Three CdP and a Ringer
Lou and I gathered outside to taste a small selection of Chateauneuf du Pape and one ringer. The 1978 Chapoutier, La Bernardine, Chateauneuf du Pape smells very good (it sports concentrated sweet aromas only brought by age) but the flavors do not deliver the same level of quality. The 1981 Monterey Peninsula Winery, Cabernet Sauvignon, Doctor’s Reserve, Monterey County smells OK but is interesting in the mouth. The nose certainly reflects the cooler climate of Monterey as do the tart flavors. A solid start.
The 2003 Les Cailloux (Brunel), Chateauneuf du Pape requires a bit of air to balance out. It is currently more complex and evolved (though will develop further) than the 2006 Domaine de Cristia, Chateauneuf du Pape. This later wine has good tension to support its future potential.
1978 Chapoutier, La Bernardine, Chateauneuf du Pape
Imported by Charles Lefranc Cellars. Alcohol 14%. In fine condition. Proper concentrated aromas are evocative of the 1960s and 1970s. In the mouth are bright flavors of tart, red fruit with bright acidity to carry it through. Unfortunately, the nose is more complex that in the mouth where the flavors hollow out at the finish. ** Drink Up.
1981 Monterey Peninsula Winery, Cabernet Sauvignon, Doctor’s Reserve, Monterey County
Alcohol 11.7%. Aromas of menthol and herbaceousness. A ripe hint in the mouth is soon followed by flavors of sweet tarts matched by chalky tannins. The wine builds in flavor, with the tart cherry core lasting throughout. An interesting wine. **(*) Now.
2003 Les Cailloux (Brunel), Chateauneuf du Pape
Alcohol 14.5%. The nose responds to air, improving with a deep note. It is initially quite ripe in flavor but this cleans up to reveal deep red, complex fruit, watering acidity, and ripe tannins. The fruit continues through the aftertaste. Quite enjoyable and certainly able to develop further over a few more years. ***(*) Now – 2032.
2006 Domaine de Cristia, Chateauneuf du Pape
Baking spices on the nose. More specifically Nuremberg Lebkuchen. A young, fresh wine which is ripe yet tense in balance with the acidity. The ripe, chewy tannins are attractive and so is the tangy acidity. In a markedly younger state than the Les Cailloux, it could stand further age to develop those bottle aged aromas and flavors. *** Now – 2035.
A Mature Bottle of Roudon Smith
According to the back label, the fruit for the 1978 Roudon Smith Vineyards, Cabernet Sauvignon, Sonoma County was sourced from a vineyard on the valley floor and one on Moon Mountain. What the label does not state is that the winery building was constructed the same year as the vintage. Up to this point, the wines had been raised in the cellar of the house. Roudon-Smith Vineyards was founded by the two families just prior in 1972. In a short period, they went on to produce a diverse number of wines including six different Cabernets bottled for the 1978 vintage. Three of those wines were made from Sonoma County fruit including this bottle.
Coming after the two drought years of 1976 and 1977, this 1978 Roudon Smith shows good acidity and brightness. Lively and enjoyable, it is clearly at its peak but will provide pleasure for some time.
1978 Roudon Smith Vineyards, Cabernet Sauvignon, Sonoma County
This wine was aged in a combination of French and American oak. Bottle July 1980. Alcohol 13.4%. Intensely aromatic, combining dry tobacco and a green note. In the mouth this is a tart, sappy wine that is very much alive. Quite nice, with clean, red fruit and a dose of very fine tannins playing a supportive role. It lasts well with air, eventually taking on dry flavors of sour cherry and some spicy notes of Big Red in the finish. ***(*) Now.
Another Pandemic Tasting of Old Californian Wines
Petite Sirah can often seem immune from age but the first pair of wines tasted did not subscribe to that notion. I expected the bottle of 1974 Sonoma Vineyards, Cabernet Sauvignon, Alexander’s Crown, Sonoma County to deliver and it certainly did. It is a favorite of mine. The 1978 Fetzer Vineyards, Zinfandel, Scharffenberger, Mendocino was a new and pleasing experience for me.
