stories:
The Juice
 |
The Chardonnay ConundrumIt can be so good, and so very bad |
Every time some California winery sends me samples, you can bet there are at least one or two Chards in the assortment. California is awash in Chardonnay. I try some, but the remainder can be hard to even give away. The bottles litter the carpet of my office.
What’s wrong with Chardonnay? So much. As my wife, who’s a sommelier, says, “The conundrum of [the] Chardonnay [grape] is that it makes some of the wines I dislike most in the world, and some of the wines I most love.”
I agree, and I’ll make it clear: The ones she and I dislike tend to be new-world Chards. But old-world Chardonnays, specifically those from Meursault (it’s pronounced “mur-SO”), are the standouts.
Chardonnay is a multifaceted grape and can go in a lot of directions, depending on soil, climate, and style of winemaking. In the New World, where the popular style is high ripeness and tropical fruits, the wines become as cloying as a tiki drink. When winemakers shoot for something lean and mineral, the wines are too simple, and there’s often a plume of alcoholic afterburn on the finish.
And then there’s the whole question of butter. A refined note of butter (from malolactic fermentation) skillfully integrated into the mix can be lovely, but to have it slathered on in mass quantity is off-putting. The same is the case with the toast and spice of new oak barrels. Too much oak, clumsily added, tastes like a wooden plank.
But when you find a Chardonnay that fits your tastes, you can’t help but judge all the rest by a harsher standard. There are a few wineries in California and Oregon that make tasteful Chard, like Domaine Drouhin Oregon, Ramey, Hamacher, Peay, Lynmar, Hanzell, and Au Bon Climat. But for truly beautiful expressions of the grape, I look to Meursault.
In this little village in the south of Burgundy, there’s something in the climate, the soils, the vines, and the techniques that produces picture-perfect Chardonnay. When you’ve tasted a great Meursault, such as one by Domaine Coche-Dury, it shows you what is possible with this grape. Even the young, lower-tier wines (Bourgogne Blanc or Meursault AOC) can take the flamboyant, tropical fruit of Chardonnay, temper it with a squeeze of fresh lemon juice, and then bury it in an avalanche of rock and mineral. Tasting these wines—especially as they age a bit and develop hazelnut, honey, and cinnamon notes—is mind-boggling. Sadly, so is the price: 2004 Domaine Jean-François Coche-Dury Meursault, which is not one of the vineyard’s premier cru wines, starts at $159.95.
Not all are that pricey (but they are going up, as are all European imports—thanks, U.S. economy). Good Meursault can be had from $25 to $50. And while the best producers from the village of Meursault can be hard to find at retail shops, they turn up frequently on restaurant wine lists, often at pretty good prices.
2005 Meursault, Bouchard Père & Fils: This négociant/producer owns some of the best vineyard land in and around Meursault, and it knows how to vinify the wines. This is a good example of Meursault, with notes of white flowers, lemon curd, and apple. In the mouth, it’s both fleshy and round as well as firm and structured, with a dusting of mineral on the finish.
2004 Meursault, Domaine Pierre Matrot: For white wines, 2004 was a leaner, sharper vintage than 2005. This is a great wine to show vintage character—concentrated and steely with live-wire acidity. Flavors of lemons and limes and orange zest combine for a precise and well-drawn finish.
Meursault is beautiful of course, but new world Chardonnays kan be beautiful, New Zealand's Isabel for example (Marlborough region). I'm not comparing these to Meursault though, but they've definitely helped me reevaluate new world Chardonnay's.
Jordan,
I absolutely agree with you that Chardonnay can produce some of the finest -- and most disappointing (I can't, in all fairness, say "worst") -- wines on the planet.
(And as I was the person responsible for bring Isabel into the US from NZ, how can I possibly argue with chrisk?)
But after reading your "story," I am left a question and some thoughts:
Question: Why Meursault ONLY? That is, a) what about the wines from Puligny- and Chassagne-Montrachet; b) what about the Mâconnais, where there have been some truly exciting wines produced over the past 8-10 years; and c) what about Chablis, where some of the last great bargains can be found?
Thoughts: It's been my experience in the California wine trade that there are a few sporadic producers here that can indeed produce Chardonnays that can satisfy in ways similar to the wines of Meursault. (Indeed, if I have ever mistaken a California Chardonnay for a white Burgundy, the appellation I'm most likely to mistake the California Chardonnay for is a Meursault.) You name some, including the "granddaddy" of them all, Hanzell. But you've left out the winery I think "leads" that group (of course, YMMV), and that is Mount Eden Vineyards -- specifically their estate bottling, not their lower-priced Edna Valley bottling.
