Home > Vintages and Regions > Other Wines > Southern Rhône & Languedoc 2000
Southern Rhône & Languedoc 2000
Although vintage quality was variable throughout the 1990s by the end of the decade the vineyards of the Southern Rhône were enjoying the first of what would become a remarkably good run of excellent vintages (if we ignore the drowned and damp season that was 2002). The 1998 vintage was widely lauded, a very hot year with apparently excellent wines, although I have certainly found a number of them not to my taste, loaded as they are with baked, roasted and raisiny flavours. The style of 1999 was different, perhaps lighter and fresher, a more challenging season for the vigneron though. I suspect they were more pleased with progress during the 2000 growing season, the conditions near-perfect throughout; the temperatures varied between warm and hot, and rainfall was minimal but sufficient. It was all looking perfect....until September 19th, when the rain really arrived with a harvest-time downpour.
This harvest rain was the only dampener on an otherwise excellent year
though, and in the end it was clear that the vintage had yielded some very good
and indeed even superlative wines.
Robert Parker described the growing season as "a
replay of 1990", commentating on an abundant harvest which gave wines "low in
acidity, fleshy, and fat, with high alcohol, glycerin, and concentration" when
he first reviewed the wines in 2001. Two years later his opinion was
unchanged, proclaiming it then to be "an immensely popular vintage with both neophytes and
connoisseurs". Jancis Robinson's view, more recently proffered in 2008, is that
the vintage yielded "plump, approachable wines" which although very good might
not possess the structure for a long period of cellaring, as well as indicating
that the best wines come from those that picked before the rain set in. Neither
critic, however, has really revisited the wines in any depth in recent years.
Most opinions I have seen rank the wines of the millennium vintage ahead of the fresher, lighter but still very admirable 1999s, but not up to the quality of the 1998s (although I would disagree with unwavering and overly glowing reports of this vintage for the reasons I have given above) or those of the superlative 2001 vintage. Although few would disagree that 2000 was a good to excellent vintage, there are those who would rank it higher than this; I have seen all of these four vintages described as 'outstanding', including 2000, so clearly the wines of this vintage are popular in some quarters. So what of my own opinion on 2000 and where the vintage should sit in the 1998-2001 quartet? I haven't really looked at any detail at the 1999s, but I certainly would prefer to drink the fresher wines from the 2000 vintage than those hotter, raisiny and more soupy wines from 1998. As for 2001, this is a vintage which I will revisit on this site in the future, but from early tastings it may well be the trump card in this small pack.
Not Forgetting the Languedoc....
In previous years I have taken to hiding a wine from the Languedoc in amongst the Gigondas and the Châteauneuf du Pape, on more than one occasion the red wine from Chantal Lecouty and Jean-Claude Le Brun of Prieuré de St Jean de Bebian. This always seemed very appropriate, the wine very much a Rhône-lookalike and often of comparable quality to a good Châteauneuf du Pape. A blend of Grenache, Syrah and Mourvèdre, the fruit originates from vinestock transplanted from Rayas, Chave and Tempier respectively. This year, however, I have included two wines, Bebian's companion being another old favourite and Languedoc stalwart, Mas de Daumas Gassac. I know this seems a little incongruous, as it shifts us away from the classic Rhône varieties and firmly into Cabernet Sauvignon territory, but I hope you will forgive me for including it. Besides, I have had a half-case in the cellar since release, and I was eager to see what they tasted like.
Although it is not at all appropriate to lump together the Rhône and the Languedoc, two gigantic viticultural regions, it is true that the key elements that threatened the Rhône during the harvest - rain and the consequent rot - also played havoc with the vineyards of the Languedoc. It had been a warm but not stunning growing season on the whole; temperatures were below average in July but the warmth returned for August and beyond. Again looking for contemporary opinions from both sides of the Atlantic, Parker noted in an early review that a combination of wet weather and high yields were problematic for the Languedoc in this vintage, but those estates that pruned for moderate yields were able to make "superb" wines. Jancis, meanwhile, notes that the best wines came from the smaller hillside domaines rather than the mass-producers of the plains below. This seems to me to concur with Parker's statement, these latter producers being those more likely to aim for high yields, the smaller domaines with an ethos of quality over quantity more likely to prune. Either way, the vintage omens were reasonably good for the inclusion of these two Languedoc interlopers in the tasting. It was only the twin evils of excessive Brett and TCA that did for these two wines; five bottles were opened to find two that were drinkable. Add in the dodgy Clos des Papes and that is four bottles ruined by taint of one sort or another. (8/9/09)
Southern Rhône & Languedoc 2000 - Tasting Notes
Tasted in September 2009. Click
to locate stockists.
Coudoulet de Beaucastel Côtes du Rhône 2000: The second wine of
Beaucastel. This wine has a deep,
rich, oxblood tones, with a fresh, pink rim. The nose is delightful; it has
progressed onto a complexity that this wine didn't possess two years ago, today
showing savoury roasted meats, macerated and powerfully flavoured cherry fruit,
with notes of tar, leather and flower petals. The palate is similarly
impressive, showing a really fine but rich substance at first which fills the
palate with savoury, macerated fruit and the flavours of sweetly charred meat.
