TN: Tokyo payback- Jim J. comes to Dobbs Ferry

Here are my woefully late notes (due to travel) on a very generous dinner and offline hosted by Dale and Betsy at their home. Actually makes travelling to NY on business worth it!

OFFLINE IN DOBBS FERRY - Dale's House (6/15/2005)

When Dale came to Tokyo, all I did was gather the crowd, book the restaurant, and bring a few wines. When I went to NY, he provided almost all of the wines, as well as opening his house and joining his talented wife in cooking us dinner. First flight was with appetizers of canapes of green apple, smoked trout and (on some) horseradish sauce plus grilled rolls of pancetta, radiccio, and goat cheese . Second flight was with spinach/tofu/miso napoleans, from a recipe by Ming Tsai. The three red flights were with grilled duck breast with a red wine/demiglace sauce, accompanied by grilled veggies (sweet potato, red pepper and onion in a oil/thyme/vinegar dressing, and fennel). Berries with whipped cream would have been beautiful withe Bugey, but that was gone, so the berries stood alone. Remainders of reds, plus the port were consumed with cheeses (Keen's cheddar, a Wisconsin "melange", and a Cypress Grove Midnight Madness, and La Fournols). All of the food was excellent, as others who have eaten Betsy's cooking would expect.

On the patio

Bright pink bubbler, with a nose of exploding strawberries that just leaps out of the glass. Palate is noticeably sweet, but has just enough life from fizz and a little acid not to cloy. It's fun like berry soda, but somehow maintains interest. I only had one glass of this because there was a lot more wine to come, but with the right weather and simple outdoor food, I could drink two or three. That's what rosés are for, isn't it? If I had a garden and some lawn chairs, I'd buy it for sure.

Color has a little more orange/tawny than I'd expected, but still largely pink. Nose seems a little sweet with dark berry fruit. On the palate it is completely dry, but still lacks interest. Dale wonders if there is a bit of oak, but I can't find it. Then again, one last absent-minded sip shows a hint of woody character in the back of the nose. Nothing objectively wrong with it, but where did the fun go? If I want a rosé from Bord grapes, I think I'll stick to the Loire.

Has that clear pinkish orange that always makes me think of the South. Nose is more restrained than the Monbousquet, showing a hint of sweat and pine resin, combined with stone fruit. The palate is finely structured, with good acid and a dry berry fruit that makes you wake up. A little spine of mineral adds interest, as does that sappy, resiny element that comes back out at the finish - which goes on longer than expected. Even without a garden, this is on the buy list.

light gold color. Nose showed some baked apple fruit and a candied nut character. Palate was dry, but still had that candied note, along with some more apple, all wrapped in too much fat and not enough acid. Finish was short. For other people, excess oak or overextraction is the capital crime. I can be sensitive to both, but lack of acid is my real bête noire.

With the napolean

Light color and a mousse that seems aggressive for "pétillant". Even out of a white wine glass, the mousse held together and persisted until I finished the glass. Closer to mousseaux than pétillant. Nose showed the stony ground and stony fruit I like from Vouvray, along with the warm apple I've noted in Huet's wines before (Dale calls it apple pie). Palate has nice acid, which combines with mousse to form a crispness that masks the seriously good lemon-apple fruit and mineral, at least until you hold it in your mouth for a minute. As the bubbles dissipate and the wine warms up, the mineral/fruit comes out on the nose. I've wanted to try this for a while, as I am a great Huet fan and always looking for value sparklers. This is at the top of the "buy it if I find it" list. My current house pour is the 2000 Giacosa sparkler. I'd add this as another great alternative to cheap Champagne.

Pinot

Ripe purple-tinged red in the glass. Palate shows clear sweetness, seemingly more from ripe berry fruit than from oak. A little more sweet and forward than I might look for, but with a hint of funkiness and earth that was a little interesting. On the palate, rich and extracted, surprisingly concentrated for the vintage, but having a sweet, maybe syrupy element to the fruit that cloyed a little. No secondary or non-fruit characteristics. Better on the nose than the palate. This note sounds worse than it was; it was not flabby, had a little acid, but just lacked interest and zip.

Ripe, new world color in the glass. Pretty closed on the nose, but showed typical pinot cherry and a little beetroot. Didn't see any evolution here but, hey, this is just a baby. Palate was definitely more expressive than the nose, with more bright cherry, some acid, warm leaves. Hard for me to assess this young and without much Oregon pinot experience to put it into context, but a nice, clean, typical pinot. I'd like to have a chance to taste this with a few years on it.