The Fetzer family purchase their ranch in 1958, from which they sold grapes to amateur wine makers. A decade later, in 1968, they began to release their own wines. Robert Parker wrote in The Washington Post that since 1978, the Fetzer wines represented some of the best values in the market. The highest qualify and most expensive wines included Zinfandel from the three Mendocino vineyards: Ricetti, Lolonis, and Scharffenberger. Priced at near $9, these were full-throttle wines with the Scharffenberger bringing in 15.4% alcohol by volume. This fact was noted by Terry Robards of The New York Times. Out of 23 Zinfandels tasted, only two others are listed as having levels higher at 15.5% and 15.9%. The fruit was sourced from John Scharffenberger, whose family purchased the old Hildreth Ranch in 1973. The vineyard was planted with Zinfandel, Petite Sirah, and Cabernet Sauvignon on the advice of Barney Fetzer and John Parducci. Much of the fruit was sold to Fetzer.
Some mature, full-bodied Zins can be monolithic, if not well-preserved. I found the 1978 Fetzer has enough balance that it is neither monolithic nor overly hot. It would be fun to taste examples of all three vineyards from this vintage side by side.
1975 Burgess, Petite Sirah, Napa Valley
Bottled May 1977. Alcohol 13.4%. Volatile on the nose with aromas of furniture polish. Firm red fruit in the mouth, short in flavor with fine textured tannins. Not Rated.
NV Tiburon Vintners, Windsor Vineyards, Petite Sirah
Bottled November 1973 for Eric and Arleen Peterson. Alcohol 12%. Clean with slightly sweet fruit on the nose. Drinkable but simple. * Now.
1974 Sonoma Vineyards, Cabernet Sauvignon, Alexander’s Crown, Sonoma County
Alcohol 13.7%. Old-school aromas on the nose (sweaty with concentrated sweet fruit) with a life from eucalyptus. In the mouth the flavors build forming a deep note in the middle with a pervasive, vintage perfumed finish. Sappy acidity and freshly articulated tannins speak to top condition of this wine. With air, soft edges develop along with sweet cocoa and a hint of cola. ***** Now but will last.
1978 Fetzer Vineyards, Zinfandel, Scharffenberger, Mendocino
Alcohol 15.4%. A well preserved example of a bigger Zinfandel, very ripe but still in balance without exposing any alcohol. It is mouthfilling through the end where it picks up brown sugar notes. ***(*) Now but will last.
A Pandemic Tasting of Old Californian Wines with Lou
Lou and I met up outside several times during the pandemic to taste a few bottles of wine. We started off with a small group of Zinfandel. Despite a rather disappointing performance as a whole, the bottle of 1979 Santino, Zinfandel, Special Selection, Fiddletown, Amador County stood out and rightfully so.
It was the same year of our bottle, 1979, that Scott Harvey took over as General Manager and Winemaker at Santino Winery. He had spent the previous years studying in Germany and locally at Story Vineyard and Montevina. When Scott Harvey wrote to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in support of creating a Fiddletown appellation, he noted that his best and most expensive Zinfandel wines came from Fiddletown. The fruit for the 1979 Special Selection we drank was made using fruit sourced from 60 year old vines at Chester Eschen’s Vineyard. Ridge Vineyards was also purchasing Zinfandel fruit from the same vineyard beginning in 1974.
I found the Santino offered up plenty of satisfaction until my share of the bottle was done.
1971 Fortino Winery, Zinfandel
Alcohol 12.5%. A rather old nose but some attractive vintage perfume survives. In the mouth sweaty flavors exist in a watery and light wine with bits of greenness. Fortunately, the sweaty, earthy aspect returns in the somewhat complex finish. *(*) Drink up.
1978 Mirassou, Unfiltered Zinfandel, Monterey County new label
Alcohol 13%. Slightly cloudy in the glass. A touch of overripe fruit. A medicinal note then tart red fruit with some cranberry like verve. Tastes of young vines. *(*) Drink up.
