Well my Dad is getting up there and wanted lobster for B-day dinner.
I have a lot of white burgundy that needs to be consumed so I pulled the following and compared:
1990 Louis Latour Corton-Charlemange - Very austere at first but given time and air this wine transformed into a mellow classy Corton with just the right hint of aging ( faint butterscotch).
2002 Vincent Girardin Corton-Charlemange - Fresh and floral right from the start. Very refereshing and a great contrast to show the effects of aging when paired with the Latour. Unfortunately, as time progressed the wine seemed to get weaker and weaker and potential seemed to gradually drift away.
Winner: 1990 Louis Latour. Very suprising to me as I thought at that age the wine would surely be close to dead.
Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
RDD. Many of us are now wary of aging White Burgundy. Here is why:
From Wiki Source
Several consumers, producers and critics have reported that a non-negligible number of bottles of white burgundies suffer from a phenomenon called "premature oxidation". Simply put, the wines appear at various stages of oxidation, and this state is not what would normally be expected given their age. Typical signs of oxidation include a darker color than expected as well as distinct "oxidation" aromas or flavors (sometimes to the point of making the wine completely undrinkable).
Oxidation occurs in stages. In the “partial oxidation” stage, the wine usually has a color which is somewhat darker or more mature gold than the wine’s vintage counterparts and either a notable absence of the wine’s normal aromas and flavors and a “flat “ character on the palate, or the wine also exhibits aromas and/or flavors associated with oxidation – typically brown apple, cereal grains (often described as “cheerios” or “corn flakes”), toasted bread (as distinct from oak toast), light sherry-like notes or sometimes aromas like well-aged cognac. Aromas and flavors which we frequently associate pleasantly with fully mature wines, such as honey, butterscotch, nutty or hazelnut, are also associated with oxidation of wine. When these particular characteristics are more prominent than expected in a relatively young wine, along with advanced color, this too is usually a sign of partial oxidation. Partially oxidized wines are often still drinkable (and occasionally very enjoyable) despite the noticeable oxidative flaws. In the more advanced stages of oxidation, the wine is usually a very full blown gold or orangey-gold color or sometimes quite brown and usually exhibits very prominent cereal grain, overly-toasted bread, or strong sherry-like aromas and flavors that make the wine virtually undrinkable.
Several theories have been put forward to explain this phenomenon but none of them is fully satisfying and convincing for the time being. However it seems clear that there is no one single cause and that the issue stems from a combination of aggravating factors (see below for a discussion of each suggested cause).
The premature oxidation problem, which began with the 1995 vintage, was not really recognized as a systemic problem until the fall of 2003, when the 1996 vintage reached seven years of age. At that time a small but discernable percentage of the wines began to exhibit premature oxidation symptoms similar to those which the 1995 vintage began exhibiting about a year earlier. When an inordinately high number of the 1995 vintage whites appeared to be partially or fully oxidized, it seemed inexplicable and people naturally sought to explain the problem as somehow related to the vintage (and there had been a considerable amount of rot in 1995). When the 1996 vintage started to show the same problems, despite being considered an ultra-clean, high acid and classic vintage, alarm bells started going off. Each subsequent vintage has exhibited similar problems beginning about 6.5 to 7 years after the vintage (although the 2000 and 2001 vintages have a lower incidence of premature oxidation than do 1995, 1996 and 1999.)
The first public commentary about the premature oxidation problem occurred in September of 2004 in Issue 116 of Steven Tanzer's International Wine Cellar, in conjunction with Mr. Tanzer's annual white burgundy review. The initial reaction of most burgundy producers was complete denial that their wines were affected. The following year Allen Meadows of the Burghound and other wine critics began to publicly acknowledge that there was in fact a problem.