It keeps a broad presence through to the finish, backed up by fine, very
slightly minerally tannins which, with the soft acidity, provide a welcome
freshness to it. I previously said drink up; based on this bottle this was
premature, but I would certainly encourage anyone who has this wine to drink now
- because it is delicious. 17.5/20
![]()
Domaine du Cayron Gigondas 2000: A few years on since last tasted, this wine still shows a good depth of colour, and it still has a
surprisingly youthful, deep red pigment at the core, with red dominating right
out to the rim too. The nose is surprisingly reticent considering the wine's
age; there are little nuances of smoky, gamey, well-hung meat, of cherry, and of
other less easily defined aromas; cola, warmth, charred wood, burnt grass. The
palate kicks off with a fairly generous texture, and it reveals a full, sappy
structure in the middle with ripe tannins and a slightly gritty feel in the
midpalate, with gentle acidity. There is a little disjointedness to it (again as
previously noted), as there is whisky-like alcohol peeping out from behind the
fruit, and there is a hardness to it despite that nice texture at the beginning.
This is a decent wine, but the totality lacks expression and charm. 15.5+/20
![]()
Chateau de Saint-Cosme Gigondas 2000: This wine still has a very deep
colour, with a matt red-black core and a maturing red rim. The aromas still
speak of youth, with ripe blackberry and raspberry fruit, overlaid with smoky
garrigue, and then later game, and a sweet, tarry, floral perfume. This is very
appealing. The palate is rich, with a creamy texture, but with a lovely, savoury
element to it as well, and a stony freshness to the fruit which keeps it from
going overboard. There is still plenty of firm substance to this wine, plenty of
extract, plenty of ripe, mouth-coating tannins too, although they only show
towards the end of the palate, and they are so ripe and yet also polished that
they bring only pleasure. The acidity is a touch muted, but this is still a
delicious wine. Very impressive. 17.5/20
![]()
Domaine des Sénéchaux Châteauneuf du Pape 2000: I really enjoyed the
1998 vintage of this wine; although rather light when young, it morphed into
something flavoursome and balanced. This wine also has a very good quality. The
nose is marked by the aromas of roasted liquorice, gamey meat and coarsely
fragrant thyme. The palate kicks off with a similarly punchy array of flavour,
riding a wave of weight and texture which lies on top of a seam of ripe,
sweetly toothsome tannins. There is concentration and creaminess here, but also
a bright and firm, peppery character which gives some really good backbone. It
finishes with a roll of tannins, and it has length too. Really, this is very
enticing, and will yet improve. With time I think it will surpass the 1998. 17+/20
![]()
Domaine Font de Michelle Châteauneuf du Pape 2000: A fine and mature
colour, oxblood red at the core, and a wide, paler rim. The nose has plenty of
open and overtly mature fruit, sweet and slightly high-toned, with violets,
cooked cherries and hot, slightly funky, animalistic, caramelised meat. The
palate is fleshy, but with firm underpinnings, plenty of meaty extract, and a
lovely tangible substance to the wine. There's a good seam of ripe and smoky
tannins, rather firm acidity although this sits quite well within the overall
substance of the wine. A nice wine, broad and spicy, with plenty of forward
character and a little suppleness, and a little length too. Good wine. 17/20
![]()
Domaine la Roquette Châteauneuf du Pape 2000: A wine from the
Bruniers, best known for their work at Vieux Télégraphe, this has a maturing hue,
with good, gamey, spicy aromas on the nose, with element of stewed meat, a touch of
violet and strawberry fruit too. The palate carries a nice weight, with a
creamy-polished texture but with a stony freshness. It has a nice
substance, a dry extract at the core, but it is ripe, with a little touch of sweetness
and attractive midpalate power. Mature, pickled fruit aromatics, a touch rustic,
complete the picture.
This is appealing, but is a touch foursquare, and certainly not elegant or ethereal. Nice wine
though, fresh, alive and with some good potential. 16+/20
![]()
Bosquet des Papes Châteauneuf du Pape Cuvée Grenache 2000: A dark and
maturing hue here, bricking, but still with plenty of fine, red pigment though.
The nose is delightful, fresh, with savoury charred meat and dark liquorice,
with more lifted elements, rather like dark garden mint, or twiggy herbs, thyme
and maybe even rosemary? The palate doesn't disappoint, starting off with a
nicely polished roundness, but maintaining a rather tight and balanced
composition in the midpalate which gives so much more pleasure, thanks to its
fine delineation and mineral edge. Then it shows a little more fat, but nothing
over-the-top, before a crashing wave of tannins rolls in towards the finish,
never totally dominating but certainly making their presence felt, It makes for
a firm, grippy but thankfully substantial finish. Overall, a delicious wine. 18/20
![]()
Château La Nerthe Châteauneuf du Pape 2000: This wine still has a very
rich and pigmented colour, and the nose is similarly characterful. It has rich
fruit aromas on the nose, with bright but roasted herb nuances, and a little
meaty character to it as well. The palate is quite fine, showing a very cool
texture on entry, before revealing more substance in the midpalate, plenty of
burnt-cherry fruit, good weight and depth, and rather a burnt and sooty but
nevertheless enjoyable tannic grip. The finish remains very solid and charcoaly,
but it has a fine length that goes on and on. An impressive and enjoyable, fresh
and structured wine. Very good. 17/20
![]()
Clos des Papes Châteauneuf du Pape 2000: Not the densest of colours
when poured, although it has an appealing dark cherry hue, with a fading rim.
