I asked myself at the wine store, "So why did they turn the label backwards?" Now I know. Make no mistake, you would never mistake this for plonk-it has finesse, a certain charm even, but one would never, ever read this as a Chateauneuf du Pape. It was just lacking, nose, tanin, pepper, depth of color and yet somehow it came across as refined with a faint semblance of the real thing.
2002 Telegramme
Oct 27, 2005
4 Replies
Keep in mind that it's 100% Grenache, which is far from what goes into VT most years, as well as all but a few in CNdP. I had a bottle of this a while ago alongside the 2003 Borsao Tres Picos, also a Grenache. The Telegramme was fruity and light, but lacked the depth of the Tres Picos (which in turn lacked the balance and acidity of the Telegramme). I thought it was not a bad wine, but hardly worth the sticker price, even if it was less than 50% of what they ask for VT.
Mark Lipton
Mark Lipton wrote in news:Xff8f.281011$084.269848@attbi_s22:
I think you have described it well Mark, My current cheap favorite, Vina Alarba, delivers more depth and punch and 6.99 a bottle, and yet it does not have the nice balance
Amen to what both of you wrote I grabbed one bottle from Premier Cru, just to try. It's nowhere the usual Cdp, and I guess I can now assure myself that 100% grenache is never going to float my boat.
What surprises me more, however, is how many chateaux did release a
2002 CdP, when pretty much everyone knows what a lousy year it was. I didn't see the prices come down, either.JJ
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required