Appellation Australia

While French wine doesn’t match the theme of this site, I think it’s important for me to look beyond Australian wine from time to time. Without doing this, I can’t put Australian wines in context with the rest of what the world has to offer.

So, along with 11 others, I made my way to the modern French restaurant Marque that received “three hats” (highest possible rating) and chef Mark Best was the winner of the “Best Chef” in the 2006 SMH Sydney Good Food Guide.

We had the degustation menu that consisted of the following;

Chaud-Froid Free Range Egg
Almond Jelly with Crab, Almond Gazpacho, Prune Oil, Herring Roe & Sweet Corn Custard
“Risotto” (no rice!) of Local Calamari and Harbour Prawns, Cauliflower Puree
Potato Mille-Feuille with Smoked Mackerel Bonito & Olive “Truffles”, Hazelnut Emulsion
Boudin Noir with New Garlic, Sea urchin, Fresh Snails & Young Shallots
Roast Wood Pigeon and Rare Chicken Breast with Parsnip & Chocolate Tart, Salad Burnette
Roast Venison with Carrot Confit, Sweet&Sour Turnips & Bitter Chocolate Sauce, Potato
Mixed Cheese Platter
Sauternes Custard with Caramel
Roast Tomato with twelve different flavours and Star Anise Ice-cream

Now I’m not a food critic by any stretch of anyone’s imagination, but I thought the food was world class. While I would be struggling with some of the dishes to say that I liked them, they were challenging and had excellent depth and balance of flavour – none could be said to be bland or boring.

The service was very good – I’m certain that it’s not easy dealing with demanding wine nerds who have twenty bottles of wine that need to be decanted at specific times during the evening and then poured in the correct order with the right dishes of food. We were provided with clean, high quality Riedel glasses after every set of wines (two at a time) and we were given a separate table for our bottles and 5 or 6 restaurant provided decanters. The food arrived close to the same time for all at the table and each dish was accompanied by a verbal explanation of the various components.

The total cost was about $170 per person including the above food, coffee, corkage and an automatically added 8% “gratuity”. I’m not sure if I take issue with the automatically added gratuity or not. I wonder if there would be many people who go to a restaurant of this level who wouldn’t tip if they received good service. I think in our case by automatically adding the tip, they probably missed out on a higher amount that we would have given.

If I were scoring the restaurant out of 100 like I do for wine, I’d give it 96 points.

Anyway, on to the wines – the following 23 wines were tasted –

Champagne:

Moet et Chandon Cuvée Dom Perignon Oenotheque 1988 (disgorged 2002) – (Champagne):
Very fine bead. Nose and palate show exceptional freshness and vitality. Nose shows some cut grass like aromas as well as strawberry, mushroom and citrus. Lacks some of the aged complexity of the Krug, but makes up for it with its supreme elegance and length. 95/100

Krug Vintage 1979 – (Champagne):
Nose is oxidative, toasty with marmalade notes but still shows signs of freshness with some apricot and lime. I liked the palate better than the nose with some brilliant intensity and concentration. 94/100

Chablis:

Domaine Jean Dauvissat Cuvée Saint-Pierre 1er Cru 1999 – (Chablis):
Showing predominantly sulphurous, reductive aromas on the nose. Palate is tight and finishes short and watery. 85/100

White Burgundy:

Domaine Fontaine-Chandon de Briailles 1999 – (Corton-Charlemagne):
This was the best of the white wines in my opinion. Showing aromas of grapefruit, honey and some spicy oak on the nose. The palate is lean and tight but with much better balance and length than the Chablis. This wine shows excellent potential. 91/100

Chateau Génot-Boulanger 1998 – (Corton-Charlemagne):
Nose is fairly full on – butter, oak, smoke and cheese. I found the palate to be alcoholic and acidic. I felt it had poor structure and is a wine that is going nowhere fast. 83/100

Domaine Marc Jomain 1997 – (Batard-Montrachet):
Struck match/sulphur and dirty cheesy aromas dominating. Palate was acidic, bitter and short. 79/100

Red Burgundy:

Domaine Fourrier 1997 – (Griotte-Chambertin):
Nose is quite nice, herbs and stalks, spice and cherry. Palate doesn’t live up to the interesting nose, being tannic, acidic, short and simple. 85/100

Domaine Pierre Damoy 1997 – (Chapelle-Chambertin):
This was the best of the red Burgundy for my tastes, but it was polarising. Nose of lavender, stems, and cherry and yes call the brett police if you must on the funky barnyard aromas but I thought they were restrained, not dominating and added some complexity. Palate is youthful but shows good structure and potential. 90/100

