Telegramme:
This is the 2002 cuvee from the producers of Dom. Vieux Telegraphe, a
declassified one-off produced after the fall rains ruined most of the
crop just before harvest.

Very light color, and I could swear that it looked pale at the rim, but
that could have been a trick of the light caused by the thick glasses
it was served in (I was at a friend's house). Very promising,
structured nose indicating tannin and solid complexity with some fruit.
Thinnish mouthfeel followed by a good but not great, medium finish,
with a very red fruit-forward flavor. The tannins hinted at by the
nose were nowhere to be seen, and it lacked the complexity I had hoped
for. That being said, this was a pleasant enough wine, but its not a
bargain priced Vieux Telegraphe. I'd buy it again at $18-$20, but not
at $29.


2002 Las Rocas:
This was the polar opposite of the Telegramme, which was consumed at
the same time. Very dark ruby/purple in the glass, with a massive
fruit-bomb of a nose, with only subtle hints of complexity. This wine
is somewhat surprising once sipped, because in the mouth you are met
with firm but not harsh tannins, dark fruit, and a great oaky
complexity with a medium finish. The fruit is there, but it is much
better balanced and complex than the nose would indicate. Quite a
surprise. A steal at $8.99.

- Chris

thanks, I wondered re this. Sometimes declassified wine can be a deal,
sometimes not.

Chris Sprague wrote:
> Telegramme:
> This is the 2002 cuvee from the producers of Dom. Vieux Telegraphe, a
> declassified one-off produced after the fall rains ruined most of the
> crop just before harvest.

The part of the crop that it didn't ruin was the Grenache, planted on
the plateau "La Crau," which apparently drained well enough to preserve
the fruit. The Bruniers were so impressed with the quality of the
Grenache that they were loathe to sell, but didn't want to call a 100%
Grenache cuvee "Vieux Telegraphe," so instead chose the rather whimsical
bottling you saw.

>
> Very light color, and I could swear that it looked pale at the rim, but
> that could have been a trick of the light caused by the thick glasses
> it was served in (I was at a friend's house).
To me, it was a typical Grenache color, close to garnet.

Very promising,
> structured nose indicating tannin and solid complexity with some fruit.
> Thinnish mouthfeel followed by a good but not great, medium finish,
> with a very red fruit-forward flavor. The tannins hinted at by the
> nose were nowhere to be seen, and it lacked the complexity I had hoped
> for. That being said, this was a pleasant enough wine, but its not a
> bargain priced Vieux Telegraphe. I'd buy it again at $18-$20, but not
> at $29.

What I got was classic, bright Grenache fruit in the nose and on the
palate, decent backbone, but a somewhat clipped finish. I likened it to
a decent Cotes du Rhone, but it lacked the depth or complexity of the
usual VT bottlings. I think that I paid $22 for it at Premier Cru.

Mark Lipton

Mike Tommasi wrote:

> If you have time, drop in on monday the 7th at the Sofitel in
> Marseille, for the official presentation of the 2003 vintage of
> Chateauneuf...
>
> We are waiting for you Mark

Temptation, thy name is Tommasi! ;-) Would that I could, Mike, but I'm
even farther from Marseille than usual at the moment. (In the back of
my unruly mind, I hear a song from a late-'70s Aussie band, The Angels,
"[Take Me Away to] Marseilles")

I'll eagerly await hearing your report, though. I'm leery of what to
expect from that heat-soaked year. IIRC, though, Grenache is supposed
to be drought- and heat-resistant, so maybe we'll get some Rayas-like wines.

Mark Lipton