Indeed, if there is one region within the state of California where a "Meursault-like" Chardonnay is more likely to originate, IMHO, it's the Santa Cruz Mountains. One of the two coolest regions within California, and one where non-volcanic soils dominate, there are several vineyards here producing Santa Cruz Mountains AVA Chardonnays that are -- for lack of a better term -- more "French-like" than vineyards in Napa, Santa Barbara, Monterey, Edna Valley, and other California typically yield. The Santa Cruz Mountains AVA is also one of the few regions when Chardonnay comfortably develops with bottle age as do the white Burgundies from Meursault, Puligny- and Chassagne-Montrachet.
Interested in your comments . . .
Cheers,
Jason
I keep hearing about NZ white wines, need to do some research, I guess. I believe McKay is referring to the California efforts that pander to America's collective sweet tooth when he says New World.
I would disagree, Akitist. I mean, obviously, neither you nor I can know exactly what Jordan is thinking, but very few California Chardonnays actually contain significant levels of residual sugar. Thus, while it is true that Kendall-Jackson and DeLoach contain r.s., most mainstream Chardonnays are indeed dry.
California makes some great Chardonnay, as it does Cab Sauv, Merlot & Zinfandel. Isn't it important to make Californian wine, not imitation Burgundy or Bordeaux? Yes winemakers should ignore the short term commercial imperative & try to produce elegant well balanced and long lasting wines that develop.
It seems to me that Mr Mckay has a hard-on for the wines of Meursault. That is to ignore the rest of the huge spectrum of white burgundy - from the steely austerity of Chablis, to the quintessential Chardonnay of Puligny Montrachet, not just the opulent wines of Meursault.
I agree completely!
California makes the best CALIFORNIAN wine in the world. France makes the best FRENCH wines, etc., etc., etc. And while I personally love the wines of Meursault -- as I said above -- "Why Meursault ONLY? That is, a) what about the wines from Puligny- and Chassagne-Montrachet; b) what about the Mâconnais, where there have been some truly exciting wines produced over the past 8-10 years; and c) what about Chablis, where some of the last great bargains can be found?"
Good point about the geology of the Santa Cruz mountains vs. Napa geology, which is dominated by decomposed volcanic matter from Mt. St. Helena.
What are your favorite Santa Cruz chards? I've enjoyed Hendry's unoaked Chardonnay from the "Napa Bench" which is an alluvial deposit sort of between Napa Valley and Carneros, but it's not a super duper wine, just very good for the fair under $20 price.
>>> What are your favorite Santa Cruz chards? <<<
Keeping in mind that I generally drink FRENCH when it comes to Chardonnay, rather than California, but my -- Warning! Warning! Danger, Will Robinson! Vast Generalization Ahead! -- general preference for California Chardonnay is for those wines from the Santa Cruz Mountains, and parts of Sonoma, than elsewhere.
From the Santa Cruz Mountains, no one does Chardonnay better -- IMHO -- than Mount Eden Vineyards (their Estate bottling, as I said before, versus their Edna Valley bottling). Ridge Vineyards' Monte Bello (Estate, /Santa Cruz Mountains) Chardonnay flies under most people's radar, but it is surprisingly excellent . . . after spending some years in the doldrums.
Storrs Winery has produced several outstanding Santa Cruz Mountains AVA Chardonnays -- most notable have been their single vineyard bottlings from the Christie vineyard, but their "regular" (non-vineyard designate) Santa Cruz Mountains AVA Chardonnay has been consistently delicious . . . if a bit on the oaky side.
Salamandre Cellars, Zayante Vineyard, and David Bruce (again, their Estate wine) all have produced -- albeit less consistently -- sueerb Chardonays.
Cheers,
Jason
Jason, to answer your question above--"Why Meursault only?"--and a very fair question indeed. The answer is quite simple: space. We try to keep these columns short and sweet, which is difficult, given that, as you know, any topic in wine and spirits tends to lead to others and others in an endless chain of qualification and elaboration. So, I chose Meursault as just one particular example of what great Chardonnay could be. Natually, I would have liked to focus on Montrachet as the apotheosis of Chardonnay and perhaps every wine grape, but given the highly limited access we all have to that wine, it wasn't practical. And of course I could have gone into Puligny or Chassagne, but I like the was Meursault is positioned between the two and it generally makes a Chardonnay that even those steeped in California can understand.
Thanks, as always, to you--and everyone--for the excellent comments and discussion.