lafarge 2006 passetoutgrains l’exception

Update 17.2.2011(16.2.2011)billn

lafarge-passetoutgrains-exception-2006

Hmm, despite Claude underlying that Passetoutgrains (historically) should be kept a couple of years before approaching, I wouldn’t recommend it here. The 2009 version of this is jaw-droppingly gorgeous and I would drink it today without hesitation and equally feel confident that it has the quality to age – though probably retaining the perspective ‘but why bother waiting?!’* This, however, (and rather disappointingly!) really should have been drunk a bit younger.

2006 Lafarge, Bourgogne Passetoutgrains l’Exception
Medium-plus colour. The nose is fresh, slightly floral though bordering on a little volatile – but they are alcoholic tones rather than esters. In the mouth – wow – that’s dangerously close to ‘shrill’ – and that comes from a self-confessed acid-o-phile! The tannins are not totally sophisticated unlike the fruit that seems very high quality indeed. Despite looking askance with each sip, I have to say the bottle was easily drained so this wine is certainly not a total loss. The overall package is a let-down, and unless you are talking 20-years-plus, I don’t really see the acidity becomng seamless.
Rebuy – No

My wife gave me a dirty look when she tasted this one – I simply said it was ‘cheap’ – which dear reader, we know is not a word to really associate with Lafarge (I must have been talking generically about the appellation!). Her response after finding out that it was ‘a Burgundy’, was along the lines “well if you are going to buy cheap, why don’t you buy ‘proper’ cheap…!

*I see Berry Bros are listing the 09 as an en-primeur wine – at £10 each in bond – that’s not too bad I think, even if I wouldn’t want to save it…

Leave a Reply to Claude KolmCancel reply

There are 3 responses to “lafarge 2006 passetoutgrains l’exception”

  1. Claude Kolm17th February 2011 at 5:09 pmPermalinkReply

    Actually, Bill, the “certainly true back then” comment you link to was meant to refer to the judgment that only in exceptional circumstances did BPT offer any value. Even so, the other part of the sentence said that BPT was better in its second year, not its fifth, which is what you were drinking. BTW, what was the temperature that you were drinking it at?

    • billn17th February 2011 at 5:38 pmPermalinkReply

      Although it is meant to be consumed young, it is better in its second year

      Let’s not talk balderdash here Claude. The 09 is not yet released (it can be bought but is still classed as EP in the UK) – Frederic told me (generically) that the 09 reds would be bottled in April, though that doesn’t mean he will do that for the passetoutgrains too, but pushing the usp of 85 year-old vines, who knows. As applied to a producer like Lafarge I would take your statement to mean second year after release, otherwise it anyway had no value – though perhaps half of all PTG is available 6 moths before Lafarge’s.

      But based on actual availability, it’s virtually impossible to drink this particular wine in it’s second year as you suggest, unless you drink the whole case in the last 3 months of 2011, and I suppose pedantically that last 3 months is it’s 3rd year since picking. Since entering the market this 06 is somewhere between its 2nd and 3rd year…

      Returning to the object under discussion. The temp: It started at cellar temp – currently 13°C and slowly warmed up to room temp ~22°C over about 4-5 hours.

  2. Claude Kolm17th February 2011 at 6:31 pmPermalinkReply

    Bill — Lafarge treats his BPT differently from other producers that I am familiar with. Most bottle it very early (e.g., Bruno Clavelier’s is always in bottle when I visit the October or November of the year following the vintage), and I am sure that was even more the case back when the book was written. My comment that you link to was made without any consideration of Lafarge’s wine and of course was made in the context of BPT as it generally existed back then. In short, the comment was irrelevant to your experience.

  3. Tom Blach20th February 2011 at 3:00 pmPermalinkReply

    06 is not 99, but the 99 is certainly much more delicious now than it was in 2001.

Burgundy Report

Translate »
Processing...
Thank you!Your subscription has been confirmed.You'll hear from us soon.
Join the Burgundy Report mailing list:
ErrorHere

You are using an outdated browser. Please update your browser to view this website correctly: https://browsehappy.com/;