1978 Mirassou, Unfiltered Zinfandel, Monterey County old label
Alcohol 12.5%. Meaty flavors of firm cherry and tart red fruit before the textured finish. Vintage perfume mixes with fresh acidity and a hint of wood box. ** Now.
1979 Santino, Zinfandel, Special Selection, Fiddletown, Amador County
This wine is 100% Zinfandel sourced from 60 year old non-irrigated vines located at Eschen’s Vineyard. It was aged in small French oak barrels. Alcohol 14%. Clearly the best of all wine. Mature but plenty of fruit, texture, and balance. In fine shape with plenty of life ahead but pleasurable now. *** Now.
1980 A. Rafanelli, Zinfandel, Dry Creek Valley, Sonoma County
Alcohol 14.2%. Unfortunately, I did not write down a note.
A Return to Tasting with 2012 Chateauneuf du Pape
I recently joined a very small group for a blind tasting of eight wines. While I was initially unsure of the theme, it was increasingly clear this was not a vertical, and by the end there was enough confidence to settle on a horizontal of Chateauneuf du Pape. I was, however, stymied at determining the vintage.
With nearly a decade of age, the 2012 vintage has produced some very satisfying wines. Some examples, such as the 2012 Domaine Grand Veneur, Vieilles Vignes and beautiful 2012 Domaine de la Janasse, Vieilles Vignes have a long future ahead. The 2012 Domaine du Pegau, Cuvee Reservee, changed tremendously over the course of a few hours. It is immensely satisfying in the end but perhaps it should be aged a few more years. The 2012 Domaine de Marcaux is my favorite wine from this evening. It stood out as an elegant, traditional wine during the tasting and continued to captivate until the bottle was finished.
Please find my notes below in their tasting order. Many thanks to the host who also opened a 1988 Chateau Climens to wrap things up.
#1 2012 Domaine de la Janasse, Chaupin, Chateauneuf du Pape
Plummy depths on the nose which is open with maturing aromas. Rich flavor of dark red fruit which turns blue and mineral by the middle. Though the tannins are resolving, there is still some grip through the spicy, finish with a touch of heat. ***(*) Now – 2026.
#2 2012 Domaine de Marcaux, Chateauneuf du Pape
Meaty with depth on the nose, lovely to smell. Fuller in the mouth, clearly evoking a traditionally mature CdP. While there is structure, it is also decidedly elegant. Lovely, with a savory finish and juicy aftertaste. **** Now – 2032.
#3 2012 Domaine Charvin, Chateauneuf du Pape
Stinky on the nose. Advanced in the mouth, tight, tannic, less flavor. Taste of a hot vintage. Seemingly not right. Not Rated.
#4 2012 Domaine Grand Veneur, Vieilles Vignes, Chateauneuf du Pape
Dark aromas. Concentrated flavor in the mouth with ripe fruit flavors, fine texture, and chewy structure. Shows well blind. With air cool blue fruit and a savory edge comes out. It might stand a few more years of ago. ***(*) 2024-2034.
#5 2012 Domaine Pierre Usseglio & Fils, Cuvee de mon Aieul, Chateauneuf du Pape
Volatile acidity apparent on the nose. Better in the mouth despite the spritz. Red fruit, good core of lively concentrated red, ripe fruit but clearly flawed. Not Rated.
#6 2012 Domaine de la Janasse, Vieilles Vignes, Chateauneuf du Pape
Beautiful, tasty, and serious. Plenty of fruit with supportive structure by the end as the wine becomes tangy. Grainier tannins and acidity will support a long future. **** Now – 2040.
#7 2012 Domaine du Pegau, Cuvee Reservee, Chateaneuf du Pape
The greatest transformation of all wines this evening. It bears the most fruit which almost borders on sweet with ample weight on the tongue. The fruit drapes over the structure of ripe tannins which becomes clearly more apparent by the end. With air the flavors becomes incensed and perfumed then meaty in the finish. The demonstration of growing power point to the need for more age and a long future. **** 2024 – 2040.
#8 2012 Clos du Mont-Olivet, La Cuvee du Papet, Chateauneuf du Pape
Meat on the nose. In the mouth it is completely young but does show some red fruit mixing with garrigue into the long aftertaste. Needs time. *** 2026-2036.