Now five-plus years after the problem first started to surface, premature oxidation has clearly reached epidemic proportions. The problem clearly affects every white burgundy vintage between 1995 and 2001 (i.e. each vintage which has reached seven years of age) and it seems inevitable that the same problem will plague the 2002 vintage since most producers were in complete denial that anything was wrong until at least late 2004, after the 2002's had already been bottled. Premature oxidation has affected between 9% and 23% of the very top wines of each of the top vintages in the stretch from 1996 through 2001 and those percentages seem likely to rise with time. The problem clearly seems the worst in the 1995 vintage where, at least in my experience and anecdotally from what my fellow burgundy collectors report, the percentage of affected bottles is approximately 50%. The incidence of premature oxidation has varied more than might be expected by vintage. For example, the results of the annual vintage tastings/oxidation checks I have conducted each of the last four years show the following variation in incidence of premature oxidation:
1996 vintage -- 5/28 oxidized to some degree (18%)
1999 vintage -- 10/44 oxidized to some degree (23%)
2000 vintage -- 6/41 oxidized to some degree (14.6%)
2001 vintage -- 4/43 oxidized to some degree (9%)
In the two vintages with the lowest incidence so far (2000 and 2001) there is some evidence that the producers used greater amounts of SO2 during the winemaking process. So far, the worst vintages from an oxidation perspective have been those considered to have ultra-clean fruit. Since 2002 is also such a vintage, and there are already growing reports of premature oxidation of this vintage, many people (myself included) fear that 2002 will also have a very high incidence of premature oxidation when we formally evaluate this vintage next February or March.
While the problem is clearly an epidemic one, it has yet to be acknowledged in the mainstream press. There has been no serious coverage of this issue by either the Wine Spectator or by the Wine Advocate. One can only speculate why.
Some producers are clearly more affected than others
The oxidation which has been observed in the 1995 to 2002 vintages seems to vary widely among producers. Some producers seem to have a very high incidence of oxidized bottles while others have very little. In my opinion [Ed. Don Cornwell], there appear to be five broad categories among producers.
Category I: The first category is a group of producers whose rates of oxidation appear to be greater than one out of three bottles and, in a few cases, the incidence of oxidation approaches 100%. In my opinion, the producers who fall in this category of the highest incidence producers are: Guy Amiot, Colin-Deleger, Coutoux, Droin, Jean-Marc Pillot, Jouard, Juillot, Sauzet, Tessier and Verget.
Category II: The second category is a group of producers who have unexplainable seemingly "random" oxidation but at what would appear to be a clearly higher than normal incidence. The producers who would presently fall in this category in my opinion are: Bonneau du Martray, Carillon, Girardin, Jadot, Lafon, Hubert Lamy, Matrot, Montille, Ramonet and Roumier.
Category III: The third category is the largest group of producers for whom the oxidation incidence is "today's normal" or roughly 10-15%. There are far too many producers to name here individually, but you can figure it out by process of deduction given the other listed producers in Categories I, II, IV and V.
Category IV: The fourth category is a group of producers who seem to have had oxidation problems in only one particular vintage or with one particular bottling in a vintage: Pernot (1995), Roulot (1996 Meursault Perrieres and perhaps others), Leroy SA (1996 Meursault Perrieres initial release) and Pierre Morey (1999).
Category V: The fifth and final group of producers are those who have very little premature oxidation as a percentage of bottles opened and indeed seem to have no higher incidence of premature oxidation since 1994 than they did before, i.e., Coche-Dury, DRC, Leflaive, Leroy/D'Auvenay, Bernard Morey and Raveneau.
Oxidation will most often vary within a single case
The oxidation problem also varies among single cases of wine. Sometimes several bottles within the same case are severely affected whereas the other bottles in the same case are showing perfectly well (or at least according to expectations). While the cause or causes of premature are still subject to debate, it would appear that the highly variable performance of bottles within in a single case is explained by an unexpectedly high variation in the oxygen permeablity of corks. Empirical data from different studies has demonstrated a large variance in the oxygen permeability of randomly selected high quality wine corks of the same grade. (For additional details, see the discussion of lowered sulphur dioxide levels as a potential cause.)
Distinguishing oxidation which isn't "premature"
All white wines, even when stored in ideal storage, will eventually oxidize. In some cases, properly cellared bottles of Montrachet from great vintages have been known to survive 100 years or more without being completely oxidized. While grand cru wines generally have longer life expectancies than premier cru wines, which in turn generally have longer life expectancies than village wines, the vintage conditions have a significant impact on the expected life of a given vintage of white burgundy. Generally speaking, vintages which have high acidity levels (and lower ph) will survive much longer than average and, conversely, vintages with lower than average acidity levels will be naturally shorter-lived. Similarly, vintages impacted by rot, which produces enzymes in the wine that can accelerate the oxidation of ethanol (what we perceive as oxidation) can be relatively short-lived.
