noir made me confident, perhaps too confident, that I was correct in identifying which glass held the decanted Burgundy. Unrewarded expectations can be a real insult to the ego! Second, and more importantly, this wine did not taste like a Pinot Noir; there was no varietal definition at all. It is not a wine that I would recommend. But then this decanting experiment is not about my ego (well not yet!) and its not about identifying wines that I would recommend. The purpose is to see if aeration influences the flavor profile and taste of wine. So here is another wine that is not affected by a good dose of exposure to air.

There is one concern. Is there a problem with glass B? To reduce the number of variables I’ve kept the same labels on the three glasses and so its possible that a problem with the glasses might be affecting the outcome of these comparisons. For 4 of the 9 wines tested glass B has revealed less aroma and bouquet than either glasses A and C. Not enough of a difference to say that glass B has some sort of fault. I’ll keep the order the same until a dozen wines have been examined, and then I’ll do reshuffle because I do have six of these glasses.

Score: Wines tested 9, Decanters 0, Non-decanters 2.

The Botanist and the Vintner
The lush green leafed rows of vines of a vineyard don’t call to mind a battlefield but in the late 19th century the vineyards of France were made up of “frail wooden frigates, lightly armored cruisers and unsinkable battleships”. This is a colorful and very telling description by Christy Campbell in his book The Botanist and the Vintner: How Wine Was Saved For The World as he illustrates the scale of resistance of various varieties and species of vine against the scourge of phylloxera. Vitis vinifera which had provided the grapes for the great wines of France were frailty personified while Vitis rotundifolia, also known as Scuppernong in its native North America, was resistant to the little insect; and so it should be, it had grown up surrounded by the bug.

Phylloxera was introduced into France in the early 1860’s by vines from New York and had infested virtually the whole of France by the end of the century. The cure was to use rootstock resistant to the insect, but even here battle lines were drawn between the américainistes who advocated the use of the resistant American rootstocks and the sulfuristes who preferred insecticides. But first the cause of the malady that made vines wither and die in the early 1860s would have to be identified and studied. The 19th century struggle against phylloxera is masterfully told by Campbell as he weaves considerable scientific detail into a story coupled with personal accounts of a number of the major players, all against a backdrop of French politics.

The lists of practical remedies that were proposed for the 30,000 franc prize offered by the French Imperial Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce border on the ridiculous; marching bands to drum the aphid out of its root loving existence. However the most remarkable facet of the story is the considerable insight of individuals such as the Montpellier botanist Jules-Émile Planchon and Charles Valentine Riley an English-born entomologist from Missouri in realizing that the aphid was responsible for the disease and that it had come from America. And then there were the struggles faced in convincing vineyard owners to destroy their vines. Why destroy the vines when almost everyone seemed to have a concoction that would kill the pest? Besides there was money to be made in sulphur.

The Botanist and the Vintner is a compelling story and should find a place on the book shelves of all serious lovers of the vine and wine.

The Botanist and the Vintner: How Wine Was Saved For The World by Christy Campbell (Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2005, 320 pages, $24.95USD, Hardcover).

Disclosure: A complimentary copy of the book was supplied to me by Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.