Anatomy of a Madeira Letter – Back Stamp
The British Post office was divided into a number of branches with the Foreign Office separate from the Inland Office. The Foreign Office handled post to and from overseas destinations including a number of the letters sent to Messrs Newton, Gordon that I have in my collection.. Beginning in 1797, the Foreign Office office hand stamped all outward posts.[1]
Between 1806-1814, the Foreign Office used a red stamp with “Foreign” and the year within two concentric circles. There is a code number in the middle. The first image is comprised of four marks for the years 1808-1811.
Beginning in 1815, the Foreign Office switched to a new black stamp. Within a circle appear “F” and the last two digits of the year split by the perpendicular code number. The second image is comprised of stamps from 1817, 1819, and 1820, and 1821.
The last image includes three back stamps from 1817 which I have arranged in ascending order of the numerical code. As you can see, the May letter has a higher value than the September letters. Perhaps the code is simply a 3-digit sequence number which has rolled over back to zero at least once between May and September. Further, there were 67 letters stamped between the two September letters. If anyone has an understanding of this code please let me know.
- #167 – Dated 10 September 1817
- #235 – Dated 10 September 1817
- #252 – Dated 13 May 1817
[1] “The Jay Catalogue: Revisions Continued – FOREIGN OFFICE”, London Postal History Group, Number 158, August 2004. URL: http://www.gbps.org.uk/information/downloads/lphg-notebook.php
Anatomy of a Madeira Letter – Receipt Docketing
On the back of an individual Madeira letter you will find its history docketed. This information includes who sent the letter and from where, when it was written, when it was received, and when it was answered.
The first image featured in this post illustrates the receipt docketing of two letters of introduction sent to Messrs Newton Gordon Murdoch & Scott of Madeira. The letters concern two men each making the journey from London to Calcutta via Madeira. Written one day apart, the letters were received at Madeira on 30 May 1817. They were promptly answered the following day, perhaps because the gentleman themselves were on the very same ship that the letters were sent on.
Not all letters were answered in a timely manner. One such letter sent by packet, took only 11 days to travel from London to Madeira. However, it took nearly four months to be answered! The letter concerns an order for 10 pipes of Madeira to be sent first to the Brazils before making their way back to London. It is possible the reply was not written until the pipes had made their journey back from Brazil hence the long delay.
The final cover featured in this post, indicates that two letters bearing different dates from Francis Newton were received. Though written on one sheet, Francis Newton first provides an extract from his previously sent letter dated 30 November 1790, which is followed by his current letter dated 6 December 1790. The extract of the previous letter is marked “copy” which is perhaps why it is docketed with “Duplicates”. The letters were received on 22 February 1791 and marked “ans’d formerly”. It could be that the first letter was received and answered before this latest copy arrived.
Anatomy of a Madeira Letter – Rates
The three letters featured in this post, dated 1808, 1811, and 1817, highlight the different rates charged for sending letters from London to Madeira using the British Post Office. These letters were carried by postal packet thus in addition to the recipient’s address and endorsement, they bear the rates charged for delivery.
The port city of Falmouth, located in the south-west corner of England, was home to the Post Office’s Packet Service for nearly two centuries.[1] In sending a letter from London to Madeira, the rate was calculated by adding up the inland cost of sending the letter from London to Falmouth. and the Falmouth packet rate to Madeira. The letters dated 1808 and 1811 were rated based on the same scale set forth in the Postage Act of 1805[1].
Falmouth is located some 270 miles from London. In 1805, the inland rates for England charged 11d. for a 200-300 mile journey. The Falmouth packet rate for Madeira was 1s. 7d. The total rate then is 11d. + 1s. 7d. – 1d. = 2s. 5d which is marked in red in the upper right-hand corner of the cover. The letter is also marked “40” for the 40 Centimos collection fee in Madeira. I do not have any further information about this fee.
The second letter was rated 4s. 10d. or twice that of the previous letter. This was the charge for a double letter. The reason for which is found in the correspondence itself, where we learn that “Under this cover you will receive Copies of my last letter…”.
