Quite deep in colour. The nose starts with some background reduction, but as this blows off, there is a deep and quite dark core of fruit, seemingly dusted with a little cream. Plenty of dark, creamy fruit on the palate too – hmm, also fine length! The acidity is just slightly forward, but not too bad. I’d like to see a little more sweetness, but this seems much better than when first tasted, maybe it’s time to take another look at some of my 07 purchases. Day two and this this better still. Is it a hint too extracted for the vintage? Time will tell…
Medium cherry-red. Rather more depth of toasty oak than I think necessary for a Chambolle – particularly a villages wine – it may have been okay for 2005/2006, but the precocious, friendly 07s just don’t need that much. There’s even a trace of reduction so I decanted; about an hour is needed to lift most of the dark oak/reduction. Width develops and the fruit remains quite dark, it’s not quite what I’m looking for from a Chambolle though – that said, the last drops in the glass smell very pretty indeed. Good texture and actually a very nice intensity, good acidity and an impressive extra dimension of flavour – it’s very nice and shows good length. Just a shame about the oak, it spoils for me the early drinking potential of the wine.
A side-by-side comparison – neither holds all the aces. The L et A Lignier, though offering slightly less colour, is a clear winner in the aroma department – just a gorgeous expression of complex fruit – the Lignier-Michelot is good, but really can’t compete. Over the tongue, mirroring the extra colour, the Lignier-Michelot is a little more extracted and offers more ‘up-front’ oomph, from there-on it’s a long slow diminuendo. The L et A offers a different recipe; narrower on entry, bursting with mid-plate dimension and shows more length. No bad wines here, each offers a balanced performance and I’d certainly buy both again, but the relative proportions today would clearly be in favour of Lucie and Auguste’s bottle.
Medium-plus colour. The nose starts with a fine depth and only the faintest of the vintage taint – slowly that a builds to an almost unpleasant level – after 2 hours it fades a little, giving a faint spearmint edge and some nice red berry notes. In the mouth there’s reasonable density and slightly forward acidity. The texture is okay, as is the slightly savoury length – maybe even a first hint of mushroom is there. If a little overwhelming on the nose the ‘04 character’ remains only a faintly interesting note on the palate.
Wide with a forward black-cherry note, even a hint of Sage – slowly a beautiful clear note of fruit runs through the middle – very precocious, very impressive. Fine tannin with good acidity that forms the basis of a lovely mouth-watering finish – and there’s even a little reprise after a minute. Wide on the palate with fruit that’s almost as good as nose. A really super wine that had the density and presence to walk all over the ‘95 Pomerol (Lagrange) that preceded it.
Medium-plus colour. The nose is forward, maybe a hint porty and certainly very ripe but generally the fruit talks of pinot. Ripe, plenty of concentration and very well mannered tannin. The understated acidity provides good balance and just enough freshness. It’s riper than I prefer, but if the nose talks of pinot then fruit on the palate clearly says burgundy. A good effort.