While there seems to be an accepted standard among burgundy collectors that a typical well-made grand cru white burgundy from a decent vintage should last an absolute minimum of 10 years without any signs of oxidation (and longer in the case of high acid vintages like 1993 and 1996), it's simply not reasonable to apply this same type of expectation for vintages recognized as poor or seriously rot-affected vintages (such as 1997 and 1998). Thus, I'm troubled when I hear someone complaining that their eight to ten year old 1997 or 1998 burgundy was "prematurely" oxidized. My view is that while the wine was oxidized, it wasn't "premature" for the wine to fail at eight to ten years of age given the lousy quality of the vintage to start with; or, stated alternatively, it simply wasn't reasonable to expect the wine to be exhibiting no oxidation when it was eight-plus years old. For similar reasons, I'm troubled when someone occasionally claims that a 1989 or 1990 white burgundy that the person recently tasted was "prematurely" oxidized.
To me at least, it's simply not a useful excercise to talk about "premature" oxidation of vintages like 1997, 1998 or 2003 because the expected life span of the vintage was quite short. Similarly, I think it's pointless to talk about "premature" oxidation of wines older than 15 years.
The potential causes of premature oxidation
Several reasons have been outlined to explain the situation. However each of them has a number of counter-examples, which points to a combination of factors as the most likely cause.
Below are listed a number of potential factors contributing to the premature oxidation of white burgundies, each of which is discussed in some detail.
Lowered Sulphur Dioxide Levels
Corks and cork treatments
Batonnage (stirring of the lees)
Other Alleged Causes
[Text and opinions by Editor Don Cornwell. © Don Cornwell 2005-2009]
none
Optional: a note about this edit for the page history log
Cancel
Note that the content you create on http://oxidised-burgs.wikispaces.com is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 License. Please only submit content that you write yourself or that is in the public domain. Learn more about our open content policy.
Help · About · Blog · Terms · Privacy · Support · Upgrade
Contributions to http://oxidised-burgs.wikispaces.com are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 License.
RDD
A top notch Corton Charlemange I've had twice recently is 2004 Bonneau du Martray. du Martray has very large holdings here and makes in the top 5 wines almost every year. His are relatively affordable at about $110-120 per btl. The wine is outstanding, it can be drunk now or cellared another 5 years.
The old idea was to age Corton Charlemagne in excellent years for 10 years. I will buy a couple of btls and hold for four to six years depending on "cellar tracker" reports as time goes by.
From Wiki Source
Several consumers, producers and critics have reported that a non-negligible number of bottles of white burgundies suffer from a phenomenon called "premature oxidation". Simply put, the wines appear at various stages of oxidation, and this state is not what would normally be expected given their age. Typical signs of oxidation include a darker color than expected as well as distinct "oxidation" aromas or flavors (sometimes to the point of making the wine completely undrinkable).
Oxidation occurs in stages. In the “partial oxidation” stage, the wine usually has a color which is somewhat darker or more mature gold than the wine’s vintage counterparts and either a notable absence of the wine’s normal aromas and flavors and a “flat “ character on the palate, or the wine also exhibits aromas and/or flavors associated with oxidation – typically brown apple, cereal grains (often described as “cheerios” or “corn flakes”), toasted bread (as distinct from oak toast), light sherry-like notes or sometimes aromas like well-aged cognac. Aromas and flavors which we frequently associate pleasantly with fully mature wines, such as honey, butterscotch, nutty or hazelnut, are also associated with oxidation of wine. When these particular characteristics are more prominent than expected in a relatively young wine, along with advanced color, this too is usually a sign of partial oxidation. Partially oxidized wines are often still drinkable (and occasionally very enjoyable) despite the noticeable oxidative flaws. In the more advanced stages of oxidation, the wine is usually a very full blown gold or orangey-gold color or sometimes quite brown and usually exhibits very prominent cereal grain, overly-toasted bread, or strong sherry-like aromas and flavors that make the wine virtually undrinkable.
Several theories have been put forward to explain this phenomenon but none of them is fully satisfying and convincing for the time being. However it seems clear that there is no one single cause and that the issue stems from a combination of aggravating factors (see below for a discussion of each suggested cause).