The nose is really rather muted at first, before it develops some horsey aromas,
and a stewed, slightly grassy-tinny, sticking plaster kind of fruit. There is
Brett here for sure, and it dominates in this bottle. The palate has a good
texture and weight, there is a little sweetness to it, but also a rather sour
character, and a sharp structure, especially at the finish. This is surely not a representative bottle,
so a second
was opened - and this was better. It took a little while to open up, but it
revealed admittedly muted aromas of wild and savage fruit, animalistic but it a
different, much more appealing style than the first bottle, together with notes
of hot stones and hung game. On the plate, veering towards monolithic at first,
all texture without any generosity, but then brighter, more defined, showing a
little more vivacity with deeply characterful fruit with just a gamey, meaty
tinge, backed up by lots of polished extract and substance. This is still a very
youthful style, and there is a lots of unresolved spice and tannin in the
finish. Yes it is drinkable now, and there are many good points, but it is
certainly a wine still on the way up. I have scored on the basis of the second
bottle alone, hoping that this was just bad luck rather than a systematic issue
with variation or Brett. 18+/20
![]()
Domaine Vieux Télégraphe Châteauneuf du Pape 2000: A strong hue of
maturity here, matt oxblood tones cutting through the deep red pigment. The nose
is also mature, a combination of slightly sweaty roasted fruits, a little
barnyard and baked liquorice. The storage for this bottle has been beyond
question, first a respected retailer than a cellar with favourable temperatures. The palate has good
substance and holds onto its sweet slightly grainy tannins, although there is a
slightly raw and youthful side to it. Good fruit, showing a mature and open
style, and in the mix a good but slightly disjointed acidity. It is only the
finish where there is any real concern, showing here a more tertiary character,
meaty and mature. It is five years since I tasted this; it has certainly moved
on during that time. 17.5+/20
![]()
Chateau de Beaucastel Châteauneuf du Pape 2000: A couple of years on
since I last tried this, and it still has a dense hue, although with perhaps a
little more maturity creeping in at the sides now. The nose is explosive and
characterful though, showing a deep array of scents, more complex and intricate
than I recall. We still have the cherry element, although it is presented
in a richer, darker, macerated black cherry style, and behind this there are
notes of polished, minerally stone, flowers, alongside more muted sweet and yet
animally elements. Pure, rich and yet well defined on entry, with creamy
substance but fresh acids and good balance, this wine is still certainly on the
way up, as evidenced by a kick of tannins at the finish. Fine, scented, with
dried black olive flavour, yet
also substantial, this is excellent wine with bags of potential yet, but it is
drinking very nicely now if you like wines that lie on the cusp between primary and secondary
characteristics. 18.5+/20
![]()
Prieuré de St Jean de Bebian Coteaux du Languedoc 2000: The first
bottle is sadly very obviously corked, and not subtly so; this is more the sort
of aromatic fault that fills the room the instant the cork is pulled. The second
bottle is thankfully much cleaner. It is, however, really quite tight and closed
down on the nose, more so than I expected. There is a dark, brooding,
sweet-edged layer of fruit, with a very slightly ripe and roasted feel to it.
Later it shows meat and iodine, with hot spices. Then comes a lovely texture on
entry, one that persists all the way through the palate, matched by a rather
forceful, raw structure. The texture is sweet still, there is ripe, substantial
extract and a weighty, almost chewy element to it. A good wine, but the fruit
seems too plump and soft-focus, albeit in a mature style, and the structure
too raw to be truly great. There is time yet for some improvement though. 16+?/20
![]()
Mas de Daumas Gassac (Vin de Pays de l'Herault) 2000: I was uncertain
whether to include this wine, as it is so different in style, this being largely
Cabernet Sauvignon in contrast to the Grenache, Mourvèdre and Syrah of the Rhône
and Languedoc. In the end it was something of a disaster, but not for the feared
reason. The first bottle was rank,
farmyardy and mousey, seemingly heavily tainted by Brett, curiously later showing
toffee and burnt sugar character. A second was opened, which turned out to be
corked. Thankfully a third was just fine; in the glass it shows a bright ruby
red with little maturity, and on the nose classic youthful Mas de Daumas, firm
and gravelly with tightly bound fruit, and a burgeoning perfume over the top. I
have often said that tasted blind Mas de Daumas resembles a St Estèphe
more than any other commune, and on the basis of this tasting I wouldn't change
this opinion. A firm palate, with good substance and texture, and lots of ripe
structured tannins coming right through the core and coating the whole mouth on
the finish. This third bottle is lovely, but still very primary, tannic and
full. Lots of development time here before this one is at peak, which if you
know Mas de Daumas will come as no surprise I am sure. 17.5+/20
![]()