Nebbiolo

I had told Dale I was bringing a 1990 Barbaresco, so he had brought this up from the cellar to make a flight. I've heard of Carema, but never had an opportunity to taste it. This had a relatively mature, brick red turning to deep, healthy orange kind of color. It had been decanted well before I arrived, so I didn't get to find the "funk" Dale had noted when he opened it. What I found was a very bright, but mature nebbiolo that showed violets, dark cherry and deep plum fruit, and the kind of earth and ground growth notes that change by the minute in good nebbiolo. This was good from the moment of pouring on the nose, but took a little time to pick up interest on the palate. With time, it acquired a little body, but never that of a Barolo or Barbaresco. Showed fully resolved tannins, enough acid to balance, but not enough to overwhelm the relatively light body, and more mature dark fruit. When Dale was in Tokyo, we tried a Roero nebbiolo that showed remarkably similar characteristics on the nose (all the floral and forest floor elements of Barolo but none of the tar). Despite very different vinification from the Roero, they both showed a clear family resemblance and sense of place - even if that place is really two places and can simply be described as "parts of Piedmont where nebbiolo ripens more slowly and tentatively and, just maybe, has more nerve". It's not better or worse than Barolo or Barbaresco, just different. Vive la différence!

I brought this. I was been prepared not to like it. Sure, this is a different Rivetti than the brothers of La Spinetta, but I had read that Dante Rivetti is now using 100% new barriques. However, I had found it at a great price, the merchant had assured me this was at least moderately restrained, so why not give it a try? Beyond my prejudice, the wine had one other thing going against it. It had recently made quite a trip, flying from Tokyo to Seattle to Washington, DC, to New Orleans to NYC over the course of a weeka dn a half before boarding a train for Dale's little bit of paradise in Dobbs Ferry. We decanted it a couple of hours before it was to be served and, as Dale noted, it was "stirred up". However, after some time to open up, it showed a nose with cherry and plum fruit, some (positive) sweaty funkiness, and hints of flowers. With more time, a little truffle and chocolatey tar came out. On the palate it was clearly more weighty than the Carema, with more of the plum from the nose, along with a strange combination of a little bright berry and some slightly roasted prune that I attribute to its difficult journey and unsettled state. Nicely developed, but plenty of time to go. So, the verdict on my producer suspiciscions? Really like the nose, no overextraction or overoaking to which one can object, but slightly muddied palate a bit hard to judge. If I can find more at a reasonable price, I'll definitely buy it to try under better conditions. I'm intrigued.

Bordeaux

When decanted, maybe corked, at least to Dale's nose. When dinner started, really corked. When this flight came up, really, really corked even to this TCA-insensitive schnozz.

To start with, I should admit that Bordeaux (actually merlot and non-Loire cab in general) is just not my thing. Sure, I enjoy it. You can send me all you want. I just don't have the facility for differentiating and pulling out the details the way I may be able to with other wines. So, even though my notes suffer in comparison, my enjoyment doesn't necessarily suffer. My notes just won't do the wines justice, but here goes. Nice early mature Bordeaux color of red in the glass, still with darker hints depending on how the light hits it. Nose was classic, with cassis, cedar, cigar and just a hint of something deeper, a remnant of the darker concentration of youth. On the palate, I'm a bit puzzled by that lack of clarity I often get stumped by in claret. Is it the vintage or is this just a bit rough? With a little time (which it needed as it was decanted late as a substitute for the Haut-Corbin), the fruit becomes a little clearer, the slightly acid structure shows its bright edge, and there is a pleasant dry blackberry and plum core. A little roughness and a little muddle, but all-in-all enjoyable.

If I have trouble with more mature Bordeaux, then I am hopeless with younger, more tannic ones. This one still has a darkish red robe of relative youth in the glass. Despite its visual youth, the nose is expressive with spice and rich, dark berry fruit, along with some leafy interest. Palate is quite tannic, showing astringency and a touch of dark fruit, even though this is 1997 and even though this was decanted in the morning. This is the wine I go back to just before I catch my train to the city and it has opened up on the palate some. It's still a little rough, but is showing rounder dark fruit and a little chocolate richness, just a hint of round Pomerol character. Voluptuous? Not yet. Maybe never. But I really liked the nose and the palate has enough fruit to make this worth waiting on for a few more years. (In his notes, Dale commented on the difference between this tannic showing and the WS note that called it a wine with "light tannins". After I finished this note, I went searching for others and all of them indicated resolved tannins and easy drinking. Every bottle is different, ne c'est pas?)

Afters

Rich purple, with typical port richness and viscosity. On the nose, under the high level of volatile acidity, a core of dark, dark plum and berries. As the acidity eases (or the nose gets accustomed), the volatility seems to lift up aromas of chocolate, spice, and caramel. On the palate, moderately rich and viscous, a little sweet for my taste, dark fruit on top of relatively easy tannins. This did fine with the blue cheese, but wasn't intriguing, just adequate. Then again, my palate was mighty tired at this point.

A great event and a great thanks to Dale and Betsy for being such gracious hosts. My apologies that my travels made it take so long to post my notes.

Posted from CellarTracker!

Jim, any time you come to NY you're welcome at our place! Thanks for the notes.