The premature oxidation problem, which began with the 1995 vintage, was not really recognized as a systemic problem until the fall of 2003, when the 1996 vintage reached seven years of age. At that time a small but discernable percentage of the wines began to exhibit premature oxidation symptoms similar to those which the 1995 vintage began exhibiting about a year earlier. When an inordinately high number of the 1995 vintage whites appeared to be partially or fully oxidized, it seemed inexplicable and people naturally sought to explain the problem as somehow related to the vintage (and there had been a considerable amount of rot in 1995). When the 1996 vintage started to show the same problems, despite being considered an ultra-clean, high acid and classic vintage, alarm bells started going off. Each subsequent vintage has exhibited similar problems beginning about 6.5 to 7 years after the vintage (although the 2000 and 2001 vintages have a lower incidence of premature oxidation than do 1995, 1996 and 1999.)
The first public commentary about the premature oxidation problem occurred in September of 2004 in Issue 116 of Steven Tanzer's International Wine Cellar, in conjunction with Mr. Tanzer's annual white burgundy review. The initial reaction of most burgundy producers was complete denial that their wines were affected. The following year Allen Meadows of the Burghound and other wine critics began to publicly acknowledge that there was in fact a problem.
Now five-plus years after the problem first started to surface, premature oxidation has clearly reached epidemic proportions. The problem clearly affects every white burgundy vintage between 1995 and 2001 (i.e. each vintage which has reached seven years of age) and it seems inevitable that the same problem will plague the 2002 vintage since most producers were in complete denial that anything was wrong until at least late 2004, after the 2002's had already been bottled. Premature oxidation has affected between 9% and 23% of the very top wines of each of the top vintages in the stretch from 1996 through 2001 and those percentages seem likely to rise with time. The problem clearly seems the worst in the 1995 vintage where, at least in my experience and anecdotally from what my fellow burgundy collectors report, the percentage of affected bottles is approximately 50%. The incidence of premature oxidation has varied more than might be expected by vintage. For example, the results of the annual vintage tastings/oxidation checks I have conducted each of the last four years show the following variation in incidence of premature oxidation:
1996 vintage -- 5/28 oxidized to some degree (18%)
1999 vintage -- 10/44 oxidized to some degree (23%)
2000 vintage -- 6/41 oxidized to some degree (14.6%)
2001 vintage -- 4/43 oxidized to some degree (9%)
In the two vintages with the lowest incidence so far (2000 and 2001) there is some evidence that the producers used greater amounts of SO2 during the winemaking process. So far, the worst vintages from an oxidation perspective have been those considered to have ultra-clean fruit. Since 2002 is also such a vintage, and there are already growing reports of premature oxidation of this vintage, many people (myself included) fear that 2002 will also have a very high incidence of premature oxidation when we formally evaluate this vintage next February or March.
While the problem is clearly an epidemic one, it has yet to be acknowledged in the mainstream press. There has been no serious coverage of this issue by either the Wine Spectator or by the Wine Advocate. One can only speculate why.
Some producers are clearly more affected than others
The oxidation which has been observed in the 1995 to 2002 vintages seems to vary widely among producers. Some producers seem to have a very high incidence of oxidized bottles while others have very little. In my opinion [Ed. Don Cornwell], there appear to be five broad categories among producers.
Category I: The first category is a group of producers whose rates of oxidation appear to be greater than one out of three bottles and, in a few cases, the incidence of oxidation approaches 100%. In my opinion, the producers who fall in this category of the highest incidence producers are: Guy Amiot, Colin-Deleger, Coutoux, Droin, Jean-Marc Pillot, Jouard, Juillot, Sauzet, Tessier and Verget.
Category II: The second category is a group of producers who have unexplainable seemingly "random" oxidation but at what would appear to be a clearly higher than normal incidence. The producers who would presently fall in this category in my opinion are: Bonneau du Martray, Carillon, Girardin, Jadot, Lafon, Hubert Lamy, Matrot, Montille, Ramonet and Roumier.
Category III: The third category is the largest group of producers for whom the oxidation incidence is "today's normal" or roughly 10-15%. There are far too many producers to name here individually, but you can figure it out by process of deduction given the other listed producers in Categories I, II, IV and V.