The Postage Act of 1812, increased the inland rate for London to Falmouth by 1d. to 12d or 1s. and the packet rate to Madeira was increased by 1d. to 1s. 8d.[2] The total rate then is 1s. + 1s. 8d. – 1d. = 2s. 7d.
[1] Hemmeon, J. C. “The History of the British Post Office”, 1912. URL: http://www.gbps.org.uk/information/downloads/files/historical-studies/The%20History%20of%20the%20British%20Post%20Office%20(1912)%20-%20J.C.Hemmeon.pdf
[2] “Postage Act 1805, (45 Geo 3 c.11, 12th March 1805)”. The Great Britain Philatelic Society. URL: http://www.gbps.org.uk/information/sources/acts/1805-03-12_Act-45-George-III-cap-11.php
[3] “Postage Act 1812,(52 Geo 3 c.88, 9th July 1812)”. The Great Britain Philatelic Society. URL: http://www.gbps.org.uk/information/sources/acts/1812-07-09_Act-52-George-III-cap-88.php
Anatomy of a Madeira Letter – Recipient’s Address
Whether from England or America, an old letter addressed to a Madeira house is shockingly simple. The name of the firm followed by “Madeira” are all that were required for an address to enable the letter to reach its destination during the 18th and 19th centuries. Founded in 1745 by Francis Newton, the firm of Cossart, Gordon & Co. has changed names some dozen times since [1] and the letters in my possession illustrate several of these changes through the recipient’s address:
- Messrs Newton Gordon & Co (1787)
- Messrs Newton Gordon & Johnston (1790)
- Messrs Newton Gordon Murdoch & Scott (1808)
- Messrs Newton, Gordon, Cossart & Co (1840)
A number of my letters are endorsed with additional information. To understand why we must turn to postal history.[2] The British Post Office was first organized by act in the mid 17th century which gave it the authority to send all letters and packets.[3] There were exceptions which allowed others to carry mail as well. Letters regarding personal affairs could be carried by a friend and merchant correspondence could be carried by other ships.
Three such examples appear in the image below. The top-most cover is endorsed “pr. Packet” which meant it traveled by a regular postal packet. If you look closely you can see it was rated “2/5” meaning a rate of 2 Shillings and 5 Pence was charged along with “40” for the 40 Centimos collect fee in Madeira. The middle letter endorsed “THe Alexander CapT Reid” was carried by private ship. Captain Reid no doubt carried the letter because a John Welch of London was directing Messrs. Newton Gordon to ship five pipes of Madeira onboard Captain Reid’s ship Alexander. The final cover is endorsed “by favour of Mr Wm Hope” and from the contents we learn that the banking firm of Marsh, Stracey, & Co. of London requested that Messrs Newton Gordon advance Mr. William Hope up to 600 Pounds.
[1] “Madeira, The Island Vineyard” by Noel Cossart & Mannie Berk, 2010.
[2] Many interesting papers may be found at the Great Britain Philatelic Society. URL: http://www.gbps.org.uk/
[3] “June 1657: An Act for setling the Postage of England, Scotland and Ireland.” British History Online. URL: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/pp1110-1113
“We were in time favored with your letter”: Anatomy of a Madeira letter
I have enjoyed reading many 18th and 19th century letters regarding Madeira wine both online and in person. The survival of these letters is amazing. There is a thrill I feel whenever I have viewed them at libraries or from the collection of Mannie Berk (The Rare Wine Co.). The descriptions found within, of various wines, vintages, and even oak staves, have appeared in many posts on this blog. I have, however, never addressed the physical letters themselves.
Over the last few months I acquired a small collection of letters addressed to the firm of Cossart, Gordon and Company at Madeira dating from 1763 – 1840. That these letters are even available for purchase stems back to the late 1970s and early 1980s when many were sold off for philatelic value. It is these letters that I have largely purchased. Over the next few posts I will present pictures from my collection to illustrate the anatomy of a Madeira letter.
Hogshead - A Wine Blog 