Domaine Robert Arnoux 1997 – (Echezeaux):
Exhibits aromas of earth, stalks and mushrooms but with oak coming in over the top. There is some texture to the palate but it is rather simple otherwise. 87/100

Domaine Geantet-Pansiot 1998 – (Charmes-Chambertin):
Opens with alcoholic heat on the nose making it difficult to smell some present nutty and cherry aromas. Palate is better but there was nothing of great significance to redeem the poor nose. 86/100

Domaine Harmand-Geoffroy 1996 – (Mazis-Chambertin):
The nose is comprised of stalks, meat, yeast and freshly burnt rubber on tarmac. Palate is sharp and has spiky acid. Please may we start the Bordeaux section now? 78/100

Red Bordeaux:

Château Haut-Brion 1966 – (Pessac):
This was an amazing colour, with only the slightest hints of brown around the edges. Complex nose of pencil shavings, blueberry, soap, liquorice, smoke, mushrooms and earth. The palate is all class, you can still just feel the tannins propping up the structure of the wine but they are integrated almost perfectly and the mouth-feel is silky smooth. It was wonderful, stunning and superb; roll out all the superlatives for this one. 97/100

Château Margaux 1978 – (Medoc):
Some floral nuances and perfume on the nose as well as violets, herbs, clay and brine. Palate isn’t as good as the nose, medium-bodied with some elegance but the Haut-Brion was a hard act to follow. Seemed to be falling apart structurally after only a short time in the glass. 91/100

Château Mouton-Rothschild 1985 – (Pauillac):
A complex, but not exactly pleasant medicinal, herbal, iodine, smoked meat, cedar and savoury nose. The palate was smooth but didn’t really have the intensity or complexity to save the day for this wine. Other members of the table reported that they have had better bottles in the past. 88/100

Château Lafite Rothschild 1983 – (Pauillac):
A tight, closed nose of assorted herbs, graphite, cedar a bit of meat and a whiff of hospital hallway. Palate is elegant and is not unbalanced in any way but is also lacking in interest and intensity. 90/100

Château Certan de May 1982 – (Pomerol):
Shows a lovely lush nose of plums, liquorice, raspberry and blackcurrant. The palate is also good, fleshy round mouth-feel, with balanced components and great length. This bottle was drinking very nicely now. 93/100

Château Ducru Beaucaillou 1982 – (St.-Julien):
Has a very tight nose of earth, cedar, blackberry and plums. Palate exhibits some stalk and I felt as though the fruit was thinning out a bit as it was left to sit in the glass for half an hour or so. Good structure, but will the fruit remain long enough for everything to come together? 91/100

Château Leoville Las Cases 1982 – (St.-Julien):
Opens up with a youthful, powerful but tight nose, with cassis, blackberry, some minerality, tobacco, smoke, cedar and graphite. Palate is tight, yet concentrated and powerful – superb structure, lots of tannins and a very long finish. Just a glimpse at its potential tonight, it will continue to improve over the next decade or longer and hold its peak for some time thereafter. 96/100

Château Leoville-Barton 1990 – (St.-Julien):
Showing an intense, surprisingly open/forward nose of tobacco, earth and flint. The palate delivers a rush of flavour across the length of the wine. I thought it had the structure to age further, but I quite liked drinking it at this stage of its life. 92/100

Sauternes and Fortified:

Château Climens 1986 – (Sauternes):
The nose is comprised of apricots, honey and ripe citrus. Palate has an intense sweetness to it, but it is reined into line by good acid structure. As others mentioned, the finish was a letdown with a bit of a harsh, bitter character. 90/100

Château Climens 1996 – (Sauternes):
Exhibits some dirty, feral aromas on the nose as well as hazelnut and orange peel. Has a very young, tight palate revealing little at the moment. If it shakes off the funk, it may develop nicely. 87/100

Château Rieussec 1990 – (Sauternes):
This wine has rich aromas of oranges and other citrus fruit and honey. A very rich, sweet, viscous, long palate. Perhaps it is just a touch broad/unfocused to be great. 92/100

Seppelt Rare Muscat GR113 – (Rutherglen, Australia):
The ring-in from Australia was very good – intense, complex, layered nose of caramel, raisins, nuts, rancio and mocha coffee. The palate is vibrant and has excellent balance. The length is superb. 95/100