Category IV: The fourth category is a group of producers who seem to have had oxidation problems in only one particular vintage or with one particular bottling in a vintage: Pernot (1995), Roulot (1996 Meursault Perrieres and perhaps others), Leroy SA (1996 Meursault Perrieres initial release) and Pierre Morey (1999).
Category V: The fifth and final group of producers are those who have very little premature oxidation as a percentage of bottles opened and indeed seem to have no higher incidence of premature oxidation since 1994 than they did before, i.e., Coche-Dury, DRC, Leflaive, Leroy/D'Auvenay, Bernard Morey and Raveneau.
Oxidation will most often vary within a single case
The oxidation problem also varies among single cases of wine. Sometimes several bottles within the same case are severely affected whereas the other bottles in the same case are showing perfectly well (or at least according to expectations). While the cause or causes of premature are still subject to debate, it would appear that the highly variable performance of bottles within in a single case is explained by an unexpectedly high variation in the oxygen permeablity of corks. Empirical data from different studies has demonstrated a large variance in the oxygen permeability of randomly selected high quality wine corks of the same grade. (For additional details, see the discussion of lowered sulphur dioxide levels as a potential cause.)
Distinguishing oxidation which isn't "premature"
All white wines, even when stored in ideal storage, will eventually oxidize. In some cases, properly cellared bottles of Montrachet from great vintages have been known to survive 100 years or more without being completely oxidized. While grand cru wines generally have longer life expectancies than premier cru wines, which in turn generally have longer life expectancies than village wines, the vintage conditions have a significant impact on the expected life of a given vintage of white burgundy. Generally speaking, vintages which have high acidity levels (and lower ph) will survive much longer than average and, conversely, vintages with lower than average acidity levels will be naturally shorter-lived. Similarly, vintages impacted by rot, which produces enzymes in the wine that can accelerate the oxidation of ethanol (what we perceive as oxidation) can be relatively short-lived.
While there seems to be an accepted standard among burgundy collectors that a typical well-made grand cru white burgundy from a decent vintage should last an absolute minimum of 10 years without any signs of oxidation (and longer in the case of high acid vintages like 1993 and 1996), it's simply not reasonable to apply this same type of expectation for vintages recognized as poor or seriously rot-affected vintages (such as 1997 and 1998). Thus, I'm troubled when I hear someone complaining that their eight to ten year old 1997 or 1998 burgundy was "prematurely" oxidized. My view is that while the wine was oxidized, it wasn't "premature" for the wine to fail at eight to ten years of age given the lousy quality of the vintage to start with; or, stated alternatively, it simply wasn't reasonable to expect the wine to be exhibiting no oxidation when it was eight-plus years old. For similar reasons, I'm troubled when someone occasionally claims that a 1989 or 1990 white burgundy that the person recently tasted was "prematurely" oxidized.
To me at least, it's simply not a useful excercise to talk about "premature" oxidation of vintages like 1997, 1998 or 2003 because the expected life span of the vintage was quite short. Similarly, I think it's pointless to talk about "premature" oxidation of wines older than 15 years.
The potential causes of premature oxidation
Several reasons have been outlined to explain the situation. However each of them has a number of counter-examples, which points to a combination of factors as the most likely cause.
Below are listed a number of potential factors contributing to the premature oxidation of white burgundies, each of which is discussed in some detail.
Lowered Sulphur Dioxide Levels
Corks and cork treatments
Batonnage (stirring of the lees)
Other Alleged Causes
[Text and opinions by Editor Don Cornwell. © Don Cornwell 2005-2009]
none
Optional: a note about this edit for the page history log
Cancel
Note that the content you create on http://oxidised-burgs.wikispaces.com is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 License. Please only submit content that you write yourself or that is in the public domain. Learn more about our open content policy.
Help · About · Blog · Terms · Privacy · Support · Upgrade
Contributions to http://oxidised-burgs.wikispaces.com are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.5 License.
RDD
A top notch Corton Charlemange I've had twice recently is 2004 Bonneau du Martray. du Martray has very large holdings here and makes in the top 5 wines almost every year. His are relatively affordable at about $110-120 per btl. The wine is outstanding, it can be drunk now or cellared another 5 years.
The old idea was to age Corton Charlemagne in excellent years for 10 years. I will buy a couple of btls and hold for four to six years depending on "cellar tracker" reports as time goes by.
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
That's a great article, Jon.
RDD, I have not experienced a young CC that was like the Girardin you drank. Generally if a bottle does not suffer from premox it improves during the course of a dinner. Have you had other young CCs that behaved similarly?
stefan
RDD, I have not experienced a young CC that was like the Girardin you drank. Generally if a bottle does not suffer from premox it improves during the course of a dinner. Have you had other young CCs that behaved similarly?
stefan
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
PD,
Thanks for the interesting report. Louis Latour's CC used be be on my regular buying list up to the 1990 vintage, after which the vintages seemed a bit diluted (not oxidized). I've had good luck so far with the Vincent Girardet version, though they don't exactly shout "grand cru."
I generally agree with Don Cornwell's appraisal of the producers, but I find the 1996 vintage the worst, then 1999, with 1995 surprisingly not as bad. Last week I poured 4 consecutive bottles of '00 Carillon PM Perrieres down the sink, stopping only because I had no more. Sauzet and Colin-Deleger are also severely afflicted, Lafon a little better, Leflaive immune (so far). But though I don't often drink a Coche, his wines too are definitely a risk
No more white Burgs for me since the '02 vintage. I switched to champagne. Still spend just as much $$$ but I feel safer.
~stuart
Thanks for the interesting report. Louis Latour's CC used be be on my regular buying list up to the 1990 vintage, after which the vintages seemed a bit diluted (not oxidized). I've had good luck so far with the Vincent Girardet version, though they don't exactly shout "grand cru."
I generally agree with Don Cornwell's appraisal of the producers, but I find the 1996 vintage the worst, then 1999, with 1995 surprisingly not as bad. Last week I poured 4 consecutive bottles of '00 Carillon PM Perrieres down the sink, stopping only because I had no more. Sauzet and Colin-Deleger are also severely afflicted, Lafon a little better, Leflaive immune (so far). But though I don't often drink a Coche, his wines too are definitely a risk
No more white Burgs for me since the '02 vintage. I switched to champagne. Still spend just as much $$$ but I feel safer.
~stuart
Last edited by sdr on Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
Stuart, I also had worse problems with '96 than with '95, but on the average my '96s were older when I drank them.
My strategy now is to buy lesser white Burgundies and drink them young, but Lucie loves your approach of rolling the white Burgundy budget into the Champagne budget.
stefan
My strategy now is to buy lesser white Burgundies and drink them young, but Lucie loves your approach of rolling the white Burgundy budget into the Champagne budget.
stefan
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
At this point the only ones I'm aging are Pernot and Leflaive.
Bonneau dy Martray is definitely afflicted. Rob, I remember we had 99 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne totally oxidized two years ago when you and Susan came over.
The problem is that new White Burgundies have to be drunk young but it's very hard to find good qpr White Burgs, even young. 2003, 2005 and 2006 were variable and even Leflaive made some crappy wines in 03. 2007 is just coming out now, so basically, the only low risk bet is 2004s and even those have to be consumed almost right away.
Basically, the strategy for me is buy and drink 2004 (most are pretty good), buy and hold new and old Paul Pernot, though the 2007 seem to be the best of the bunch, and look for older Leflaive (pre 2003) even if pricey for long term aging.
Bonneau dy Martray is definitely afflicted. Rob, I remember we had 99 Bonneau du Martray Corton Charlemagne totally oxidized two years ago when you and Susan came over.
The problem is that new White Burgundies have to be drunk young but it's very hard to find good qpr White Burgs, even young. 2003, 2005 and 2006 were variable and even Leflaive made some crappy wines in 03. 2007 is just coming out now, so basically, the only low risk bet is 2004s and even those have to be consumed almost right away.
Basically, the strategy for me is buy and drink 2004 (most are pretty good), buy and hold new and old Paul Pernot, though the 2007 seem to be the best of the bunch, and look for older Leflaive (pre 2003) even if pricey for long term aging.
Best
Jacques
Jacques
-
Comte Flaneur
- Posts: 4894
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
- Contact:
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
The place up in Pound Ridge I mentioned re Lagrange 1996 sells the 1999 Bonneau du Martray at the suspciously low price of $55...I was tempted but figured that probably two out of every three are poxed and undrinkable.
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
Guys:
A couple points;
I'm all too familar with oxidized white burgundies. Anyone want to drink some Verget 96's??????? I'd feel guilty selling them.
The Girardin was fine. I was really trying to convey it couldn't stand with the Latour in the long run.
I didn't actually intend to age CC that long. I got a free case of the 1990 ( another story) and I re-discover one once in a while.
When done right it can really age well.
A couple points;
I'm all too familar with oxidized white burgundies. Anyone want to drink some Verget 96's??????? I'd feel guilty selling them.
The Girardin was fine. I was really trying to convey it couldn't stand with the Latour in the long run.
I didn't actually intend to age CC that long. I got a free case of the 1990 ( another story) and I re-discover one once in a while.
When done right it can really age well.
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
Half of the bottles in my case of '99 Bonneau du Martray CC suffered severely from premox and others were on the downslope. The bottles that were perfect were really, really fine.
Rob, I also poured many bottles of '96 Verget down the drain and have not bought any Verget since. Also no Colin-Deleger and no Sauzet after serious premox problems with both of these producers.
stefan
Rob, I also poured many bottles of '96 Verget down the drain and have not bought any Verget since. Also no Colin-Deleger and no Sauzet after serious premox problems with both of these producers.
stefan
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
Totally agree that 99 du Martray is a NO BUY at any price. I also was burned on Mags of the 99 that were a little over $100 per Mag. I returned them for full credit.
I drank a really nice 2005 Pul. Mont. "Combettes" from Martrot this weekend. Everyone thought it splendid as Matrot uses no new oak (lends out his new barrels to friends for two years), picks at just ripe levels to avoid tropical flavors and bring forth the acidity to carry the mineral elements to the fore.
Most of my experience with Matrot has been with his Meursault "Perrieres", I brought a 95 and 96 to Rob Daytons Birthday party at Triumph some five years back and the 95 was singing. I have one btl left of the 02 Perrieres that will probably be popped at the Levy annual pool party. I have a couple of the 06 Perrieres but have not tried one yet. I'll probably buy another of the 05 Combettes soon.
Combettes is on the Meursault border adjacent to Perrieres on the Meursault side. I guess that what caused Matrot to purchase vines there although he makes a Pul.' "Chalumeaux" that is the highest up of the pul Premier Cru vineyards. Chalumeaux is very austere, highly perfumed, it is more like a Chablis in the mouth, being very minerally with a pronounced taste of steel, and a whip lash of acidity in the finish. Not for the faint of heart when young, it ages very well and is a good foil for a heavy fish or a rich buttery sauced Lobster.
I drank a really nice 2005 Pul. Mont. "Combettes" from Martrot this weekend. Everyone thought it splendid as Matrot uses no new oak (lends out his new barrels to friends for two years), picks at just ripe levels to avoid tropical flavors and bring forth the acidity to carry the mineral elements to the fore.
Most of my experience with Matrot has been with his Meursault "Perrieres", I brought a 95 and 96 to Rob Daytons Birthday party at Triumph some five years back and the 95 was singing. I have one btl left of the 02 Perrieres that will probably be popped at the Levy annual pool party. I have a couple of the 06 Perrieres but have not tried one yet. I'll probably buy another of the 05 Combettes soon.
Combettes is on the Meursault border adjacent to Perrieres on the Meursault side. I guess that what caused Matrot to purchase vines there although he makes a Pul.' "Chalumeaux" that is the highest up of the pul Premier Cru vineyards. Chalumeaux is very austere, highly perfumed, it is more like a Chablis in the mouth, being very minerally with a pronounced taste of steel, and a whip lash of acidity in the finish. Not for the faint of heart when young, it ages very well and is a good foil for a heavy fish or a rich buttery sauced Lobster.
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
John, those 2007 Matrot Meursault Village splits I bought from you are delicious! I also like the 2004s (all gone by now, I'm not waiting for premox to hit!)
Best
Jacques
Jacques
Re: Old versus New Corton-Charlemange
The '05 Matrot village Puligny is another good one from Matrot.
stefan
stefan
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 87 guests